Photo Song Setting App

[Willy Aucoin]

Inthe Photos app , you can edit your memories to make them even more personal. Try out Memory mixes, which let you apply different songs with a matching photographic look. You can also choose new songs, edit the title of a memory, change the length, and add, reorder, or remove photos. Apple Music subscribers can add songs from the millions of songs available in the Apple Music catalog.

Create and save a slideshow project. You select a group of photos, then add text, choose a theme, add music, and set how long each slide appears. You can export a slideshow project to play it on a Mac, iPhone, iPad, or Apple TV.

Choose Theme Songs from the pop-up menu to see music included with Photos, or choose Music to see music from your Music library. Drag the songs you selected to change the order they play in. To delete a song, select it and press Delete.

You may already know how to add music to your Reels and Stories, but did you know that you can now add music to your Instagram posts? Instagram recently announced the feature, which gives brands and creators one more way to engage their followers.

This post is an excellent example from photographer @mathiasdecoensel. The music and the subject (the girl) make you feel like you could step into the photo. I could picture myself listening to the song while driving on the road shown here.

Just like how businesses carefully select music that reflects their brand when creating an ad, adding music to your Instagram photos is a way to express your brand voice and convey it in a multi-dimensional way.

Tip: If you plan to add music to your photos consistently, consider choosing a theme to guide your track selection and tie them all together. For example, only instrumental songs or songs that mention a lyric related to your brand or products.

@the_brigadoon_dispatch is an artist who creates AI art in the style of vintage photographs. Given the fantastical nature of the photos, pairing them with music enhances the feeling that the artist is trying to give to viewers.

Laura Wong is a Canadian social media strategist based in Amsterdam. She is the founder of SchoolofSocial.io, an online platform that helps anyone land their dream social media job. Besides social media, Laura is passionate about travel, photography, entrepreneurship, and finding the best bubble tea in every city she visits.

Sure, they had mobile phones and I had a DSLR but they still managed to capture a clear image of Bruce Dickinson airborne in front of an inflating Eddie while pyrotechnics went off in the background. Yeah, I was a bit jealous. But I was happy they managed to catch such an incredible moment. I only wish I was there to capture it as well and have that as part of my portfolio.

Couldn't agree with you more. I work at concerts and therefor I'm in the luxury position of watching every show. I use a compact to take shots during te show from an audience position, bc we are not allowed to use professional gear (just like the audience) and photographing backstage or from a backstage position is out of the question. Every show I see the pro's guided into the pit (or indeed sometimes the FOH) and taken out after 3 songs or a certain short time limit. Funny enough I never wondered why this 3 song rule was ever made or where it originated. Until recently a new working partner asked me the question. When I started googling, the only thing i could find was indeed the Springsteen story. I could understand the cause, but what I don't understand is that in more then 30 years the rule has never been revised or changed while a lot has changed in photography, and I wonder how this rule became a worldwide standard at nearly every concert (except maybe festivals). In my opinion it doesn't hurt the band , the audience or whoever and indeed, shows and artists are rarely at their best at the beginning. And the audience is allowed to take shots during the whole show anyway (except with a few artists). I understand very well the frustration of photographers, but i wonder where to start a change. As far as I know there is not one organisation who authorises all concerts and artists. Maybe Bruce?

Having shot almost a thousand gigs in the past 8 years, I have had this rule for about 80% of my festival gigs. But some festivals are starting to enforce it themselves, without the artist themselves aware of it. In fact, when I told a smaller band which I knew backstage that we weren't allowed, they where shocked, and loved to have as much photographers in there. But even then, the stage manager booted me.

Concert photographer that is working for a news papers ( or any other media) that goes to the concert to take some images that go with the text on the news, and for this 3 songs is enough for getting the job done.

Concert photographer that doesn't work for anyone, and just goes to the concert to take some images and to enjoy a free concert, and that uses the image to post on facebook to impress is friend and is willing to give the images to anyone ho asks...media, bands, promoter,fans etc...not only gives the images to anyone that ask for them, he goes and post them on the facebook pages of the promote, bands etc...killing the market right there...

as i see it, i really believe that the media photographer are ok with the 3 song rules,having them for more then 3 songs cam be distracting for the audience and for the bands, having a few photographer running on the PIT can be really annoying.

The ones that go there to make image for facebook and to give them for free, well they shouldn't be allowed at the pit, they are not ready yet...

the bands photograther is the only way that bands have to control the quality of the images that go out, yes the audiance will alwias use the cellphones to make images, and cellphones are getting better every year but it]s not the same as having someone moving around trying to fing the best light, and now that the record industry is selling less and less CDs having a photograther can make a new market for the bands, selling prints,,,it will never be as god as selling CDs but it cam be an extra income.

As i see it the 3 song rule is fine, but i think that it will be over soon...the way i see it band will tent to only allow the bands photograther, and make the images available for the Media, or they only allow the media to shoot one song or only form the sound stage...

I'll disagree on your last point- bands will sometimes have their own photog, but that's for their own use, that being their FB page, blog, Insta, etc. The photogs you see in the pit shooting that band belong to local newspapers, magazines, music blogs and websites, as well as wire services, such as Getty Images.

Your second point implies that if photographers don't work for media, they should not be shooting a show because they are killing... the market? That makes no sense whatsoever. For any band, any promotion, whether it's on a blog or FB, is free promotion. If 5 friends of that photog come to the band's next show because of those 'free' photos, that can easily equate to $100 in ticket sales at $20 a ticket. T shirts and merch at $40x 5 people equals $200 more in sales for a band. So factoring in things like that, what are free photos really killing?

Btw, most bands don't have a photographer who travels with them, unless you're a top tier band who has the budget for paying a photog, and paying for extra food and lodging every day of the tour. That's a *lot* of money, hence the reason you never see a traveling photog.

If you only allow photogs to shoot for one song or from the sound stage, what will result is a small selection of photos- and for a band, run the risk of photogs posting bad or unflattering photos because they didn't have the extra songs to get better shots.

when i say"The ones that go there to make image for facebook and to give them for free, well they shouldn't be allowed at the pit, they are not ready yet..."

im talking about those that give the images for free, doing that they are kiling the market for photographer that must make a living selling theyre images.

As you told, and i totaly agree the images that the bands share on facebook, intagram etc, are markting material, they share it to try to get more public for the next show, so this images have a commertial value and they shoudl be payed, when some whanabe photographer gives those images for free they are killing that oportunity...those whanabe photografers not only give them for free they go and publish them on the bands facefook page, the bands dont nead to ask for the images...the photograther now are paying for photograthing concerts and aldo do part of the promotion for the bands, yes, photographer are paying because there is no sutch thing as photographin for free, when whe go to a concert we pay for transportation, traim, bus, car etc...whe pay with the cam wear out, whe pay with the time we spend editing etc etc etc...

The one problem i have with photographers who shoot a band and then sells photographs- the band doesn't see any money from it. It's like you are in a band, and you let someone record a song you sing at your show and they then later sell that live song on their web page for money- and you as the band, don't see any money from the sales of that live song. In a way, isn't both examples the same thing as not benefiting the band, only the person who records it?

No, when o say the market to sell photos im talking about trying to sell the images to the bandas/promoters.

the case you are talking is against the law, if anyone trys to sell any audio recoding of a live show is going agains the copy right laws.

the images are alwais of the photographer.

anyway i was not talking about selling the images to fans or as markting material.

I think we must be happy if we can shoot three songs from the pit at all. In the meanwhile I shot concerts from almost anywhere. Only one song only from right side (Brian Adams, Neil Young) or from FOH or even from the very end of the arena (Rihanna) or from the side of the stands.

3a8082e126