Concert shooting advice

[sternwachter]

I have nothing to add to this, other than an anecdote-- decades ago, when I was young (1976, I think it was), I tried photographing Emerson, Lake, and Palmer when they appeared nearby. I was interested in photography, but did not yet have my own camera so my uncle, who worked for Eastman Kodak, rented a camera for me from the Camera Club at the Kodak plant. It was Nikkormat of some sort and was very nice, although I knew little about how to properly use it. The film, I think was slide film so probably Ektachrome 200 or maybe 400. Anyway, when I pointed the camera at the stage, I couldn't see the match needle (at all) to set the exposure properly so I pointed the camera toward the left so I could see the needle against the lit-up performers. Of course, when I got the slides back they were all very over-exposed since I was actually metering against a dark part of the stage-- :-(

Tom

 

[warden]

I've tried P3200, D3200 and HP5, all shot between iso1000 and iso1600, and they're all good. HP5 is noticeably cheaper, so there is that to consider. And P3200 isn't available in medium format yet, which is a shame. The 3200 films will give superior results imho, but HP5 is good too.

 

[xkaes]

Unless you want a lot of grain, there is no need to use a super fast film at a concert -- unless it's in a cellar.

If you want to add "atmosphere", shoot with a shorter lens, crop the negative and add a lot of contrast.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I have nothing to add to this, other than an anecdote-- decades ago, when I was young (1976, I think it was), I tried photographing Emerson, Lake, and Palmer when they appeared nearby. I was interested in photography, but did not yet have my own camera so my uncle, who worked for Eastman Kodak, rented a camera for me from the Camera Club at the Kodak plant. It was Nikkormat of some sort and was very nice, although I knew little about how to properly use it. The film, I think was slide film so probably Ektachrome 200 or maybe 400. Anyway, when I pointed the camera at the stage, I couldn't see the match needle (at all) to set the exposure properly so I pointed the camera toward the left so I could see the needle against the lit-up performers. Of course, when I got the slides back they were all very over-exposed since I was actually metering against a dark part of the stage-- :-(

Tom

Welcome to APUG Photrio!! from a former Kodak employee​

 

[warden]

Unless you want a lot of grain, there is no need to use a super fast film at a concert -- unless it's in a cellar.

The reason to use super fast film is that it's faster. ;-) If performers are moving and you want to limit motion blur without a flash, faster film will do that without introducing the extra contrast that pushed 400 speed film will. I like both approaches, but if money was no object I'd stick to 3200 films for indoor performances or outdoor evening performances.

 

[xkaes]

I'll admit, I've never photographed Cirque du Soleil, but I suspect their lighting is bright enough to freeze the action even with ISO 100 film.

 

[GregY]

I've tried P3200, D3200 and HP5, all shot between iso1000 and iso1600, and they're all good. HP5 is noticeably cheaper, so there is that to consider. And P3200 isn't available in medium format yet, which is a shame. The 3200 films will give superior results imho, but HP5 is good too.

But Delta 3200 in 120 works like a charm. I have some fine results w a Mamiya 6 /75mm at a ballet performance.

 

[warden]

I'll admit, I've never photographed Cirque du Soleil, but I suspect their lighting is bright enough to freeze the action even with ISO 100 film.

If you ever get the chance, take the ISO 100 approach and let us know how it goes.

 

[xkaes]

If you ever get the chance, take the ISO 100 approach and let us know how it goes.

I've been paid to photograph lots of concerts with Kodachrome 25 and never had a problem. If you want impressive concert color that can't be beat.

 

[warden]

I've been paid to photograph lots of concerts with Kodachrome 25 and never had a problem. If you want impressive concert color that can't be beat.

I'd love to see an example if you have one handy. What a challenge that must have been to expose without motion blur! Even with stage lighting literally as bright as the sun I wouldn't choose such a slow film unless there was nothing else available. (Sunny 16 would have scared me away.) Here's a shot I made using ISO125 film, but I was seeking the motion blur or I would have chosen a faster film.

 

[Helge]

Initially I used HP5 at 1600 EI, but then switched to XP1 and then XP2 pish processed. When Ilford released XP2 it was with the standard C41 processing time, XP1 had a non-standard C41 process time and labs didn't like processing it, but Ilford also listed push process times.

The advantage of XP2 is you don't get the same contrast build up with push processing in C41 chemistry, as you do with Tri-X or HP5nin regular B&W developers.

Ian

In B&W chemistry is there really a big difference between D3200 and XP2?
I mean apart from a stop and a bit more real speed with the former.

What are the real advantages of chromogenic
film?
Again, apart from the, now mostly nugatory, spiel about being able to process at small drugstore labs.
Smoother grain, perhaps. But that is possible, to a degree with solvent developers too.
Edge effects?

 

[Sirius Glass]

I've been paid to photograph lots of concerts with Kodachrome 25 and never had a problem. If you want impressive concert color that can't be beat.

Except it is hard to find. Hard to get processed. You cannot process it yourself.

 

[xkaes]

Say it ain't so, Joe! Say it ain't so!!!

 

[Huss]

I showed the results of pushing Kentmere 400 to 1600 in this thread:

Pushing Kentmere 400 to 1600 using Cinestill DF96 Monobath

This was an experiment. I was looking for big, chunky grain and was curious to see if pushing Kentmere 400 to 1600 with DF96 would do it. 6 minutes dev time @ 90. Here is a selection of images from that roll (Leica M7, CV 40 1.2) taken in blazing sunlight and very dim indoor conditions. I...

www.photrio.com

 

[Ian Grant]

In B&W chemistry is there really a big difference between D3200 and XP2?
I mean apart from a stop and a bit more real speed with the former.

What are the real advantages of chromogenic
film?
Again, apart from the, now mostly nugatory, spiel about being able to process at small drugstore labs.
Smoother grain, perhaps. But that is possible, to a degree with solvent developers too.
Edge effects?

XP2 (and XP1 before it) has a longer and straighter curve than conventional films, and smoother, finer when processed in C41 chemistry. D3200 wasn't available until 1998, I had tried Tmax 3200 much earlier but preferred XP2. My peak period shooting concerts with film was the mid 1970 to late 80s using a stringer at more important concerts, less regularly in the 1990s, picking up substantially by the early 2000s but by then clients needed digital files.

It's rare that we as photographers have any control over concert lighting, which can be poor at some smaller venues, and even when it's good we are at the mercy of the lighting engineer. I got to know the lighting engineer at a venue I shot at regularly he owned the lighting rig, he would give me the lighting I needed for the first 3 numbers of a band's set. One evening I was shooting the support act for The Wonder Stuff, and stayed to shoot them as well, the lighting was excellent for the support act, but the headline act used their own lighting engineer and the lighting was poor.

Ian

 

[warden]

I showed the results of pushing Kentmere 400 to 1600 in this thread:

Pushing Kentmere 400 to 1600 using Cinestill DF96 Monobath

This was an experiment. I was looking for big, chunky grain and was curious to see if pushing Kentmere 400 to 1600 with DF96 would do it. 6 minutes dev time @ 90. Here is a selection of images from that roll (Leica M7, CV 40 1.2) taken in blazing sunlight and very dim indoor conditions. I...

www.photrio.com

I missed that thread but it was a good one. Thanks Huss!

 

[guangong]

I'd love to see an example if you have one handy. What a challenge that must have been to expose without motion blur! Even with stage lighting literally as bright as the sun I wouldn't choose such a slow film unless there was nothing else available. (Sunny 16 would have scared me away.) Here's a shot I made using ISO125 film, but I was seeking the motion blur or I would have chosen a faster film.
View attachment 318026

True. What is the problem with blur? It is a useful method for photographing motion in still photography. Otherwise, using ultra fast shutter speeds freezes motion, almost deathlike. Pictures taken during a natural pause of performance have a more natural living look.

 

[removedacct1]

My first recommendation is to avoid using "concert" and "shooting" in the same sentence.

 

[Sirius Glass]

My first recommendation is to avoid using "concert" and "shooting" in the same sentence.

That is my thought especially since the Los Vegas concert shooting.

2017 Las Vegas shooting - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[GregY]

or....the Bataclan shootings in Paris:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_2015_Paris_attacks

 

[rulnacco]

Since many others have offered you advice about film--some of which I also use myself--and most of it is very good indeed, I won't go into that. Instead, I'll offer a tip if you're shooting with a (physically) fairly long lens, for steadying the camera & reducing shake. (I'm assuming from this discussion you're not using anything with stabilisation/vibration reduction.)

If you have the room to do it, take your left hand, and reach over and grab your right bicep, right above your right elbow or a little higher. Now, you can lay your lens right across the bend of your left elbow, and use it as a shooting platform to steady the lens; this particularly works well if you're shooting in portrait orientation. That will give you a stop or two of stabilisation when shooting at lower shutter speeds, or with a telephoto where even speeds of 1/125 or 1/250 of a second may be subject to some blur from camera motion.

Do be careful with it, as your left elbow will now be sticking out in front of you, as well as the end of the lens, and if someone is in front of you it's easy to catch them in the back of the head--which of course they will resent. I usually use this technique when I'm up front and off to the side with no one directly in front of me that I could catch that way, it's really great for getting profile/three-quarter shots of individual musicians as well as group shots where the drummer isn't obscured.

 

[benjiboy]

The biggest problem about shooting concerts without valid press credentials, and previous permission from the promoters / organisers with pro. looking equipment, is getting thrown out by the security guards whatever film you use, because the organisers and performers want to keep control of the use and copyright of the images shot at the concert,and where they are reproduced.
Many hobby photographers don't appreciate that because they have a camera it doesn't give them the right to use it anywhere, and that certainly isn't the case on private property.

 

[eli griggs]

I photographed a lot of professional dancers, small bands l, etc with 400 iso Ektachrome, 400 Tri-x and XP-2 without difficulty or special processing, in the 1970's - 1980's and the same iso films today are every bit as good as those were.

Bright stage lighting is no difficult to capture, however, overexposure is an issue that begs for a spot meter.

Low, mood lighting is a different story but the lighting will be relatively good, as it is capable of revialing clear views from the back of the hall or house to paying patrons at that performance.

No one pays to almost glimpse a performance and lighting masters do no get too many jobs for being bad at their work.