Critiques / Comments Please :-) - DPChallenge Forums

Canon PowerShot Pro 90 IS

03/01/2004 09:36:53 AM · #1

My 2nd time shooting a band (the 1st wasn't very successful) and I'm looking for some critiques and comments.

My challenges were:
Only ceiling mounted lighting and one light behind the drummer. With no floor lighting and 2 members wearing a hat it was tough to get their faces.
The keyboard player was tucked away in a shadowed corner so he was really tough to get.
Very small stage so the band was really close to each other.

I used a 50mm f/1.8 lens and kept the ISO at 1600.

Band Shots.

The orange light was the brightest, and then the ceiling mounted lights were blue and red.

Thanks in advance for any feedback!

coolhar

03/01/2004 10:42:29 AM · #2

Considering the conditions I'd say your shots are pretty good. The high ISO didn't give as much grain as one might expect. Apparently you didn't feel comfortable using flash. I think flash is the next step you should try to improve your band shots. You could decreease the ISO some if you were worried about noise, get faster shutter speeds, and get some more detail into the faces. Bands who perform in public places, even small clubs, should not object to flash as long as you show a little discretion. Even using the built-in flash on your camera might result in big gains. Give it a try next time.

e301

03/01/2004 10:49:36 AM · #3

Lots of places really really don't like flash photography at gigs - part from anything else, blinding the band is a best discourteous and at worst downright dangerous - I've seen people nearly fall off stages all by themselves when they could see, let alone when they couldn't. And no-one I've ever met who shoots bands profesionally uses flash.

E

03/01/2004 10:51:46 AM · #4

Hi Harvey, thanks so much for the feedback! Much appreciated.

For the flash... I did have my 420EX unit with me, however by doing that it drowns out all the colored lights they are using. There was no objection by the band members or club management to use flash, however the band specifically wanted the colored light effects. The first time around the only shots that came out were the ones with flash.

Thanks again!!! :-)

Edit: During band set up, I tried the 420EX bouncing the light off the ceiling. I went into it knowing I didn't want to use flash, but tried it anyway just to be thorough.

Message edited by author 2004-03-01 10:52:45.

03/01/2004 10:53:41 AM · #5

Originally posted by e301:

You are very right... thanks :-) Besides the other fact that the patrons there to enjoy the band are very annoyed by the flashing going on. I tried to be as unnoticed as possible while shooting them. When the dance floor filled up - I got off and stopped shooting until the next song when the floor was clear. Club owners will get upset about patrons being distracted from the entertainment by a photographer.

Message edited by author 2004-03-01 10:55:32.

03/01/2004 04:43:15 PM · #6

Anyone else? :-)

03/01/2004 04:51:34 PM · #7

Originally posted by e301:

And unless you're going to dish $1k or more for a kickbutt flash, you'd get totally awkward shadows. The point of a flash is to create natural lighting that would appear in that situation if the conditions were perfect. A bright flash in a dark, moody club just doesn't fit. If the band themselves want good photos of live performances, they're going to have to work with you on acceptable lighting.

P.S. if you're bouncing a flash off a high ceiling you'll need one of those cardboard things that attaches to the top of your flash to bring the 'ceiling' down to a workable level. [but still not good for a dark club].

Message edited by author 2004-03-01 16:55:15.

03/01/2004 05:03:29 PM · #8

Hi Lori,

The ceiling wasn't high in this club...

I did it just to be thorough and show them what happens. Again, they really didn't want the flash drowning out the colored lights, which I agree with completely.

Also, there was a guy there using a point and shoot digicam and he kept using his flash throughout the night. As someone there shooting by request of the band, I was bugged, but had I been there to see the band I would have been truly annoyed by it.

03/01/2004 05:04:20 PM · #9

Anyone have some thoughts on the technical aspect of the shots, the composition, etc.?

Thanks much! :-)

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM

03/01/2004 05:06:24 PM · #10

Originally posted by tfaust:

Good luck in your next attempts, post some more pics if you get a chance mmkay? I really don't have any tips other than go wild! That's the best part, for me, just getting in weird places and taking 'weird' angles..but that's just me!

EddyG

Canon EOS-1D Mark II

03/01/2004 05:54:58 PM · #11

Putting aside the "being annoying to other patrons", a camera-mounted flash can make a huge difference. Just a little bit of fill on the face (to get under the brim of the hat, for example) and to put a little catchlight in the eye can really improve a picture.

I'm not sure what mode you were shooting in, but if you shoot in Av (aperture priority) or Tv (shutter priority), the Canon E-TTL flash system will calculate the exposure based on the ambient lighting, and only use the flash for "fill". This is unlike "Green Square" or "P" modes where the camera attempts to use as much flash power as possible to get a "good" exposure. Might be worth trying. I'd also try some shots with a Sto-Fen OmniBounce to soften up the flash a bit.

03/01/2004 06:05:20 PM · #12

Originally posted by EddyG:

I've been putting off buying an external flash, but if it's that versatile I'll have to rethink it. hmmmm

03/01/2004 06:29:09 PM · #13

Hi Eddy,

Thanks so much for the comments. I usually shoot in AV mode, but that night I shot in TV mode. The flash was too much light and really drowned out their stage lights. I also used the Omni Bounce, but it still had almost the same result... although a bit softer.

Any thoughts on using the 420EX in TV without losing the stage lights?

Sony 16-50mm f/3.5-5.6 E-mount

03/01/2004 06:29:43 PM · #14

Originally posted by GoldBerry:

Originally posted by EddyG:
Putting aside the "being annoying to other patrons", a camera-mounted flash can make a huge difference. Just a little bit of fill on the face (to get under the brim of the hat, for example) and to put a little catchlight in the eye can really improve a picture.

I'm not sure what mode you were shooting in, but if you shoot in Av (aperture priority) or Tv (shutter priority), the Canon E-TTL flash system will calculate the exposure based on the ambient lighting, and only use the flash for "fill". This is unlike "Green Square" or "P" modes where the camera attempts to use as much flash power as possible to get a "good" exposure. Might be worth trying. I'd also try some shots with a Sto-Fen OmniBounce to soften up the flash a bit.

I've been putting off buying an external flash, but if it's that versatile I'll have to rethink it. hmmmm

Lori, It's awesome... I love my 420EX with the Omni-bounce. I don't use my on camera flash anymore.

jmsetzler

Sony Alpha a6000

03/01/2004 08:01:15 PM · #15

Tina, these look good :) I love the natural (artificial) light and how it comes through in these.

One thing I noticed on the few shots that have the exif data showing. These came out remarkably well for iso 1600 and your shutter speeds are ok for hand held photos. However, I noticed that the aperture setting was f/2.5. That could be an anomoly on pbase, but if you shot at 1.8, you could have worked at iso 800 with similar shutter speeds...

Nice work :)

jpochard

Canon EOS-40D

Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM

03/01/2004 11:11:58 PM · #16

Considering your lighting, these are not bad. The only one it appeared you weren't able to get a clear shot of was the keyboard guy. It would be nice if you could get a chance to take the photos with the band there, but before the public is there so the band could help you out a little on getting in the best lighting they can when you shoot.

The photos really do capture the setting and lighting for the performance. Good job!

Amost forgot to mention...I would crop out the dangling piece in the background of a few of them...I think it's a movie screen?

Message edited by author 2004-03-01 23:13:10.

timj351

Sony DSC-F707

03/01/2004 11:48:06 PM · #17

Hi Tina,

These are very nice shots and it is also impressive to see what the Rebel can do at 1600 ISO! However, I feel that they are a little safe. It looks like you stayed within the limits of what you thought you could do with the dark lighting, no flash etc. I think you could have gone further with these. The one thing I feel is missing is the feeling of the energy and essence of the band. I would like to see motion blur like the blazing hands and drumsticks from a long drum solo, or the circular motion of the guitarist swinging his guitar in the air. I want to see the members high fiving each other after an arousing number or a super close up of hands playing across the keyboards. I love all of the individual elements that combine to convey the essence of a particular band. I think sometimes we are reluctant to use motion blur but when a subject is about motion, energy and rythm it is a really effective device. A lot of these photos are great portraits of the band members and those are definitely neccessary but I would also love to see some more risky and creative shots such as from a 24-28mm wide angle shot of the entire band in action to a very intimate shot of the lead singer pressed right up to the mike with sweat dripping from his forehead. I see what the band looked like now I want to feel their energy. Forget the flash except for maybe a few portrait shots. I would consider a tripod or, better yet, a monopod and a variety of lenses. I hope you know I really like these shot, I just think you can go even further.

T

03/01/2004 11:58:17 PM · #18

Originally posted by tfaust:

Lori, It's awesome... I love my 420EX with the Omni-bounce. I don't use my on camera flash anymore.

I've never used my oncamera flash, period, I can't think of a situation where it would be good??? lol, I used the 420EX at a wedding a little while ago and didn't like it, although I've seen some great pics taken with the exact same flash, so I guess I just need to get used to it - I'm generally anti-flash, but that won't get me very far! Thanks for the tips :-)

timj351

Sony DSC-F707

03/02/2004 12:03:33 AM · #19

The on-camera flash is great for outdoors where you have strong backlight to add fill light and it is great for adding that extra sparkle to a person's eyes. I think I use it more for outdoors in bright sun than in any other situation.

T

leaf

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

03/02/2004 12:59:42 AM · #20

yeah, i understand totally about the difficult lighting. i have been shooting for a jazz club recently and it is frustrating to be working with a couple ceiling spots, and dark corners. But yeah, i guess do what you gotta do. I don't have a 50mm so i have been shooting with a 28-135, which is nice to get in close, but only goes down to 4.5 aperature... so i end up shooting at 3200 ISO... which makes for fairly grainy shots.
there was of the drummer that i really liked (where he is smileing) and one of a guitarist, which has less orange lighting thati thought was good.
maybe i will post some jazz club shot soon... and we can swap more comments.

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM

03/02/2004 08:38:31 AM · #21

Thanks John, Tyler and Tim! The comments are wonderful! I really appreciate it.

Tim - I know exactly what you are saying. As I read this I was picturing the shots you mention and wished I could have gotten those. Unfortunately - the band was pretty stationary. There was no guitars over head, sweat dripping, high fiving, dancing around, etc. They, for the most part, stood in place and played their instruments. I will definately remember this though and try to do some of this next time I shoot a band.

Turns out, the lens I was using was a 50mm 2.5. I guess I should have asked the rental place why the lens looked different than I expected. I had asked for the 50mm 1.8 - but the guy behind the counter seemed like he was either filling in or new to the job. Maybe that would have helped with some of my lighting issues.

Tyler, Please do post some of your jazz club shots - I would love to see them. I am actually going to buy the 50mm 1.8 - it'll be a great portrait lens, not to mention excellent when I go back. Thanks again for the comments and I look forward to seeing your photos.

Message edited by author 2004-03-02 08:39:42.

EddyG

Canon EOS-1D Mark II

03/02/2004 09:00:58 AM · #22

Hi Tina.

Unfortunately the things I was going to suggest won't necessarily apply to your situation. The 420EX doesn't have a manual mode, unlike the 550EX. I have used the 550EX in manual mode before, and it allows you to manually set the "power" of the flash from full (1/1) all the way down to 1/128. I've found this useful when working in situations like you describe where the E-TTL system thinks it needs more fill than I'd like. The other thing I do (on the 10D, which isn't directly available on the Digital Rebel) is dial in some negative flash exposure compensation. So if my pics look "over-flashed", I just dial down the FEC. Although the Digital Rebel doesn't have this feature settable on the camera, you could try using a "special feature" of BreezeSystem's Downloader Pro that allows you to set the FEC. You could set it to "-1" before your next "band shoot" and see if it helps...

That is pretty funny that you actually rented Canon's 50mm/2.5 Macro lens.

Although the 50mm/1.8 is a great value for the money, if you can swing it, I highly recommend the 50mm/1.4, especially if you are going to use it as a portrait lens. It has USM for faster focusing (plus the ability to full-time manual focus without flipping any switches on the lens), and the bokeh of the 1.4 is much better because of the 8-blade diaphragm instead of the 5-blades used on the 1.8. The 1.4 also has a metal mount; the 1.8 is plastic. You can read a detailed comparison of the two lenses here. Also, this page has a few more comparisons.

Good luck!