03-07-2011, 11:17 AM
[quote name='IanCD' timestamp='1299446807' post='6562']
Yes, I can see the 35, or maybe even a bit wider, would be good at times.
Nice gig in a cafe last night, could have done with a bit more width, but also a bit more length at times. Even 150mm will be usful sometimes, but I wouldn't want to carry anything really heavy / cumbersome.
The spotlights were a hassle, plus the light one of the band members was using to read music.. very bright..! (Oh, and the dancers..!)
Some of the best shots were from the side, & the light levels meant I was using both lenses wide open, so only one or two of the band in focus at any time (when I got in focus, that is... this is going to take a lot of practice).
Even with the 1.8 and 1.4 I was still using ISO 3200 to get ~ 1/80 - 1/100, and that's at -1EV (I've found pics with histograms showing 'correct' exposure look way too bright and don't capture the atmosphere of the place and the gig).
[/quote]
Ouch - 3200 ISO is quite high if you want to get shots for printing. Plus (on my camera at least) there is a red colour cast, image degradation etc. at such high ISOs.
If you are working on a contract basis and the band/performer are paying you to do publicity/album photos etc., it's often better to speak to the lighting technician and the band and tell them you want more overall light.
I always make a point of giving customers a realistic idea of what to expect if the lighting is bad, and advise them to increase the lighting if they really need large prints for posters, flyers etc.
There's also the option of using a bit of flash with coloured gel, but I've never really had satisfying results that way.
Yes, I can see the 35, or maybe even a bit wider, would be good at times.
Nice gig in a cafe last night, could have done with a bit more width, but also a bit more length at times. Even 150mm will be usful sometimes, but I wouldn't want to carry anything really heavy / cumbersome.
The spotlights were a hassle, plus the light one of the band members was using to read music.. very bright..! (Oh, and the dancers..!)
Some of the best shots were from the side, & the light levels meant I was using both lenses wide open, so only one or two of the band in focus at any time (when I got in focus, that is... this is going to take a lot of practice).
Even with the 1.8 and 1.4 I was still using ISO 3200 to get ~ 1/80 - 1/100, and that's at -1EV (I've found pics with histograms showing 'correct' exposure look way too bright and don't capture the atmosphere of the place and the gig).
[/quote]
Ouch - 3200 ISO is quite high if you want to get shots for printing. Plus (on my camera at least) there is a red colour cast, image degradation etc. at such high ISOs.
If you are working on a contract basis and the band/performer are paying you to do publicity/album photos etc., it's often better to speak to the lighting technician and the band and tell them you want more overall light.
I always make a point of giving customers a realistic idea of what to expect if the lighting is bad, and advise them to increase the lighting if they really need large prints for posters, flyers etc.
There's also the option of using a bit of flash with coloured gel, but I've never really had satisfying results that way.