The photography thread

[Jevil]

How much talent is here!

I'm noob and suck at photography, but I will post some pictures soon.

 

[exoslime]

Hey mate, to be honest I usually try not to use flashes for gig photos. The stage lighting is usually good enough to work with. You just need to crank your ISO up a bit (I shoot between 800-1600 max in these situations on my camera) and find the slowest shutter speed you can whilst the band is moving around (1/20th is probably the absolute slowest you can get away with if you are good with your timing) and just work with the lights.
I only used my flash in these last ones because the lighting of the venue was terrible - only backlights in a purple colour I think. If you absolutely do need to use flash (and to be honest, a lot of metal venues do seem to have terrible lighting) then try and get it off camera with a sync cord. Or if you've got remote triggers and at least 2 flashes, you can try cross lighting the stage. I've seen some good results this way (although all the pics tend to look the same) and am keen to try it out next time I shoot a band and venue that don't mind me setting light stands up next to the FoH.

hey mate,

thanks alot for you tips, i will try to use crank up the iso value next time..
i also shot often at manual 1/20th setting.. and mostly without flash too, as i dont want to disturb the musicans, as well as the audience (in an intimated club concert for example)

here are some of my concert shots (the better ones), but they are by far not comparable from your amazing shots

The Tiger Lillies

Melt-Banana

and here are some more other shots:

 

[arv_foh]

Hey mate, to be honest I usually try not to use flashes for gig photos. The stage lighting is usually good enough to work with. You just need to crank your ISO up a bit (I shoot between 800-1600 max in these situations on my camera) and find the slowest shutter speed you can whilst the band is moving around (1/20th is probably the absolute slowest you can get away with if you are good with your timing) and just work with the lights.
I only used my flash in these last ones because the lighting of the venue was terrible - only backlights in a purple colour I think. If you absolutely do need to use flash (and to be honest, a lot of metal venues do seem to have terrible lighting) then try and get it off camera with a sync cord. Or if you've got remote triggers and at least 2 flashes, you can try cross lighting the stage. I've seen some good results this way (although all the pics tend to look the same) and am keen to try it out next time I shoot a band and venue that don't mind me setting light stands up next to the FoH.

Don't forget fast glass. 24-70 f/2.8, 70-200 f/2.8, 50 f/1.8 are typically what I use when shooting concerts. Those extra stops make a big difference if you are shooting at f/3.5-5.6

 

[guitarguru777]

Some more of my Shitty Olympus Photos (Getting me my Canon for Christmas

Here is another one with some post processing:

 

[exoslime]

Don't forget fast glass. 24-70 f/2.8, 70-200 f/2.8, 50 f/1.8 are typically what I use when shooting concerts. Those extra stops make a big difference if you are shooting at f/3.5-5.6

thanks for the hint, and sorry if i ask, but what do you exactly mean with fast glass?
do you mean the f value at the end of the lense spec? like 1.8, 2.8 etc??
i have a fisheye and a macro with 2,8 G-ED each,
but damn, my allround 18-200 is 3,5-5,6G IF-ED

cheers
exoslime

 

[arv_foh]

thanks for the hint, and sorry if i ask, but what do you exactly mean with fast glass?
do you mean the f value at the end of the lense spec? like 1.8, 2.8 etc??
i have a fisheye and a macro with 2,8 G-ED each,
but damn, my allround 18-200 is 3,5-5,6G IF-ED

cheers
exoslime

yep fast is referring to the f/stop value. the lower the f/stop, the "faster" the glass is. you should look into getting a 50mm f/1.8, great starter lens for concert photography.

Here are some shots I did of A7X, Nikon D700 & 70-200mm f/2.8, ISO4000

 

[guitarguru777]

The lower the F rating the more light gets through the lens faster (ie. Fast Glass)

 

[guitarguru777]

Ok so here is a question ......

Since I have decided I need faster Glass, but I really would like a Canon T2i or 5D (depends on how much I feel like spending, the T2i is sexy for the price) So I have 3 choices:

1. Buy a T2i and some nice 2.8 Glass probably - around $2500
2. Buy a 5D and stick with the stock "kit" glass and have a sturdier camera
3. Nix the entire Canon Idea and pick up 2 Pieces of Glass for my Olympus $2200

Sticking with the Olympus is tempting considering I can pick up a 50-200mm F2.8-3.5 and a 8mm F3.5 Fisheye for $2200

I just dont know what to do. I hate to spend all the money on the Olympus and then realize its not working. I have shot with a 5D and a T2i with 2.8 glass and really liked it. But spending that kind of cash on a whim is rough.

 

[arv_foh]

If you are doing a lot of shooting at high ISO (hence the reason for the faster glass) you will get better results with the 5D and the kit lens. The photos you take even at ISO6400 are very useable. I've never had to shoot above that.

 

[NNotN-ENN]

Glad to see you're able to get good results at that high an ISO with the D700 arv. I'm really feeling the need for a second body and am considering going full frame (then I'd shoot tele with the full frame, wide with the DX in low light, and probably the other way around in good light). Not sure if my credit card can take it but I'm really gassing to jump straight up to the D3s (I also shoot a lot of skateboarding where the fast performance would be handy).

 

[arv_foh]

Glad to see you're able to get good results at that high an ISO with the D700 arv. I'm really feeling the need for a second body and am considering going full frame (then I'd shoot tele with the full frame, wide with the DX in low light, and probably the other way around in good light). Not sure if my credit card can take it but I'm really gassing to jump straight up to the D3s (I also shoot a lot of skateboarding where the fast performance would be handy).

Having full frame is awesome man, but keep in mind that if your lenses aren't full frame you're gonna end up replacing them. DX crop mode sucks... Cuts the MP almost in half. I just couldn't justify the extra $2500 for the D3 since the D700 has the same sensor and most of the features. If you're gonna use them though I say go for it!

 

[exoslime]

yep fast is referring to the f/stop value. the lower the f/stop, the "faster" the glass is. you should look into getting a 50mm f/1.8, great starter lens for concert photography.

Here are some shots I did of A7X, Nikon D700 & 70-200mm f/2.8, ISO4000

Hi

Thanks alot for confirming this
these concert shots are pure awesomness!!!

ciao
christian

 

[kev]

Ive splurged on a Nikon D3100 to get me started at xmas finally : ) Managed to get the body and the 18-55 lense for 399 which wasnt too bad, it seems to have gone up quite substantially on amazon this week as well weirdly.

 

[FIXXXER]

shitty sony digicam, nothing for tha pro's!

 

[Ermz]

What would you guys say is a good lens for low-light photography? I'm always shooting in dimly lit studios and whatnot, and I'd just like something that I don't need to crank the ISO on too high, nor use a shutter speed that requires a tripod, or ungodly steady hand.

 

[NNotN-ENN]

If you're shooting stuff that's staying still, any lens with stabilisation will help you out. You can also go the route that many do which is grabbing a 50mm f/1.8 which I think sell for barely more than $100 for Canon. There are two issues with using this lens to address the problem you're having. The first of which is the fact that shooting 'wide open' at f/1.8 will yes, give you more light buuuut.. it will also drastically reduce your depth of field, which means that only a small plane of the photo will be in focus. This is fine (and even good/great/fantastic for certain things - portraits etc.) but might not be so good if you're trying to take gear pics (though it is a cheap way of adding dramatic effect). The other thing is that 50mm when added to your 1.6x crop factor on the 550D will give you an actual focal length of 80mm, which might be too long to fit things in with the small space you might have to work with. Nikon does a 35mm f/1.8 lens specifically for their crop cameras to deal with this problem but I'm not sure about Canon.

 

[Ermz]

Fair point about the depth of field. What would be your recommended way to get some more light in subpar ambient lighting conditions? Bearing in mind I'm really not a flash photography fan myself. Also you know I have a n00b boner for blurry depth of field stuff.

 

[arv_foh]

If you're shooting stuff that's staying still, any lens with stabilisation will help you out. You can also go the route that many do which is grabbing a 50mm f/1.8 which I think sell for barely more than $100 for Canon. There are two issues with using this lens to address the problem you're having. The first of which is the fact that shooting 'wide open' at f/1.8 will yes, give you more light buuuut.. it will also drastically reduce your depth of field, which means that only a small plane of the photo will be in focus. This is fine (and even good/great/fantastic for certain things - portraits etc.) but might not be so good if you're trying to take gear pics (though it is a cheap way of adding dramatic effect). The other thing is that 50mm when added to your 1.6x crop factor on the 550D will give you an actual focal length of 80mm, which might be too long to fit things in with the small space you might have to work with. Nikon does a 35mm f/1.8 lens specifically for their crop cameras to deal with this problem but I'm not sure about Canon.

I disagree with almost everything you said man... depth of field is meant to place your focus on a certain point or subject in the photo, not for "a cheap way of adding dramatic effect"

The 50mm f/1.8, when you place the focus at infinity, is perfectly able to deliver a photo that is entirely in focus. It might be a bit softer than something you shoot at f/8 or above, but that is the sacrifice you make for being able to take a photo in a low light situation.

Ermz, if you want something without the zoom factor, look into the Canon 20mm f/2.8 wide angle lens. It's a bit more expensive that the 50mm f/1.8 (which is pretty much the cheapest decent lens you can buy) but you'll get a lot more use out of it if you are taking photos in small spaces without a lot of room to move around. If you have ample room get the 50 f/1.8. Canon also makes a 35mm f/2 and a 28mm f/2.8 (which is the lens I used for several months before buying a 24-70 f/2.8L). Both those lenses are about $300 and I think the 20mm is 400 something.

 

[CatharsisStudios]

Some of my photos.

my fav, great lighting i wish i could upload my pics but some ass hat stole my flashdrive :\

 

[CatharsisStudios]

ermz if you want the blurry depth of feild just get a DSLR and a nice lense haha

took this with a god fucking awfull kodak powershot