Professional concert photography advice?

[Destin]

If you like wide shots, look into the Tamron 17-50 2.8. It sells new for around $550-600. I understand that's expensive, as it's the lens I'm saving for right now.

If you need to save money but still want a wide, fast lens, look into a second hand sigma 18-50 2.8 HSM (be careful not to confuse it with the 18-50 2.8-4.5). They can be found on Ebay for around $300 or so

 

[OhInsanity]

Thanks I'll keep that one in mind when I go to the shop, that's more in my price range if I save up for a little while.

 

[user3977]

im so surprised no one suggest this... rent a few first to get a feeling for what one will work for you. most lenses are cheap to rent. there is a local business here in TN that rents only canon glass and is pretty cheap. i have rented the 16-35 2.8 a few times and it is great for shooting in low light. its on an older XTi and with photoshop i can get most of the photos looking decent at 1600iso. i usually shoot raves and have done a few rock shows with my old film 35-80 and it is no where as sharp as the 16-35. granted at 1800 or so for that one i know its out of your price range. i also got the 50 1.8 and 28 2.8 to check out. the 28 is pretty good on the crop body if you have access to anywhere.

 

[OhInsanity]

Wow I feel sort of like an idiot for not thinking about renting myself =/ also going to feel dumb for this question, but better to ask and know...I've seen the term "crop body" a couple of times, what exactly is that?

 

[e.rose]

You don't need a long lens for concert photography. Especially since you're shooting small bands in small venues, getting close should be easy. The bread and butter lens for most pro concert photographers, and myself (an advanced amature) is the 70-200 2.8. It's a big investment to start, but is well worth it. That being said, in small local venues you may find it to be too long alot of the time, so a lens like the 50 1.8, or the 17-55 2.8 may be better. Heck, some of my favorite concert photos have been taken with ultra wide angles and fisheyes in the 8-15mm range.

For now if you are just starting out, I'd look into a 50 1.8, or an 85 1.8. Both can be had for a few hundred or less I believe. I'm a Nikon guy though, so don't take my word on canon's pricing.

The biggest thing your going to need to do is learn to work well in low light. Almost no concert is lit with photography in mind. This means knowing the usable ceiling on your camera's iso, and learning to pull a fast shutter speed out when it's very hard. This means that fast lenses, and camera bodies with good low light performance will be your best friend. If you don't shoot in full manual, spot metering is also going to be your friend.

Jared Polin (FroKnowsPhoto.com) has some really great videos on concert photography for beginners, and is a really entertaining guy. Check him out.

Agreed^^^

 

[ghache]

most rental places rent the top notch stuff.

 

[Destin]

Wow I feel sort of like an idiot for not thinking about renting myself =/ also going to feel dumb for this question, but better to ask and know...I've seen the term "crop body" a couple of times, what exactly is that?

Crop Body, also referred to as aps-c, is a term that refers to the size of the camera's sensor. The standard which we measure them against is 35mm film. A full frame digital camera body has a sensor that is roughly the same size as a piece of 35mm film. When Digital camera's first hit the market though, for reasons I'm unsure of, the sensors were not made that size. APS-C, or crop bodies have a sensor that is smaller than 35mm film.

What does this mean to you? Well for starters, your camera is a crop body. It's Crop Factor, since it's a Canon, is 1.6x. (Nikon is 1.5x because their aps-c sensors are slightly larger)

What is a crop factor? Well, a crop factor is what you multiply the focal length of your lens by, in order to get it's 35mm equivalent focal length. For example, your 18-55 kit lens's actual focal length is roughly 29-88mm. You get this by multiplying each number by 1.6. The reason this happens, is that since your camera's sensor is smaller, it isn't large enough to record all of the light that the camera throws at it. It "crops" the image from the lens as it takes the photo, and therefore gives you an image equivalent to 1.6x the focal length of your lens.

Now, in case I didn't explain it well enough here is a video:
JaredPolin's Channel - YouTube

 

[e.rose]

yeaaahhh I just now looked at the price of the 24-70mm >.< *sigh* maybe someday. Man I hate how expensive photography is. Oh well i'd prefer a zoom lens, but I'm probably going to go with the 50

What about the 50mm 1.4? It's reviews says that the color is better?

I love my 50mm f/1.4

I'm sorry, I'm exhausted trying to get ready to fly out tomorrow, so I missed whether or not you shoot Canon or Nikon (I saw both mentioned in this thread), but I'm a Canon shooter with a 50mm f/1.4.

I actually shoot with a T2i, which is obviously the model before yours, and this is my go-to for concert shots.

Well... to be fair, it's my go-to for pretty much everything since my lens selection is limited at the moment, haha, but the reason I *bought* it was for shooting live bands.

You can see some of the stuff I've gotten with it in my Flickr stream (which is linked in my sig).

I agree with everyone saying that if you're shooting in small clubs you don't want a long lens. Sometimes the 50mm is almost *too* long... so I got a 28mm.

I use the 50 when I have a little room to backup without anyone's heads getting caught in the shot or when I'm pressed up against the stage and what a "headshot" kind of deal of one of the musicians.

I use the 28mm when I'm pressed up against the stage and want more than just their eyes and nose in the frame Okay, that's a bit of an exaggeration, but my point is, unless you can get back *and* higher (as in above everyone else's heads), the 50 is pretty much as long as *I'd* wanna go in a small club setting.

Opinions may vary on that.

And I love having the f/1.4 vs. a f/1.8, because that extra stop gives me some wiggle room.

Lenses aren't at their sharpest at the most extreme ends of their aperture capabilities, so having the f/1.4 allows me to shoot at f/1.8 and it'll be a bit sharper than the 50mm f/1.8 at f/1.8 will be.

That being said... sometimes venues are just *too* dark and I *need* to shoot wide open... which is again, where that f/1.4 comes in handy because it gives me an extra stop of light for those venues whose lighting guys were out to lunch during the gig.

I honestly try to shoot around f/2.8 if possible, but I usually have to adjust from that aperture depending on the venue and lighting.

I don't know if ANY of this was relevant to what you're asking, but I hope I helped *somewhat*.

 

[Destin]

As far as renting lenses goes... it's great when you are looking at buying a really expensive one, or if you need a specialty lens for a shoot.

But renting a lens that costs under $500 seems kinda dumb, in my opinion, because rental is usually $50-80 for a week or so. That's a good chunk of the cost of the lens, and I would rather buy it from say, BH, and then return it if it doesn't suit my needs.

Just my take on things..

 

[vfotog]

Of course, because of her age, OhInsanity might not be able to rent a lens just yet without a parent's signature. OhI, a couple of words of advice. Before you spend any money, do some reading. It surprised me that you didn't know what a prime lens is or a crop body. So go online or to the library and read some basic books on equipment and photography in general. You need to know the basics. Especially when modern cameras do so much for you, to be a "real" photographer, you need to understand what you're doing and why. Otherwise you'll be just another Girl With Camera, using a very expensive point and shoot.

I should be working right now on pp some images of a name artist taken from the pit instead of goofing off here. LOL. You could tell the newbies in the pit partly because they only had a long zoom. Although I do a lot of tight shots, a trademark of my personal style, you definitely need a wide zoom. I don't agree about the 50 prime. A prime is all well and good if you are alone in the pit, but the reality is you'll probably be sharing the pit (if there is one.) There may not be room to be moving around getting just the right shot with your 50. A zoom is much more practical. There's so much talk about getting the fastest of the fast lenses, but you're trading off that speed for DOF. I just don't think it's as critical as some people seem to think. But then, I don't agree on the current fear of noise either. This is music photography. The greats, the pioneers, of rock photography shot on film. Fast film. To me, that grain is what gives the images a little grit.

As for music photography as a profession, well, the reality is you will want to have another area that brings in the bulk of your income. Music photography is not what it once was. I'd say by far most music photogs do it for the love of it but things are getting progressively worse. Publications pay little. Artists pay little. Especially with so many people in love with the perceived glamor of music that they give away their images for a photo credit. And right now, the atmosphere is very, very much against the photographer as the new trend with artists is right-grabbing. If they let you shoot the show, they expect you to sign away all the rights to your own work. It's craziness and I hope it's a passing trend but right now the atmosphere has gotten pretty adversarial. A shame really.
Shoot as much as you can and develop your skills. Expect to usually be the only girl in the pit and ignore the idiots who think a pit is only for the guys. Hey, just cos I have bright red hair and wear pink sparkly Chucks doesn't mean I can't shoot properly. btw, love your blue hair.

 

[penfolderoldo]

Of course, because of her age, OhInsanity might not be able to rent a lens just yet without a parent's signature. OhI, a couple of words of advice. Before you spend any money, do some reading. It surprised me that you didn't know what a prime lens is or a crop body. So go online or to the library and read some basic books on equipment and photography in general. You need to know the basics. Especially when modern cameras do so much for you, to be a "real" photographer, you need to understand what you're doing and why. Otherwise you'll be just another Girl With Camera, using a very expensive point and shoot.

I should be working right now on pp some images of a name artist taken from the pit instead of goofing off here. LOL. You could tell the newbies in the pit partly because they only had a long zoom. Although I do a lot of tight shots, a trademark of my personal style, you definitely need a wide zoom. I don't agree about the 50 prime. A prime is all well and good if you are alone in the pit, but the reality is you'll probably be sharing the pit (if there is one.) There may not be room to be moving around getting just the right shot with your 50. A zoom is much more practical. There's so much talk about getting the fastest of the fast lenses, but you're trading off that speed for DOF. I just don't think it's as critical as some people seem to think. But then, I don't agree on the current fear of noise either. This is music photography. The greats, the pioneers, of rock photography shot on film. Fast film. To me, that grain is what gives the images a little grit.

As for music photography as a profession, well, the reality is you will want to have another area that brings in the bulk of your income. Music photography is not what it once was. I'd say by far most music photogs do it for the love of it but things are getting progressively worse. Publications pay little. Artists pay little. Especially with so many people in love with the perceived glamor of music that they give away their images for a photo credit. And right now, the atmosphere is very, very much against the photographer as the new trend with artists is right-grabbing. If they let you shoot the show, they expect you to sign away all the rights to your own work. It's craziness and I hope it's a passing trend but right now the atmosphere has gotten pretty adversarial. A shame really.
Shoot as much as you can and develop your skills. Expect to usually be the only girl in the pit and ignore the idiots who think a pit is only for the guys. Hey, just cos I have bright red hair and wear pink sparkly Chucks doesn't mean I can't shoot properly. btw, love your blue hair.

A lens i'd recommend is the Sigma 17-50mm f/2.8 EX DC OS HSM. Its got Sigma's own version of image stabilisation, which would help a bit with shutter speeds, and optically its great.

There are times, specially at bigger gigs with deep stages, that a slightly longer zoom can be useful, for example if you need to get the drummer, who's usually right at the back etc, tho I could count on the fingers of 1 hand the times i've needed anything longer than 85mm (if i'm in the pit). Grain / noise can indeed add to the feel of the photo, however the reason most of us try and limit it is because picture editors hate it, and modern printing presses don't deal well with it.

At bigger gigs V is right, the pit may be too crowded to move around easily, and as the norm is 'first 3 songs and no flash' it can be a really pressured environment (specially with fans chucking assorted liquids, bottles, clothes etc about all over the place!), so the mantra is to STAND UP FOR YOURSELF, as will likely be the only girl.

All of that said, you're probably a bit away from these type of gigs yet, so plenty time to hone your skills

 

[OhInsanity]

Destin> Oh I see, I knew about "What is a crop factor? Well, a crop factor is what you multiply the focal length of your lens by, in order to get it's 35mm equivalent focal length. For example, your 18-55 kit lens's actual focal length is roughly 29-88mm. You get this by multiplying each number by 1.6. The reason this happens, is that since your camera's sensor is smaller, it isn't large enough to record all of the light that the camera throws at it. It "crops" the image from the lens as it takes the photo, and therefore gives you an image equivalent to 1.6x the focal length of your lens." < that stuff, I learned it at SCAD, They just didnt use the term crop body, so I had never heard it before.

e.rose> you came into the convo a bit late lol =p but despite that your advice was very! helpful, so thanks! =]

Penfolderoldo> haha yeah I've only had the chance to shoot 2 shows so far and they were tiny bar venues with bands I knew, no railing between me and the stage (if there was a stage) and they let me get up on stage with them. But yeah I'm trying to travel as much and shoot as many shows possible between now and december, which is great practice and also AWESOME. Especially because my parents are really supportive and let me go to wherever without them, since they know its for college and stuff.

Vfotog> I've taken a course in photography at an accredited college in my state and I have the full credit from the course. However, it was a foundations course so we covered camera basics, but we didn't go into different types of lenses. And I also said that I knew what a crop body was once it was explained, its just my professor didn't use that term, for reasons I do not know lol he was kind of a pothead. Also, I just haven't had many opportunities to learn about these things. For one, I just recently got a camera that this knowledge applies too because I just didn't have the money to get one previously. And by recently, I mean July of this year. Also my school doesn't really offer art courses, and yeah I could have looked it up online but I mean it was so new to me I didn't know where to start, or even think about it really. I mean I've been in love with photography for years, but I have just recently gotten a enough funds to get into "advanced/real/professional" photography. So yes, I do have a lot to learn, but I feel I have learned quite A LOT just from this forum =] you guys have helped me so much
Oh yeah and grain... I have a love/hate relationship with it haha. It makes it look more old school rock n' roll club but it probably won't sell =(
And D*** that really sucks to hear how bad the music photog biz is right now. I mean I knew it wouldn't be my only job, but man, I had no idea it was that bad. I can't believe an artist would expect you to sign off all of YOUR work to them thats some bs. Fortunately I know a lot of bands on a friend level that wouldn't do that to me. On the downside, they aren't famous so I would get paid much if at all. But I would love to just tour around with them for the fun of it. Do a documentary type thing.
And, thanks XD its actually black now, the blue was a month ago. So you have red hair? I was gonna do red this summer =p and yeah screw those boys, I usually chill with guys mostly anyways so hopefully I can manage haha

 

[penfolderoldo]

There's a few books you can get hold off that give a decent insight into the types of shots you can get - Jim Marshall's 'trust' and 'match prints' are both great, and 'who shot rock and roll - a photographic history, 1955 - present' by Gail Buckland is fascinating too. There are a few good articles about what type of gear to go for from Todd Owyoung, and have a look at Ami Barwell's stuff too.

 

[seanrayford]

I've been photographing live bands for more than 15 years and I currently use primarily: ND7000, 50mm f1.8, 80-200 f2.8 and two sb600s. 98% of the stuff I shoot uses some combination of that. I shoot a lot in a 250 cap club with the 80-200.

If you want to see what you can do with that equipment check out the link: Columbia SC Photojournalist and Concert Photographer - Sean Rayford

If you think you are close enough - you are probably half way there.

-Sean