# Professional concert photography advice?



## OhInsanity (Aug 28, 2011)

I'm currently trying to build up a portfolio for college applications,  so my funds are limited right now. Anyways, any advice on types of  lenses, flash?, combating lighting, camera settings, etc, etc. Just any  form of advice would be welcomed. Preferably advice from people who are  in this field and are successful, or just anyone who knows what they're  talking about. ( which I assume is most of you since this is a photography forum =])

Oh and I'm currently working with a Canon rebel T3 with a 55mm lens (=/) but I'm about to purchase a 300mm which will hopefully help some.

Any advice you can spare is very much appreciated =]
-Callie


----------



## sierramister (Aug 28, 2011)

Where do you plan on shooting from?  Pit, rear sound booth?  I can't imagine many clubs where a 300mm would be helpful.  I would shoot without a flash, with f/1.8, and adjust near 1/60-1/100 shutter speed with Auto ISO.  I would check the photos after each photo for being too noisy.


----------



## Bakugekiki (Aug 28, 2011)

While I don't work or shoot in these kind of conditions I will second sierra's advice. If the venue is dark then a 300mm at f/5.6 on a Rebel isn't going to be fast enough or of any real use, I can't see you getting a shutter speed much higher than a second! You also won't need a focal length much longer than 70mm if you're anywhere near the bands.

What you want is a fast lens, probably the 50mm 1.8 which will allow you to keep a moderately fast shutter speed to freeze what's happening on stage. It's also inexpensive, compact and can be used for much more than shooting in clubs!

Also, are you thinking about applying to College to do photography before you even have a portfolio? I'm sorry if I sound condescending but it sounds like you're still at the stage where you simply want the longest lens rather than the most appropriate. I would also like to say that it is just about impossible to make a living from music photography, you can do it on the side as something you are passionate about, but be prepared to do more than concert shoots.


----------



## OhInsanity (Aug 28, 2011)

sierramister said:


> Where do you plan on shooting from?  Pit, rear sound booth?  I can't imagine many clubs where a 300mm would be helpful.  I would shoot without a flash, with f/1.8, and adjust near 1/60-1/100 shutter speed with Auto ISO.  I would check the photos after each photo for being too noisy.



My 55mm wont go to f/1.8 thats why I need a better lens, what kind should I get? I usually shoot right in front of the stage, I'm only 17 so I dont really get to shoot big shows, its usually just small venues with bands that I know


----------



## OhInsanity (Aug 28, 2011)

Bakugekiki said:


> While I don't work or shoot in these kind of conditions I will second sierra's advice. If the venue is dark then a 300mm at f/5.6 on a Rebel isn't going to be fast enough or of any real use, I can't see you getting a shutter speed much higher than a second! You also won't need a focal length much longer than 70mm if you're anywhere near the bands.
> 
> What you want is a fast lens, probably the 50mm 1.8 which will allow you to keep a moderately fast shutter speed to freeze what's happening on stage. It's also inexpensive, compact and can be used for much more than shooting in clubs!
> 
> Also, are you thinking about applying to College to do photography before you even have a portfolio? I'm sorry if I sound condescending but it sounds like you're still at the stage where you simply want the longest lens rather than the most appropriate. I would also like to say that it is just about impossible to make a living from music photography, you can do it on the side as something you are passionate about, but be prepared to do more than concert shoots.



I've been saving up so I have a budget of around 300 for a lens or two, any suggestions on a specific lens? And yes I do have a portfolio, but I dont have to apply until december so I am trying to build it up some more between now and then. The colleges I'm applying for provide career services and internships, and theyre pretty big colleges so they can help me get in with big companies, even with that said, I know it not a lucrative career unless you manage to get in with  large band or big magazine. I know I'll probably have to have a job on the side, but this is my passion so I'm going to pursue it.


----------



## OhInsanity (Aug 28, 2011)

Thanks to both of you for the lens advice, you're right I don't know much about lenses. I just recently got a nice enough camera that can change lenses. I just wanted a 300mm for my other photo projects because the 55 doesn't zoom very far of course. So I think I'm going to get both a new wide angle and telephoto so that I'll have all of my needs covered.


----------



## Destin (Aug 28, 2011)

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.


----------



## joealcantar (Aug 28, 2011)

Even an older 80-200 2.8 will do you much better than the 300mm. 
-
Shoot well , Joe


----------



## OhInsanity (Aug 28, 2011)

Thanks so much guys! I seriously appreciate it


----------



## OhInsanity (Aug 28, 2011)

Destin said:


> 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.
> 
> ...



most helpful advice so far =] and yeah I found a 50 f/1.8 for 125$ so I'll probably go with that


----------



## OhInsanity (Aug 28, 2011)

I do have one more question (like I said I'm no lens expert) I was looking into the 50 1.8, Is 50mm its only option or does it zoom out further? I was just confused because I didnt see __-50mm just 50mm


----------



## Destin (Aug 28, 2011)

OhInsanity said:


> I do have one more question (like I said I'm no lens expert) I was looking into the 50 1.8, Is 50mm its only option or does it zoom out further? I was just confused because I didnt see __-50mm just 50mm



It's a prime lens, meaning that it's only 50mm. There is no zoom function on it. To zoom, you simply get yourself physically closer or farther away from the subject. This is why I reccomend the 85 1.8. It's a slightly longer lens that is more appropriate for concert photography. Dont be afraid to buy used to save money either, I almost always do, either on ebay, or KEH.com, or from BH. 

Canon 85mm f/1.8 EF USM Autofocus Lens 2519A003 B&H Photo Videoetail is $400, but I bet you could find a used one for $300 or so.


----------



## OhInsanity (Aug 28, 2011)

yeah my birthday is coming up, so I'm just gonna ask for money this year and invest in a nice lens, I can totally do 400 =D
Man, I need a job. I want a lens that has a zoom function though


----------



## Destin (Aug 28, 2011)

OhInsanity said:


> yeah my birthday is coming up, so I'm just gonna ask for money this year and invest in a nice lens, I can totally do 400 =D
> Man, I need a job. I want a lens that has a zoom function though



Zoom lenses are great. However the maximum aperture you can achieve is 2.8. That's a good bit slower than prime lenses like the 50 1.8. 

And although they don't let in nearly as much light as the primes, profesional 2.8 zoom lenses are expensive. The 17-55 2.8 is about $1,400, and the 70-200 1.8 is over $2,000 new. 

Since the key to photographing in low light is fast lenses, and your budget is tight, then primes are your best bet.


----------



## Bakugekiki (Aug 29, 2011)

OhInsanity said:


> Bakugekiki said:
> 
> 
> > While I don't work  or shoot in these kind of conditions I will second sierra's advice. If  the venue is dark then a 300mm at f/5.6 on a Rebel isn't going to be  fast enough or of any real use, I can't see you getting a shutter speed  much higher than a second! You also won't need a focal length much  longer than 70mm if you're anywhere near the bands.
> ...



I did suggest a lens, the Canon EF 50mm 1.8. I know it's now been reposted but I'm not sure that you realised that a 50mm 1.8 was an actual lens. It costs around $100 or £80 so it's a very good investment. 

I second watching Jared Polin's earlier videos, he shares your passion for music photography and has taught me most of what I know about it. He also teaches a very important thing that you need to keep in mind, you need to be thinking about aperture as a priority when choosing a lens. A 300mm 5.6 is fun in bright sunlight but a waste of money if you're trying to shoot at f/5.6 when you can't really get past 800ISO without excessive noise.

It seems like you've got a lot to learn before December, have fun pursuing your passion.


----------



## gsgary (Aug 29, 2011)

The 50mmF1.8 is the lens you want if you will be right infront of the band, the only time i use my 300F2.8L is for bigger bands when you can only shoot the first 3 songs and then i shoot a few from the back


----------



## Bakugekiki (Aug 29, 2011)

gsgary said:


> The 50mmF1.8 is the lens you want if you will be right infront of the band, the only time i use my 300F2.8L is for bigger bands when you can only shoot the first 3 songs and then i shoot a few from the back



He'll be struggling to get a 300mm 2.8 for $300!

I've had a look through some of Jared's videos for you, I'll post you a link to some helpful ones. Is that allowed? If not I'll remove them straight away.














These should include some good tips, there are more but these are found only after a few minutes of searching. I'm sure Jared would also recommend checking out Jim Marshall's work, he has some of the most recognisable music photography ever made. You're sure to have seen it if you're at all interested in Music photography!


----------



## Mot (Aug 29, 2011)

Yeah, I can't recommend Jared Polin enough. He can be a bit irritating at times but definitely knows a lot about music photography, if you watch the right videos he gives you tips about how to get in to the concerts, where to shoot from and sometimes advises which is the best gear to buy. Even for people who don't like concert shoots there's a lot more to learn from him. You might also want to look at Adam Lerner's Channel, he's a musician who became a pro photographer.

The main thing is you get a lens that can cope well with low light, zoom lenses are good if you've got a body capable of high ISO but otherwise you need a fast prime. The 50mm range is the most obvious for you to look at.

Why not post some of your work for us to look at? It would be great to see what kind of style you have in terms of composition and editing!


----------



## penfolderoldo (Aug 29, 2011)

Yep, like Gary only time I use the 300 is festivals and stadium gigs. If you're in the pit or in front of the stage anything much over a 70's likely to be too long. A 50 f/1.8 or even a 50 f/1.4 effectively becomes an 80mm, but that would be the best entry level. I use a 24-70 f/2.8 and an 85 f/1.4. Not sure what the high ISO noise performance is like on the T3 but ideally I try and get away with 1.8 at around 125th of a sec at lowest ISO I can get away with.


----------



## gsgary (Aug 29, 2011)

Here's a few from a 50mmF1.8 before i changed to F1.4, shot with my old 1D at iso1600-3200












And some film shots on Ilford Delta3200 pushed to 6400 shot on an Eos5


----------



## OhInsanity (Aug 29, 2011)

Bakugekiki said:


> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> > The 50mmF1.8 is the lens you want if you will be right infront of the band, the only time i use my 300F2.8L is for bigger bands when you can only shoot the first 3 songs and then i shoot a few from the back
> ...



thanks for the links =]


----------



## OhInsanity (Aug 29, 2011)

Bakugekiki said:


> OhInsanity said:
> 
> 
> > Bakugekiki said:
> ...




yeah but the point of college is to learn, they don't expect you to come in as an expert in the field. Anyways thanks I'll probaly go with the 50 1.8 though the prospect of not being able to zoom out bothers me. Luckily there is a camera supply shop near me and they will let me test the lenses out before I buy one =]


----------



## OhInsanity (Aug 29, 2011)

penfolderoldo said:


> Yep, like Gary only time I use the 300 is festivals and stadium gigs. If you're in the pit or in front of the stage anything much over a 70's likely to be too long. A 50 f/1.8 or even a 50 f/1.4 effectively becomes an 80mm, but that would be the best entry level. I use a 24-70 f/2.8 and an 85 f/1.4. Not sure what the high ISO noise performance is like on the T3 but ideally I try and get away with 1.8 at around 125th of a sec at lowest ISO I can get away with.


 Its not the the zooming in that bothers me, its the fact that I wouldn't really be able to zoom out besides trying to back further away. On my 17-55 lens when I'm at 55 that's usually way to close up for my preference. I usually shoot at 17mm or so unless I really want a facial close up.


----------



## OhInsanity (Aug 29, 2011)

Mot said:


> Yeah, I can't recommend Jared Polin enough. He can be a bit irritating at times but definitely knows a lot about music photography, if you watch the right videos he gives you tips about how to get in to the concerts, where to shoot from and sometimes advises which is the best gear to buy. Even for people who don't like concert shoots there's a lot more to learn from him. You might also want to look at Adam Lerner's Channel, he's a musician who became a pro photographer.
> 
> The main thing is you get a lens that can cope well with low light, zoom lenses are good if you've got a body capable of high ISO but otherwise you need a fast prime. The 50mm range is the most obvious for you to look at.
> 
> Why not post some of your work for us to look at? It would be great to see what kind of style you have in terms of composition and editing!



yeah I'm really glad you guys showed me his site, it helps A LOT =] I'm about to post some of my work so that may help too


----------



## Mot (Aug 29, 2011)

If you get into College you won't have to worry about equipment, well I know at my University I don't. Here they have an extensive stockroom that consists of professional bodies like Nikon D3s, Hasselblads and Mamiyas as well as appropriate lenses for each system all of which you're allowed to book. If your chosen College is good then they should at least have some professional lenses, you might be able to stop short of buying expensive lenses and rely on the College equipment for a while.

Yes, the point is to learn in college. Even though I've had two separate Universities accept me onto their course I am still skeptical about my knowledge and skills. They expect competent students that know what they are talking about and have the ability to learn independently, they don't expect you to be asking very basic questions.

Also, I know I have no right to say this and it's not explicitly written in the rules but OhInsanity could you please keep quadruple posts to a minimum? There is an edit button so it you want to add more information then you can do that. I'm finding the number of different posts confusing to follow. I'm not trying to be rude, I just feels you'll get better responses to a single cohesive post.


----------



## penfolderoldo (Aug 29, 2011)

this i'm sure will be a 'doh' moment for me, but seems I don't have permission to post pics - is it in settings, or have I just not posted enough? :lmao:


----------



## OhInsanity (Aug 29, 2011)

Mot> I'm sorry about all of the posts, I just joined this site and am getting used to the format. Anyways, yeah that's what my friends have told me about colleges. I attended an semester of college at the Savannah College of art and design, which is a fairly well known place, and I was nervous about my own knowledge at first. The foundations course really do walk you through the basics of anything, in fact it was quite boring. From my experience there, I found that at small colleges, the teachers really do care and will help you on an individual level if needed. I just need/want some equipment of my own, especially for my portfolio's sake. 

and penfolderoldo> I can't seem to upload any images either D=


----------



## Mot (Aug 29, 2011)

Where are you trying to post images from? This is a test from Flickr, don't worry it's my own work, and it seems to be working fine. I just clicked 'insert image', took the URL of the image and unchecked the box that said "Retrieve remote file and reference locally".






What kind of course are you doing? I'm just about to start a Degree. Are you doing a Foundation Degree or something similar? My course covers most areas of photography and gives a lot of opportunity for self development, that of course means experimenting with equipment to keep on topic. 

Do you have an online portfolio OhInsanity? It would be interesting to see some of your work.

This one's for you, penfolderoldo!


----------



## OhInsanity (Aug 29, 2011)

oh, I was trying to upload them directly from my computer. I'll go with flikr though.
Nice photo by the way

So how many should I upload, so as not to take up an annoying amount of space?

Mot> I'm just a senior in highschool, I got early acceptance into SCAD through a program they have where seniors get selected to go take a semester of courses there. So as far as actual college, I'm not sure. I want to go to CCA in Cali and major in photography with a possible minor in creative writing. So I guess my goal is to get my BFA in photography. As far as a portfolio, I'm working on creating a facebook page for my work, I'll post it on here when I get it finished =]. Do you have an online portfolio?

*Help* Every time I try to upload from flickr, it says "invalid url" =(


----------



## Mot (Aug 29, 2011)

To get the correct URL you have to go into 'Actions' on the photo that you want to post, then you select which size, right click the picture and go to 'view image'. That should take you to a page just displaying that photo, the URL that's displayed on that page is the one you want. You also have to uncheck "Retrieve remote file and reference locally".

I would only post 3 or 4; we have a number or images and videos on this page already. We don't want to clog it!

Personally I only have a collection of images on Flickr in a folder called 'Portfolio', they're quite old now. Eventually I'll have my own website. Right now I don't need one.


----------



## OhInsanity (Aug 29, 2011)

These are all pretty grainy. I was shooting with my 17-55mm and its max ap is like f/5.6 which suucccckkkss! So I had to bump up my ISO pretty high (6400) and use a slow shutter speed (1/30) to get the right exposure =/ which Is why I want a faster lens so badly with a wider ap.
















there are a few, there are more on my flickr if you want to look Flickr: OhInsanity's Photostream


----------



## Mot (Aug 29, 2011)

They're interesting photos, it looks like you've got an idea of what you want to achieve from them. I'd like to see their faces more but I think that's as much about less than compliant subjects as it is unfortunate timing! I'm ignoring the fact that they're blurry, sharp images are going to be difficult to get with a lens not suitable for the circumstances. Overall I can see your work improving a lot as you get more practise, Jared Polin's work is sure to inspire you!


----------



## OhInsanity (Aug 29, 2011)

thanks, that's only the 2nd time I've ever shot a show. Hopefully once I get a more suitable lens, I'll be able to get the quality I want.


----------



## Destin (Aug 29, 2011)

Alright. This is off topic, and not really my business. But I'm throwing it out there anyway. 

Photographers who waste time and money getting a degree in photography, are usually the least successful. EVERYTHING that you will learn in college can be learned online, for FREE in a fraction of the time. You want to succeed in photography? Get a business or marketing degree. 

The photographers who generally are more successful are the ones who, instead of wasting years of time in college for photography, teach themselves instead. This is as much to do with their lack of college loans to pay off (think of the gear your tuition could buy you!) as it is about their personality. Generally photographers who teach themselves and don't go to school for it are more driven and motivated. They know that if they want to succeed, they need to do it on their own. Nobody is going to do it for you, and no degree is really going to land you a photography job. College MIGHT get you some connections in the industry, but it's unlikely to be worth what you paid for the degree. 

I'm done. Sorry for getting off topic. I'm not trying to crush your dreams, just trying to give you advice. A photography degree is not worth what it costs. Period.


----------



## OhInsanity (Aug 29, 2011)

Destin said:


> Alright. This is off topic, and not really my business. But I'm throwing it out there anyway.
> 
> Photographers who waste time and money getting a degree in photography, are usually the least successful. EVERYTHING that you will learn in college can be learned online, for FREE in a fraction of the time. You want to succeed in photography? Get a business or marketing degree.
> 
> ...




Don't worry you aren't crushing my dreams, I'm not naive. I was going to take courses in business and management anyways. Also, I'm sorry but my parents aren't gonna et me not go to college and since I dont have a job and I live in a crappy little town in GA, college is my ONLY ticket out of here. Plus with the amount of scholarships I currently have going for me, I wont pay that much for college if I keep up my gpa. I also want to take the opportunity to learn as much as I can about the things that go with photography (large format, etc) I dont have the means to learn some things on my own, but yes, I agree that most knowledge comes from first hand experience. Colleges can provide internships and resources that a teenager just can't get on their own unless they're already loaded, which I am far from it. So sorry that I actually want to go to college and get an education.

Besides dude I just looked at your profile, you're only 18 what the f*** do you know. I know, I'm only 17, I used to have the screw college attitude too, but its proven that people with a college degree earn much more money than those who don't.


----------



## Mot (Aug 30, 2011)

Circumstances in the UK are slightly different. Fortunately it doesn't cost $35,000 to get a University education, yet. Here there is a culture that means that a degree is almost compulsory, regardless of whether it helps in your chosen field. Such is the saturation of degree graduates that it is now not a guarantee that a degree holder will get a job when they leave University. We're not in a real meritocracy, no matter how skilled an individual is if they don't have the paper, credentials and experience they don't get the job.

I have to disagree about your statement about degree photographers being less successful, this is not something that can be proven or backed up. So you're suggesting that I go and shadow a professional in my area, my brother has attempted a similar feat, albeit in a different field, but was rejected without any consideration whatsoever. I wouldn't be surprised if I had less chance of gaining any experience than him. I also ask, where would you expect me to gain studio experience? There aren't any large studios in my local area, I have no choice but to travel for nearly 2 hours to University. 

The three year course that I'm starting will not only get me industry links, as you said, but two of the years contain work experience. That's exactly what you're suggesting.

Please don't accuse me of not being driven, you made a ridiculous generalisation. We all need to find ways of achieving what we want, but then again I'm sure it's easier in New York. Easier than a rural, isolated county in England.


----------



## ghache (Aug 30, 2011)

OhInsanity said:


> yeah my birthday is coming up, so I'm just gonna ask for money this year and invest in a nice lens, I can totally do 400 =D
> Man, I need a job. I want a lens that has a zoom function though



for +-400$ and want a zoom you can have a look at the tamron 17-50mm F2.8. it a great lens and fairly fast (faster than the regular f3.5 lens)
distortion isnt bad and the damn thing is sharp all over the zoom range and pretty good wide open so for show where you can shoot from the pit well it could be a great lens. Bumping the iso to 400-800 at F2.8, depending on how the stage is lid you could do fine. prime will give you alot more play with the available light but will also keep you from taking some shots that require you to move quickly and we all know that these suckers on stage move quite fast sometimes. 

If money isnt an issue, 24-70 for the close shots and a 70-200 for longer shots + a wide angle or a fisheye for shots really close to the stage is still the way to go.

have a look at Concert Photography & Band Portraits: Music Photographer Todd Owyoung

this guy is pretty good at shooting live band


----------



## Destin (Aug 30, 2011)

OhInsanity said:


> Destin said:
> 
> 
> > Alright. This is off topic, and not really my business. But I'm throwing it out there anyway.
> ...



I NEVER said don't go to college. I said don't go to college *for photography*. BIG difference. Am I myelf going to college? No, but only because the career I'm trying to get into has an age cap of 27 for applicants, and doesn't require a college education (firefighting). My time is currently better spent taking courses at my county's fire training center. Currently I'm enrolled in my EMT course, and I've already completed 4 other courses there this year. I'm taking college level classes, and some even give me college credit (firefighter 1, EMT). I get them all free, for being a volunteer firefighter. That's why im not in college, not because I have a screw college attitude.                                                                    

Will you earn more with a college degree than if you don't have one? Yes, it's been proven that you will. But that's the AVERAGE of all careers in America. If you look at just photography, statistics show that photographers with a college degree earn on average $1,000 more per year than those without one. Big Whoop. Book an additional wedding and you've overcome the difference and then some. It's been proven time and time again that your photography skills are NOT what make you money as a photographer, it's your business and marketing skills. 

If you have your heart set on majoring in photography, go for it. I'm just pointing out that in America, a photography degree will take forever to pay for itself with the $1,000 per year advantage that it gets you. 

How do I know all this? Because a year ago I was set on going to the Art Institute of Pittsburgh for photography, until I did the research. It just doesn't make financial sense. If you are blowing money on a college degree today, it should be on something that gives you a plan B, like a business degree for example. If you get a photography degree, and can't get a job as a photographer, or your business fails, then your degree gives you no plan B. That's the biggest downfall. 

I'm not trying to stop you, I'm just laying the facts out in front of you. I'm not some punk with a screw college attitude! But in an economy like we have, where over half of college grads end up working in something completely unrelated to their major, you have to be sure you get the most bang for your buck out of college.


----------



## Destin (Aug 30, 2011)

Mot said:


> . We all need to find ways of achieving what we want, but then again I'm sure it's easier in New York. Easier than a rural, isolated county in England.



The Part of New York I live in is rural too bud. I live in a town of 800 people, for me to get to a city I have to drive almost an hour. In my community of 800, there are 4 professional photography businesses, not including myself. I live in the most saturated part of the country for wedding photographers. Succeeding here as a photographer is nearly impossible, and I don't want to live in a city, which is why I chose not to pursue full time photography, and just run it as a side gig.


----------



## Mot (Aug 30, 2011)

Well this got off topic. Maybe we should stop discussing photography as a career and return to the original idea of the thread, which has been exhausted already. I guess this means the end of the thread, just another one to add the the overarching tone of negativity that I find quite overwhelming on this forum. I see so many threads that deteriorate into an argument, I'm ashamed to be part of one. 

So, OhInsanity, have you looked any further into the 50mm 1.8?


----------



## OhInsanity (Aug 30, 2011)

I was going to argue some more, because that's my nature, but Mot you're right I don't want this to be a negative forum. ANYWAYS, thanks to all of you guys for your helpful lens suggestions and website references. I've learned a lot and this has been very helpful, so thank you!!! I think I'm gonna save up and try to get a 24-70mm 2.8 I dunno though. Its a tough call with the various lens suggestions you guys have given me. I'm just going to go to my local camera shop and try out lenses to see what suits me best. I'm definitely going to look into the 50 1.8 mostly because it is so affordable.


----------



## Mot (Aug 30, 2011)

Wow, that's a big jump from a $100 lens to a $1200+ lens. It would still be a good idea to spend that $100 and learn with the 50mm 1.8, it is going to be much more valuable than saving up for a lens that, in reality, won't cope with every situation. I think you still need to understand fully the advantage you'd get from having such a fast lens, there's a reason why the fast fifty remains so popular, even on crop bodies.


----------



## OhInsanity (Aug 30, 2011)

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?


----------



## Mot (Aug 30, 2011)

There seems to be a lot of debate over the 1.4, some say it's not worth the extra $300 while others seems to think it's exponentially better! It's usually the professionals choice when it comes to a 50mm; it has better build quality and full-time manual focus over-ride not to mention half-a-stop more light. I'm currently watching some on eBay because the 1.4 is probably going to be my next lens, replacing the 1.8. 

Don't think that the lack of zoom will limit you, while photographer's areas are small at gigs you still have room to move about with your legs.


----------



## OhInsanity (Aug 30, 2011)

hmm...I dunno I'll just have to think about it some more. The 1.4 sounds tempting. yeah I'm not worried about not being able to get close, its that it'll be too close up that I'm worried about. I shot those pics at mostly 17mm except for the top one which was probably at 55mm...I like wide shots mostly


----------



## Destin (Aug 30, 2011)

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 (Aug 30, 2011)

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 (Aug 30, 2011)

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 (Aug 30, 2011)

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 (Aug 30, 2011)

Destin said:


> 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.
> 
> ...



Agreed^^^


----------



## ghache (Aug 30, 2011)

most rental places rent the top notch stuff.


----------



## Destin (Aug 30, 2011)

OhInsanity said:


> 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&#39;s Channel - YouTube


----------



## e.rose (Aug 30, 2011)

OhInsanity said:


> 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 (Aug 30, 2011)

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 (Aug 30, 2011)

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 (Aug 31, 2011)

vfotog said:


> 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.
> 
> ...



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 (Aug 31, 2011)

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 (Sep 1, 2011)

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 (Jun 29, 2012)

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


----------

