# Camera Setting Help.



## kylesfreelance (Mar 25, 2013)

What exposure setting is good for concerts and events.


----------



## AaronLLockhart (Mar 25, 2013)

That's going to depend on the capabilities of your camera. Concerts aren't really that great to shoot unless you have a camera capable at shooting at 1100ISO or higher with very little grain. Long exposures won't work because there are too many circumstantial changes to the environment, and fast shutters on low ISO will be dark and underexposed. So, I hope you have a decent camera body, because you're going to need it


----------



## Light Guru (Mar 25, 2013)

kylesfreelance said:


> What exposure setting is good for concerts and events.




YOUR going to have to narrow that question down a LOT.  Concerts and events can be held in countless different conditions, inside, outside, daytime, night time etc etc etc.

You do understand that there is no one unerversual settings that is going to work in all environments and conditions right?


----------



## pgriz (Mar 25, 2013)

ISO 3200, f/8, 1/125.  

Note, however, that this setting may or may not work under the conditions you are shooting.  It may be too much for someone in the spotlight, and too little for someone in the audience.  Maybe you should ask a different question:  how to determine the right exposure to use in a dark (or bright) showplace environment.  It also depends on whether you're shooting from the nose-bleed section or on stage.  Tell us more about what you're trying to do and what equipment you are going to do it with.


----------



## AaronLLockhart (Mar 25, 2013)

pgriz said:


> ISO 3200, f/8, 1/125.
> 
> Note, however, that this setting may or may not work under the conditions you are shooting.  It may be too much for someone in the spotlight, and too little for someone in the audience.  Maybe you should ask a different question:  how to determine the right exposure to use in a dark (or bright) showplace environment.  It also depends on whether you're shooting from the nose-bleed section or on stage.  Tell us more about what you're trying to do and what equipment you are going to do it with.



Would that not get the same results as ISO1600 f/4 1/125?

Why the need for such a high ISO?


----------



## kylesfreelance (Mar 25, 2013)

Ok concert wise wiill be mostly indoors.  I have a d5100 with 18-55 lens.  For event photography  mostly outdoor with a d 5100 and 18-55 lens.


----------



## AaronLLockhart (Mar 25, 2013)

kylesfreelance said:


> Ok concert wise wiill be mostly indoors.  I have a d5100 with 18-55 lens.  For event photography  mostly outdoor with a d 5100 and 18-55 lens.



You've got the same sensor as my camera. And I'll tell you this much. You don't want to shoot at 3200 ISO with it. It's not terribly grainy, but you won't be happy with the results


----------



## EIngerson (Mar 25, 2013)

It's still going to boil down to the conditions. Don't take this as trying to pile on or pick on you, but when you ask "what settings?" it means you don't understand exposure. Exposure is the right combination of ISO, Aperture and Shutter speed for your given conditions. They will vary from shot to shot. So you can't really ask for settings. 

In general terms, you will use a higher ISO and bigger aperture to get a shutter speed to produce acceptable sharpness. I hope this helps a bit.


----------



## Mach0 (Mar 25, 2013)

AaronLLockhart said:


> You've got the same sensor as my camera. And I'll tell you this much. You don't want to shoot at 3200 ISO with it. It's not terribly grainy, but you won't be happy with the results



That's the first I've heard this.


----------



## kylesfreelance (Mar 25, 2013)

What I am trying to do is have a baseline before I go to  the events or concerts so if need be so I can do minor tweaks.


----------



## Light Guru (Mar 25, 2013)

kylesfreelance said:


> Ok concert wise wiill be mostly indoors.  I have a d5100 with 18-55 lens.  For event photography  mostly outdoor with a d 5100 and 18-55 lens.



You still dont get it.  Your camera and lens have nothing to do with it. Each and every situation is going to be different.  Your camera has a light meeter I sagest you learn how to use it to meatier the light when for each situation and continue to meeter the light as you shoot because lighting conditions do change from one moment to another.


----------



## AaronLLockhart (Mar 25, 2013)

Mach0 said:


> AaronLLockhart said:
> 
> 
> > You've got the same sensor as my camera. And I'll tell you this much. You don't want to shoot at 3200 ISO with it. It's not terribly grainy, but you won't be happy with the results
> ...



DxOMark - Nikon D5100 vs Nikon D7000: same sensor, same results
Does Nikon d5100 has same sensor as d7000? - Yahoo! Answers India

Have you been hiding under a rock 

It's one of the first things I learned about the D5100.

I guess you didn't know that the D5000, D90, and D300s all have the same sensor either?

The D60, D80, and D200 also all have the same sensor.


----------



## Light Guru (Mar 25, 2013)

EIngerson said:


> It's still going to boil down to the conditions. Don't take this as trying to pile on or pick on you, but when you ask "what settings?" it means you don't understand exposure. Exposure is the right combination of ISO, Aperture and Shutter speed for your given conditions. They will vary from shot to shot. So you can't really ask for settings.



EXACTLY!  The only person you could ask is a photographer standing next to you at the event. And if you do that they are going to look at you funny.

Study the exposure triangle!!!


----------



## AaronLLockhart (Mar 25, 2013)

Light Guru said:


> EXACTLY!  The only person you could ask is a photographer standing next to you at the event. And if you do that they are going to look at you funny.
> 
> Study the exposure triangle!!!



It would still be different unless the guy next to him was using the same camera.


----------



## TMC (Mar 25, 2013)

I use to own that camera and around ISO 1600 was as high as I would go if I wanted good pics.  This may be different for you, I suggest you look through your images and determine what the highest ISO setting you would be comfortable with and set your camera to Auto ISO and the max ISO you decide on.  Than I would set the camera to S mode and set your shutter to 1/125 and the camera will so the rest for ya.   There is a good chance that this wont work out on your first attempt and than you will either have to raise your max ISO in Auto ISO mode or slow your shutter speed down to 1/100 or 1/80, bearing in mind that ever change you make to one of these setting you are giving up something in exchange for a good exposure.  higher ISO = more noise and slower shutter = more motion or camera blur.  If you think this is all to much for ya and you just want some pics than you can just set the camera to AUTO, or No Flash Auto and snap away and when you learn about the exposure triangle than try your hand at the other modes.  It really is not that difficult when you understand it, and best part is when you finally get it you wont have to take crap for asking about it anymore


----------



## Light Guru (Mar 25, 2013)

AaronLLockhart said:


> Light Guru said:
> 
> 
> > EXACTLY!  The only person you could ask is a photographer standing next to you at the event. And if you do that they are going to look at you funny.
> ...



NOPE Light is light.  The settings may be slightly different depending on how the other person meters vs how you are metering.  But the light in front of the two of them is the same.  If i was looking at a scene with both my DSLR and with my 4x5 film camera I could use the exact same settings on the DSLR that I use with my 4x5 film camera and the exposure of both images wood be the same.


----------



## AaronLLockhart (Mar 25, 2013)

Light Guru said:


> NOPE Light is light.  The settings may be slightly different depending on how the other person meters vs how you are metering.  But the light in front of the two of them is the same.  If i was looking at a scene with both my DSLR and with my 4x5 film camera I could use the exact same settings on the DSLR that I use with my 4x5 film camera and the exposure of both images wood be the same.



So you're implying that at 1100iso, his and my shots on my D5000 will have the same amount of grain? Because if you are, I have $1000 that says you're wrong.


----------



## Mach0 (Mar 25, 2013)

AaronLLockhart said:


> DxOMark - Nikon D5100 vs Nikon D7000: same sensor, same results
> Does Nikon d5100 has same sensor as d7000? - Yahoo! Answers India
> 
> Have you been hiding under a rock
> ...



You've got a good sense of humor . I know what sensors are what and what firmware tweaks have been made. In any event- a quick search on Flickr shows that the d7000 can handle 3200 ISO quite well. The real issue at hand is making sure your post production skills and camera skills are good to ensure proper exposure. I would rather have a sharp in focus shot with noise than a blurry shot because of missed focused  or inadequate DOF. 

So to answer your question- have I been hiding under a rock? No

Have you? You should get out and practice getting decent shots at 3200 ISO. If it can be done with a d90, it can be done with a d7000.

OP- better glass will yield you better results since you won't have to stop down as much to get sharper images.


----------



## Mach0 (Mar 25, 2013)

AaronLLockhart said:


> So you're implying that at 1100iso, his and my shots on my D5000 will have the same amount of grain? Because if you are, I have $1000 that says you're wrong.



1000 bucks says its noise not grain. Your d7000 is digital.


----------



## Light Guru (Mar 25, 2013)

AaronLLockhart said:


> So you're implying that at 1100iso, his and my shots on my D5000 will have the same amount of grain? Because if you are, I have $1000 that says you're wrong.



Im not talking about grain I'm simply talking about exposure. Even though one image would have more grain they both would have a properly exposed image using the same exposure settings. 

The point of all this is that the OP needs to understand how exposure works.


----------



## Mach0 (Mar 25, 2013)

Light Guru said:


> Im not talking about grain I'm simply talking about exposure. Even though one image would have more grain they both would have a properly exposed image using the same exposure settings.
> 
> The point of all this is that the OP needs to understand how exposure works.



To expand on that too- slightly over exposing and bringing back down in post will help a lot too. Some pp products, you can reduce noise selectively( certain color channels or shadows etc.)


----------



## AaronLLockhart (Mar 25, 2013)

Mach0 said:


> You've got a good sense of humor . I know what sensors are what and what firmware tweaks have been made. In any event- a quick search on Flickr shows that the d7000 can handle 3200 ISO quite well. The real issue at hand is making sure your post production skills and camera skills are good to ensure proper exposure. I would rather have a sharp in focus shot with noise than a blurry shot because of missed focused  or inadequate DOF.
> 
> So to answer your question- have I been hiding under a rock? No
> 
> Have you? You should get out and practice getting decent shots at 3200 ISO. If it can be done with a d90, it can be done with a d7000.



Some of us like to actually spend more time behind the camera, and not behind a computer screen reducing noise using various post techniques.

If you'd much rather be behind the computer... More power to you.

Noise is noise, and sensors are only capable of so much. Also, what you consider "quite well" vs what I do are most likely two different things.


----------



## kylesfreelance (Mar 25, 2013)

I understand exposure  so based on what u guys have told me I have come to the basis of 800 to 1250 ISO any problems let me know and I know I need better glass but hrmm its expensive  so its not like  I have a grand for a lens. I like lenses between the range of 50 mm to 85 and 35 mm . If ya wanna go there on prices be my guest via pm if not lets keep deciding this.


----------



## Mach0 (Mar 25, 2013)

AaronLLockhart said:


> Some of us like to actually spend more time behind the camera, and not behind a computer screen reducing noise using various post techniques.
> 
> If you'd much rather be behind the computer... More power to you.
> 
> Noise is noise, and sensors are only capable of so much. Also, what you consider "quite well" vs what I do are most likely two different things.



Same can be said for the OP. I prefer to be behind a camera as well. Rather than spread false information because you have an opinion. Time in front of a computer is needed to process an image. 

The camera at 3200 ISO will have noise but most people aren't making large prints .


----------



## Mach0 (Mar 25, 2013)

kylesfreelance said:


> I understand exposure  so based on what u guys have told me I have come to the basis of 800 to 1250 ISO any problems let me know and I know I need better glass but hrmm its expensive  so its not like  I have a grand for a lens. I like lenses between the range of 50 mm to 85 and 35 mm . If ya wanna go there on prices be my guest via pm if not lets keep deciding this.



Primes are a good option. Have you ever considered a 17(18)-50(55) 2.8 zoom?


----------



## Light Guru (Mar 25, 2013)

kylesfreelance said:


> I understand exposure  so based on what u guys have told me I have come to the basis of 800 to 1250 ISO any problems let me know and I know I need better glass but hrmm its expensive  so its not like  I have a grand for a lens. I like lenses between the range of 50 mm to 85 and 35 mm . If ya wanna go there on prices be my guest via pm if not lets keep deciding this.




Not if the event is in the middle of the day with bright sunlight.


----------



## Mach0 (Mar 25, 2013)

Light Guru said:


> Not if the event is in the middle of the day with bright sunlight.



Missed this! 
OP- the ISO should be whatever is necessary to get the the shot and have a balance of proper exposure and acceptable shutter speed. You can play with your aperture to offset the need for higher ISO but keep In mind Depth of field and possible missed focus.


----------



## 2WheelPhoto (Mar 25, 2013)

that broad question and this thread makes me LoL 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





edit:  and the screenname "freelance"


----------



## Mach0 (Mar 25, 2013)

2WheelPhoto said:


> that broad question and this thread makes me LoL



Lol


----------



## 2WheelPhoto (Mar 25, 2013)

kylesfreelance said:


> Ok concert wise wiill be mostly indoors.  I have a *d5100 with 18-55 lens.*  For event photography  mostly outdoor with a d 5100 and 18-55 lens.



charge 'em dearly for this event shoot


----------



## pgriz (Mar 25, 2013)

AaronLLockhart said:


> pgriz said:
> 
> 
> > ISO 3200, f/8, 1/125.
> ...



Sorry - I forgot the tongue-in-cheek smilie. Point being, that any setting is hit-or-miss unless there's some thinking applied to what the goal is, and some knowledge is used about the tools at hand. If the lighting was reasonably (whatever that means) consistent, I'd try a spotmeter reading, take a shot, see what got blown out, adjust accordingly.


----------



## AaronLLockhart (Mar 25, 2013)

Mach0 said:


> Rather than spread false information because you have an opinion. Time in front of a computer is needed to process an image.  The camera at 3200 ISO will have noise but most people aren't making large prints .


  1. That's an opinion, not fact, and what I said is not false information, it's correct information. It's just not the way you choose to go about shooting. Your over expose, correct in post crap of a response, will never work for concerts, especially night ones, due to the fact that concerts use powerful and harsh spot an accent lights.   

Second, you can blatantly see noise in an image at less than 1mp, on a camera less than the d700. Don't believe me, go try it on your d90 or d40.

As said before, nothing I said was false. Not one single thing. It just helps you be a narcissist to proclaim that.


----------



## kylesfreelance (Mar 25, 2013)

Mach0 said:


> kylesfreelance said:
> 
> 
> > I understand exposure  so based on what u guys have told me I have come to the basis of 800 to 1250 ISO any problems let me know and I know I need better glass but hrmm its expensive  so its not like  I have a grand for a lens. I like lenses between the range of 50 mm to 85 and 35 mm . If ya wanna go there on prices be my guest via pm if not lets keep deciding this.
> ...




How much


----------



## kylesfreelance (Mar 25, 2013)

2WheelPhoto said:


> that broad question and this thread makes me LoL
> 
> 
> 
> ...



That user name is before I decided to own my own company nitwit.


----------



## Mach0 (Mar 25, 2013)

AaronLLockhart said:


> 1. That's an opinion, not fact, and what I said is not false information, it's correct information. It's just not the way you choose to go about shooting. Your over expose, correct in post crap of a response, will never work for concerts, especially night ones, due to the fact that concerts use powerful and harsh spot an accent lights.
> 
> Second, you can blatantly see noise in an image at less than 1mp, on a camera less than the d700. Don't believe me, go try it on your d90 or d40.
> 
> As said before, nothing I said was false. Not one single thing. It just helps you be a narcissist to proclaim that.



Not necessarily. The information I have gotten was based off credible reviews and speaking to people who own the camera. I understand your comment on ETTR and spot lights etc.Fortunately, I haven't run across that issue. Not even in night clubs with spot lights and strobe lights.. 
 btw - i am not saying over expose to the point of blowing everything. ETTR works pretty well. 

In any event, happy shooting, typing, spreading your opinion or whatever makes you sleep better.

OP- if you plan on doing this seriously with your camera, I suggest upgrading glass and learning how to read your histogram or at least how to turn on the "blinkies" for your highlights.  People make the misconception that their shot sucks because of their gear when in all actuality- it's usually user error. It will be a long time before you see any real limitations in image quality from your camera. By the time you truthfully see its limitations or outgrow it, you won't be asking questions like this.


----------



## Mach0 (Mar 25, 2013)

kylesfreelance said:


> How much



Look them up. There's a few options.


----------



## AaronLLockhart (Mar 25, 2013)

Mach0 said:


> AaronLLockhart said:
> 
> 
> > 1. That's an opinion, not fact, and what I said is not false information, it's correct information. It's just not the way you choose to go about shooting. Your over expose, correct in post crap of a response, will never work for concerts, especially night ones, due to the fact that concerts use powerful and harsh spot an accent lights.
> ...



Listen, I'm sorry this got off to a bad start. You seem to be pretty knowledgeable, and I wasn't insulting your intelligence. When you made the first comment, I thought you were implying that it had been the first time you had heard that the 5100 and 7000 is the same sensor, not that shooting at 3200ISO wouldn't suffice.

Believe it or not, the results from this camera at 3200ISO aren't terrible. Really it does pretty well all the way up to 6400ISO... once you get into the Boost ISO's is when it gets terribly bad. 1600ISO is pretty clear, and it's not until you get to 2200ISO that things start to look a little bit grainy. When I say "a little bit grainy," I don't mean that it's so awful you can't keep it. I'm saying, in my personal opinion, it's not something that I would want to keep. His taste might be different. Who knows.

I just know I certainly wouldn't be giving photos shot at 3200ISO on my camera and many others to anyone. The only time I would ever keep them, is if I was just wanting to have them as snaps for myself.


----------



## kylesfreelance (Mar 25, 2013)

I cant afford 1 grand lenses atm duh.


----------



## Mach0 (Mar 25, 2013)

kylesfreelance said:


> I cant afford 1 grand lenses atm duh.



The tamron version I hear is quite well.


----------



## kylesfreelance (Mar 25, 2013)

AaronLLockhart said:


> Mach0 said:
> 
> 
> > AaronLLockhart said:
> ...




Thanks I have to play with it trial and error.


----------



## kylesfreelance (Mar 25, 2013)

Oh  dat tamron is  at a good price but things to save up for.


----------



## Mach0 (Mar 25, 2013)

AaronLLockhart said:


> Listen, I'm sorry this got off to a bad start. You seem to be pretty knowledgeable, and I wasn't insulting your intelligence. When you made the first comment, I thought you were implying that it had been the first time you had heard that the 5100 and 7000 is the same sensor, not that shooting at 3200ISO wouldn't suffice.
> 
> Believe it or not, the results from this camera at 3200ISO aren't terrible. Really it does pretty well all the way up to 6400ISO... once you get into the Boost ISO's is when it gets terribly bad. 1600ISO is pretty clear, and it's not until you get to 2200ISO that things start to look a little bit grainy. When I say "a little bit grainy," I don't mean that it's so awful you can't keep it. I'm saying, in my personal opinion, it's not something that I would want to keep. His taste might be different. Who knows.
> 
> I just know I certainly wouldn't be giving photos shot at 3200ISO on my camera and many others to anyone. The only time I would ever keep them, is if I was just wanting to have them as snaps for myself.



No worries. Reading texts can be a bit misinterpreting at times. 


If you have a good resampling method- a lot of that you won't notice. You should try it. It works well for me. I've shot images in nightclubs and downsized had some good results. That's how they say the d800 and d3s can be negligible once the d800 images have been downsized and resampled. Unless you are pixel peeping- the larger the print the farther the viewing distance.


----------



## gregtallica (Mar 25, 2013)

Shutter speed 4,000 - if you're trying to photograph John Pettrucci and capture his fingers.


----------



## Mach0 (Mar 25, 2013)

kylesfreelance said:


> Oh  dat tamron is  at a good price but things to save up for.



The tamron is actually pretty cheap.


----------



## kylesfreelance (Mar 25, 2013)

400.00 dollars is cheap hmm yeah right hence I am just starting to music photograph and event are gonna argue all night over costs. Every single bit of money from my job paychecks  has went in to  this company.


----------



## AaronLLockhart (Mar 25, 2013)

kylesfreelance said:


> 400.00 dollars is cheap hmm yeah right hence I am just starting to music photograph and event are gonna argue all night over costs. Every single bit of money from my job paychecks  has went in to  this company.



$400.00 is certainly cheap for good glass.


----------



## Mach0 (Mar 25, 2013)

kylesfreelance said:


> 400.00 dollars is cheap hmm yeah right hence I am just starting to music photograph and event are gonna argue all night over costs. Every single bit of money from my job paychecks  has went in to  this company.



I am not trying to be funny but I honestly became a bit confused by this post. Can you clarify and  add some punctuation ? 
I understand about it costing money and afterward I got lost. 

As Kundalini has said something along the lines of " Photography is not for the faint of wallet."

This is a business where you will most likely lose more money in the beginning. The cost of gear ( whether on the cheaper end of the spectrum or not) is still a good amount of money.


----------



## Mach0 (Mar 25, 2013)

AaronLLockhart said:


> $400.00 is certainly cheap for good glass.



X2


----------



## Light Guru (Mar 25, 2013)

kylesfreelance said:


> 2WheelPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > that broad question and this thread makes me LoL
> ...



The point about his comment on your screen name is that you should not be trying to make money at photography until you actually understand photography. Owning your own company or freelancing makes no difference in the issue. 

Ill say again what I said what you first joined and started asking questions on how to make money selling photos.  Forget trying to make money until after you learn photography. 

When you ask questions like you did on this thread with the user name you have people are not going to take you seriously.


----------



## kylesfreelance (Mar 25, 2013)

Light Guru said:


> kylesfreelance said:
> 
> 
> > 2WheelPhoto said:
> ...



It is  my choice to have my own company I know alot about  photography yes I am new to my camera don't give me grief I aint in the mood for it.  It's not like I can change my username grr.


----------



## tirediron (Mar 25, 2013)

kylesfreelance said:


> 400.00 dollars is cheap hmm yeah right hence I am just starting to music photograph and event are gonna argue all night over costs. Every single bit of money from my job paychecks has went in to this company.


Yes, $400 is cheap for a lens.  I've got _*filters*_ that cost more than that!  Not bragging, just a simple statement to illustrate the fact that photography, at the professional level is NOT a cheap untertaking and that the quality of equipment needed to properly discharge professional commissions can be very expensive.


----------



## Mach0 (Mar 25, 2013)

tirediron said:


> Yes, $400 is cheap for a lens.  I've got filters that cost more than that!  Not bragging, just a simple statement to illustrate the fact that photography, at the professional level is NOT a cheap untertaking and that the quality of equipment needed to properly discharge professional commissions can be very expensive.



Lol. So true! I RENTED a lens and it still ran me 110 bucks for a week.


----------



## kylesfreelance (Mar 25, 2013)

Thats why I will start slow then slowly be able to purchase and rent lenses till I can be able to  produce million dollar pictures.


----------



## tirediron (Mar 25, 2013)

kylesfreelance said:


> ...I know alot about photography ...


Forgive me Kyle, but I'm having trouble reconciling that statement with your original post:



kylesfreelance said:


> What exposure setting is good for concerts and events.



In my experience, people who know a lot about photography know that "what settings" questions are virtually pointless.  There are so many unknown parameters that it is virtually impossible to give any but the most general guidance.  If I may make a suggestion, haul down your shingle for now, and learn to use the gear you have to its maximum potential, all the while saving money for bigger & better kit.  Photography is not a craft that one can become expert in overnight; most photographers who make any significant amount of money from their work have many years practice & experience under their belt.  Learn the craft, gain that experience, THEN worry about making it pay.


----------



## kylesfreelance (Mar 25, 2013)

Yep will do.  Thats the stage I am currently at  I offer to photograph concerts and give  copy's of there pictures on a cd  currently no photoshoots yet.


----------



## Light Guru (Mar 25, 2013)

kylesfreelance said:


> Light Guru said:
> 
> 
> > kylesfreelance said:
> ...



It's not about being new to a camera. You say you know a "lot" about photography yet you go and post a question asking what settings you should use for events and concerts. That one question clearly says to its that you do not understand exposure. 

Yes it is your choice to have your own photography business but if you want that business to succeed then you really need to understand photography.


----------



## Overread (Mar 25, 2013)

kylesfreelance said:


> Thats why I will start slow then slowly be able to purchase and rent lenses till I can be able to  produce million dollar pictures.



There is a risk with this if you are starting slow commercially and that is that your early results will tar your latter capacity to earn within the same market and same business area. In short if you build an image and market for yourself at the cheap end chances are you will have a lot of material out there of the less than perfect nature. Now we all understand that everyone must lean, but if you learn whilst taking on clients those clients will spread the word themselves about your quality.

When you are working in a specific field and a specific geographical area this can mean that your future attempt to market yourself with improved equipment and skills can indeed be significantly hampered. 


Many here strongly advocate that if you want to get into the business then consider:

1) Keeping the regular day job - earning what you can and putting that money toward good quality purchases for equipment and setups. Consider also training courses and other possible investments for eduction and networking (be careful on this latter option though and research the options well as you can spend a lot of money going no where there). 

2) Considering taking an internship/apprenticing under an already established photography business. Not only do you get field experience, but you also don't put your name on the line. You can also get a look at the business side of thing not just behind the camera. Working at running a business is not for everyone and you might even find that being a second shooter is an option you prefer in the long term far more than running the whole business itself. 

3) Once you've furthered your learning consider consulting your local council - often there are many small business and start-up options you can apply for to get free information and help as well as support for funding; to say nothing of business loans and the like. These can provide you with an injection of money to help start you off with a professional setup of equipment, studio (if needed), marketing, business tools etc.... Granted this might hurt your early profits, but it can give you a jumpstart on costs if you can't earn enough to jumpstart yourself from your current job.


----------



## Light Guru (Mar 25, 2013)

tirediron said:


> kylesfreelance said:
> 
> 
> > ...I know alot about photography ...
> ...



Well said.


----------



## 2WheelPhoto (Mar 25, 2013)

Mach0 said:


> AaronLLockhart said:
> 
> 
> > $400.00 is certainly cheap for good glass.
> ...



X3, $400 is cheap for even a shotty lens. But shoot enough events with that kit cam and lens at high ISO and you'll see mega-buk returns


----------



## cgipson1 (Mar 25, 2013)

kylesfreelance said:


> I know alot about  photography



Kyle, Your first thread was about starting a professional photography business with a Nikon Coolpix (Jan 2013). I see you have at least upgraded your equipment to an entry level DSLR... which is good. As far as what settings to use? There is no correct answer, except maybe " the settings needed for the image you are after"... but we can't tell you what those settings will be. It depends on a multitude of factors, including what body you have, what lenses, how much ambient light there is at the venue, what additional light you can provide (if any), what your subject is, and how you want to capture that subject (and other things as well). 

If we were there with you.. yes, we could tell you the settings you would need, approximately. But since only you will be there, and you will be acting as a "Pro"... only you can answer the question as to what settings to use! If you can't answer it, then you have a problem.

Oh.. and owning your own "company" is still pretty much "Freelance" unless you are working for someone else


----------



## AaronLLockhart (Mar 25, 2013)

I'll just say this much, if you are considering a pro career, but are afraid to spend $400.00 on gear, you're never going to make it.

I do paid shoots, just as a supplement income source, but I do draw some income from photography. I have one lens I paid $400 for new, an that is my 50mm 1.8G. However, that lens is not an outstanding lens by any means, and it wa VERY cheap.

I also understand that in the near future, I'm going to have to drop $1k+ on good glass just to be able to survive against other photographers in the area. There are scenarios right now, that I blatantly have to avoid, because my lenses are not capable of capturing the environment and elements. 

For me to pretend that I can "take it slow" and shoot nothing but kit glass, I might as well just lay my camera down and forget I ever wanted to learn photography in the first place.


----------



## kylesfreelance (Mar 25, 2013)

I have so much expenses I have to pay each month its not like I can afford everyhting on the spot atm with advertising costs to bills  but i can say in the near future I will be getting glass with in the next 6 months.


----------



## Overread (Mar 25, 2013)

kylesfreelance said:


> I have so much expenses I have to pay each month its not like I can afford everyhting on the spot atm with advertising costs to bills  but i can say in the near future I will be getting glass with in the next 6 months.



Aye which is why I mentioned other possible sources of income boosting that could be an option. That said you are honestly (from how you word things) really ready for those options. You need more experience and grounding in photography so that you can make the best use of better tools when you can afford them. 

Lets not get carried away, your camera as it is now can produce some very fine pictures; the range of situations over which it can do this is going to be more limited than a higher end camera and lens setup (and lighting setup for those situations where you can directly influence the lighting) but they are still present. Learn with the camera you have - build on those core skills and experiences; but don't take clients yet. 

Consider the internship and apprenticing suggestions - although note you'll want some solid photos before you approach them so that you can best present yourself.


----------



## tirediron (Mar 25, 2013)

I'm going to revise my earlier statement.  Right now, you don't need to be learning about photography, you need to be learning about business.  They are two VERY different animals.  You can survive in a photographic business as a mediocre photographer, but not as a mediocre businessman.  Put down the camera altogether and look around for local nightschool courses which teach entrenpreneurship and other small-businesss related topics.  Understanding how to finance and grow your business is far more critical than being a good (or even mediocre) photographer.


----------



## AaronLLockhart (Mar 25, 2013)

kylesfreelance said:


> I have so much expenses I have to pay each month its not like I can afford everyhting on the spot atm with advertising costs to bills  but i can say in the near future I will be getting glass with in the next 6 months.



Man, we all have financial responsibility and obligations. I have a mortgage, 2 car payments, auto insurance, homeowners insurance, two children, one child support payment, and the. Your typical living expenses, health insurance (lights, water, cable, etc.)

You're preaching to the choir about expenses. Photography is something you're going to spend A LOT of money in before you ever make any.

Just some food for thought, man.


----------



## AaronLLockhart (Mar 25, 2013)

I agree with tired iron. If you plan on making over $3,800 per year from photography, you're going to have to get licensed and pay federal income taxes (and possibly state) on your earnings. You're going to need to know how much it costs you to use your equipment down the the hour of use, preferably down to how much it costs you every single time you press the shutter. 

If you don't know any of this stuff, or haven't even thought about it, you need to learn about business before you ever think about using that camera to generate income.


----------



## kylesfreelance (Mar 25, 2013)

AaronLLockhart said:


> I agree with tired iron. If you plan on making over $3,800 per year from photography, you're going to have to get licensed and pay federal income taxes (and possibly state) on your earnings. You're going to need to know how much it costs you to use your equipment down the the hour of use, preferably down to how much it costs you every single time you press the shutter.
> 
> If you don't know any of this stuff, or haven't even thought about it, you need to learn about business before you ever think about using that camera to generate income.



All that is set up and I know alot about buisness   from my mom.


----------



## AaronLLockhart (Mar 25, 2013)

kylesfreelance said:


> AaronLLockhart said:
> 
> 
> > I agree with tired iron. If you plan on making over $3,800 per year from photography, you're going to have to get licensed and pay federal income taxes (and possibly state) on your earnings. You're going to need to know how much it costs you to use your equipment down the the hour of use, preferably down to how much it costs you every single time you press the shutter.
> ...




So, just out of curiosity, how much does it cost you per click to shoot your camera?


----------



## kylesfreelance (Mar 25, 2013)

$15-20


----------



## AaronLLockhart (Mar 25, 2013)

kylesfreelance said:


> $15-20



you have no idea...


----------



## kylesfreelance (Mar 25, 2013)

I do too  it varies  per event.


----------



## AaronLLockhart (Mar 25, 2013)

$500.00 Camera
$500.00 Software
$500.00 Computer
------------------------
$1,500.00 in possible yearly expenses

If you shoot every weekend... thats 104 days to shoot... so that's $14.42 per day to shoot your camera... if you average 5 hours per shoot... that's $2.88 per hour to use your camera... Or, if you average 300 shots per shoot... that's $0.48 per click... Like I said... you have no idea.

I'm not trying to discourage you, man. I'm just trying to get you to realize what's going on before you discourage yourself... the hard way.


----------



## o hey tyler (Mar 25, 2013)

This thread is hilarious.


----------



## kylesfreelance (Mar 25, 2013)

I see.


----------



## gregtallica (Mar 26, 2013)

o hey tyler said:


> This thread is hilarious.



I can't tell how old Kyle really is. I admire is drive though. Starting an entire business without even caring to learn how to use his camera on his own first.


I think he might be trollin' us, though. Cause if it were me, or anyone I know, I would be _way_ to emberassed to call myself a professional (someone who makes their entire income) photographer if I didn't even know how to find general settings.


----------



## KmH (Mar 26, 2013)

IIRC - Kyle is in high school.


----------



## cgipson1 (Mar 26, 2013)

KmH said:


> IIRC - Kyle is in high school.



Really? I am positive I read somewhere where he was claiming to be early / mid 20's...


----------



## AaronLLockhart (Mar 26, 2013)

cgipson1 said:


> Really? I am positive I read somewhere where he was claiming to be early / mid 20's...



Yeah, I think I recall some comments somewhere where he insinuated 20 or 21.


----------



## KmH (Mar 26, 2013)

I didn't remember correctly - http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/welcomes-introductions/314388-hi-my-names-kyle.html


----------



## gregtallica (Mar 26, 2013)

He said he's 20.


Kyle, is english not your main language?

Also, I read up in another thread you have a facebook fan page. Care to share? I'd like to see what kind of photos you're already taking.



Here's the thing, we're similar in the fact we want to shoot concerts. I've been playing in bands for 10 years, I'm mid 20's now. I've always been a part of shows, I've always seen the dudes with all the gear in the photo pit and it looks like the second coolest spot to be (stage is 1st). I have been mildly using DSLR's for years, started with a Minolta 35mm film camera, then to a D3100 and more exclusively to a D5100, to my D7000 which I know own. There is a lot to know in this "business." In fact, shooting shows really means you need to get a handle on both businesses, music and photography. Any old chap can start a business, this is america - millionaires have been made in stranger ways. But, I think a little respect needs to be paid to the pros who have been doing this all their lives. Have you taken the courses you've said you were going to take? I mean, you mentioned you wanted to go to an $84,000 photography school. Maybe a more intelligent idea would be business courses from an accredited university, and brush up on your chops. 

Quick note to that - one of my bands just worked on shooting a TV pilot. The dudes who filmed it work a lot with some bigger TV shows, and everyone I talked to had something similar to say. They went to the University of Utah film school, a great school, learned how to use the cameras, got their chops down, came out of it with very little business knowledge. They all said if they were to do it over - business first, and side classes on filming. Youtube, practice, practice, and more practice.

Everyone has to start somewhere, but I think everyone is wondering why you're trying to start on top, and skip some of the smaller steps.


I'm a rambler.


----------



## kylesfreelance (Mar 26, 2013)

Quit nagging at me first off I have tried the college route no go with Photography  couldn't obtain a cosigner, Second Facebook page is being worked  on. Third, how am I supposed to find good business classes if I can't afford it atm.  Any suggestions  let me know. 4th, yes I am 21 so quit giving me a hard time and sorta discouraging me.


----------



## KmH (Mar 26, 2013)

Free business advice:

1. Business books are available for loan at your local library.
2. Your tax dollars at work - Starting & Managing a Business | SBA.gov
3. Free business advice/coaching from retired business executives - Free Small Business Advice | How-to Resources | Tools | Templates | SCORE


----------



## Overread (Mar 26, 2013)

kylesfreelance said:


> Quit nagging at me first off I have tried the college route no go with Photography  couldn't obtain a cosigner, Second Facebook page is being worked  on. Third, how am I supposed to find good business classes if I can't afford it atm.  Any suggestions  let me know. 4th, yes I am 21 so quit giving me a hard time and sorta discouraging me.



Please understand that many if not most here are not out to attack you nor insult you. What they are however (in a myriad of various ways = some direct and some less so) is trying to caution you. You're making a lot of what many consider to be, text book bad choices. Choices that they've seen made time and time again and which has resulted in a person never getting further than a weekend job that mostly only just pays for a lens here and a camera there and not much if anything more. 

The suggestions to slow down and to do more research and indeed to approach things from other angles is sound advice - you're only 21 so you've got more than enough time to really get your feet into the field; to gain and work upon experience before you need to consider jumping all the way to running a whole company (even if you're the sole employee of that company) and also doing all the work for that company. Several of our members are, as they've themselves said, professionals or ex professionals- some are even running along similar pathways to yourself. 

I'd encourage you to re-read - re-evaluate and really try to research and get a broader view of yourself and your situation. It might feel slower, but honestly working ground up toward something gives you a foundation - a firm foundation that can weather a setback here and there; that can be prepared and that can build into something stronger.


----------



## kylesfreelance (Mar 26, 2013)

Ok will do overrread and I have signed up for a webinar on digital exposure.


----------



## Derrel (Mar 26, 2013)

creativelive.com has some great, free business/technical/methods seminars--some GREAT stuff!!!

Don't let the haters get you down. Pick a smallish niche, figure out how to shoot it, and have at it. SHoot with plenty of fill light, and when you process, "Action" or "Filter", or just TTT-SOOTS (totally tweak the $hit out of the shots) your stuff and hype the daylights out of it on Facebook.


----------



## kylesfreelance (Mar 26, 2013)

I have   decided to make a   huge buisness plan for my company so I can refer  to it if I ever need help.


----------



## pgriz (Mar 26, 2013)

Kyle, A business plan is really a working description of a machine that you will use to create wealth for yourself. In it, you start with your raw materials - your target market (who they are, what they are looking for, what are the key buying patterns, etc). Then you look at who's going to "share" that market with you - your competitiors. What is your unique selling proposition that will allow your target market to favour you instead of the competition? Next, how are you going to reach your target market so that YOUR unique selling proposition is in front of them? Once they reach out to you, what is your selling process that allows you to conclude an agreement with them? This selling process includes things such as presentation materials (portfolio), business cards, brochures, price sheets, contracts, licensing forms, release forms, and so forth. Part of any business plan is to have numbers that define the size of the market, the market share you expect to get, the number of transactions you need to have to cover your basic operating costs, your selling ratio, and projections of the average revenue, cost of sales, expected gross margin, overhead contribution, and expected net profit.

The business plan will cover the production systems- the tools and equipment you will need to deliver to the customer what you have contracted to provide. This includes (in the case of photography) camera equipment, lighting equipment, computer equipment for processing and image storage, printing (maybe), various licensed copies of software that you will need. It also includes (if appropriate) the place where you will meet clients, have a studio, have your administrative office, etc. The business plan should cover the production flow so that a reader will understand how you will make the production process work, and the assumptions you are making about how much effort/time is taken up with each step.

The business plan will cover the administrative aspects: how you will manage the books, maintain the necessary records for tax collection and remittance, maintain your prospect and client records, daily calendar (to-do lists, appointments, regulatory deadlines), cover your potential liability with appropriate amounts (and types) of insurance, and show a prospective lender, partner, or advisor how you will manage the business.

Probably the most important in the end, is the financial analysis, starting with your overhead projections, and working through the cash-flow requirements (more small businesses go bankrupt from cash-flow management issues than any other), showing how the financial assets will be applied to generate a profit.  If you don't have the money to invest in the purchase of your production tools, what kind of loans are you looking for, and what kind of payback can you demonstrate?

If you plan to hire people, there will be a section in your business plan about the human resources (recruitment, qualification, training, pay policy, termination policy, regulatory and statutory compliance, etc.).

Your business plan is not someting to do once and then put on the shelf - it should be a working document, updated often, with the key assumptions tested with actual operational data. It is your operating manual of how you will build this machine to generate wealth.


----------



## AaronLLockhart (Mar 26, 2013)

kylesfreelance said:


> I have   decided to make a   huge buisness plan for my company so I can refer  to it if I ever need help.



Make sure you set, not only goals, but realistic and achievable goals for the company for future milestones. A 1 year and 5 year is a good start, but I would be even looking as far out as 10 years for a plan and goal set. Just keep in mind the return needs to be realistic.


----------

