Flash or no flash? C&C

[Nikon_Dude]

Here are a few shots I took of a friend's band a couple weeks ago. Experimented with using my sb-600 some.

The first shot was taken with flash, second one without. Which type of picture do you guys think looks better? I have a bunch of both types, and can post more examples if need be. I'm kind of undecided. The flash allows me to use a faster shutter speed and the pictures come out sharper. But it kind of loses the "feel" of the venue, if you know what I mean. Looks like the pictures were shot in two different places. I would also appreciate any other C&C on the pictures.

 

[Peanuts]

I prefer the second of the two. Environmental shots are preferable in my opinion. That being said, next time try dragging the shutter to allow more ambient light then fill the subject with a pop of flash

 

[c.cloudwalker]

Ditch the flash. A concert without the funky lights is no concert.

Plus your flash will probably end up annoying the bands.

 

[Nikon_Dude]

Ditch the flash. A concert without the funky lights is no concert.

Plus your flash will probably end up annoying the bands.

I was worried about that, but I asked them and they said it didn't bother them. I only shot pics of the one band who I knew.

 

[Nikon_Dude]

I prefer the second of the two. Environmental shots are preferable in my opinion. That being said, next time try dragging the shutter to allow more ambient light then fill the subject with a pop of flash

What flash/shutter settings would be typical for this? I tried it a little being given that advice in a previous thread, but didn't get any success.

 

[Peanuts]

Start with a shutter speed of maybe 1/20th or 1/30th of a second. Aperture of maybe 4. ISO of 800 (I'm guesstimating. Pretty much what you have in the second image, but a bit longer of a shutter speed) then just a pop of flash. I use manual with my flash so... maybe 1/32?

But yes a good point was raised. Do make sure you have permission. Ideally no flash but if it is a friend and they want it documented and are okay with some flash - no harm in trying

 

[c.cloudwalker]

Ideally no flash but if it is a friend and they want it documented and are okay with some flash - no harm in trying

True, if the band is friends and they don't mind the flash, why not so long as you don't kill the ambient. On the other hand, if you are trying/wanting to break into concert photography, the bands will not always be friends and it is better to learn to shoot without flash right now. If your camera high ISO results are not the greatest, that's fine. Look at shots from before the digital age, they're grainy as hell and they sold anyway. So you can deal with noise until you can afford a better camera.

 

[Peanuts]

Gross grainy colour images --> BW ---> Art

 

[c.cloudwalker]

Gross grainy colour images --> BW ---> Art

That too :lmao:

Although noise is not quite as aesthetic as grain...

 

[Nikon_Dude]

Start with a shutter speed of maybe 1/20th or 1/30th of a second. Aperture of maybe 4. ISO of 800 (I'm guesstimating. Pretty much what you have in the second image, but a bit longer of a shutter speed) then just a pop of flash. I use manual with my flash so... maybe 1/32?

But yes a good point was raised. Do make sure you have permission. Ideally no flash but if it is a friend and they want it documented and are okay with some flash - no harm in trying

I'll give that a shot next time. And without flash I stayed around 1000 iso and I think I got very acceptable levels of noise.

 

[fokker]

First shot is just plain bad - underexposed, unevenly lit, flash shadow, reflections off mic stands...

Second one is on the other hand quite good - technically still a bit underexposed but not in a bad way, and the lihgting is more interesting. Plus it is a good capture of the singer.

 

[Nikon_Dude]

First shot is just plain bad - underexposed, unevenly lit, flash shadow, reflections off mic stands...

Second one is on the other hand quite good - technically still a bit underexposed but not in a bad way, and the lihgting is more interesting. Plus it is a good capture of the singer.

Thank you for the honest feedback. This was about as exposed as I was able to get it given the lighting. The singer was much easier to get a good shot of, since he was quite animated and emotional whereas the other members kind of just stood there. Here are a few more from the same night, let me know what you think.

They've got some motion blur, but personally I think it kind of works here, although there might be a tad too much in the second shot.

 

[Village Idiot]

It totally depends on the venue. In a venue with poor lighting, a flash can be a good additive if you don't over do it. I was shooting a local Earth Day concert several weks back and later in the evening when it started getting dark, the stage lighting was the main lighting. The problem with the stage lighting is that it was red. If you have a single color light that' bright enough, it can start to blow out that single channel giving the photo an ugly look. I ended up using my Canon speedlight to add a bit of light to the exposure so that the photos was still red, but had a little more nuetral light to it so that they reds weren't totally blown.

If you're shooting in a large venue with great lights, a flash shouldn't be needed and often isn't allowed.

 

[Robin Usagani]

I like mixing both.

 

[fokker]

Yeah, mixing both FTW. The best way is to treat the settings like you're not using a flash - high ISO and wide aperture and slowish shutter speed (in manual mode) and use your hotshoe flash on TTL mode, maybe backed off 2/3 stop or so. That way the ambient light makes up the bulk of the exposure and the flash decides how much light is needed to bring it up to a 'proper' exposure. You still get the stage lighting look and feel but you get nicely exposed faces and as village idiot says, less chance of blowing a single channel out.