Concert performances

Photometric

Is taking images of concert performances considered PJ?

thoth

Photometric wrote:

Is taking images of concert performances considered PJ?

I think this would greatly depend on how you intended to use the images. If they were for a publication I would guess it would qualify. If they were intended for publicity shots, or something along those lines, probably not.

At any rate, they are certainly candid photos and should apply to this forum I'd think.

Photometric

for example:


Taken at the June 2009 show of the Nine Inch Nails wave goodbye tour.
Located here

thoth

This type of shot isn't typical of what gets posted here, for sure. However, I still hold that it would fit into PJ or Documentary, depending on it's purpose and/or your commentary. There are certainly more qualified folks around here, though, who can provide a much more intelligent response.

Photometric

The reason I ask is because Nine Inch Nails allows fan-based projects based upon footage or stills taken by the fans at concerts. They allow them to be used for projects/productions by the fans as long as they are not sold but they are allowed to distribute using the Creative Commons License. So, I was contacted by a local production company that wanted to use some of the photos taken in their production used while the credits roll while giving proper credit. So I wondered if in that vein it would be considered PJ

thoth

Well, I wouldn't feel comfortable giving any legal advice outside of erring on the side of caution. If the production is for profit, and your shots are used even if you are not payed, there could be issues. I honest don't know, though.

Perhaps you could contact NiN's PR representative and find out from the horse's mouth? There's some information at the bottom of this page which may help in contacting them.

Photometric

The production is not being used for profit. I have it in writing, and the NIN creative commons license allows use not-for-profit. The productions are done to get concert footage out there and for small companies to show what they can do in hopes of being discovered for future hired work. They have a whole project called 'this one's on us'. It's "For the fans, by the fans" . However, the whole project's focus is to get footage out there and for small companies to get recognition for their ability to produce work.

thoth

Ah, gotcha. In that case I don't think I'd hesitate to allow the photos to be included. I would say the PJ argument is an easy one.

bdcolen

Photometric wrote:

Richard's call entirely - it's his forum. My take is this is the place to post photos -primarily of people and/or their impact on their surroundings - that capture reality. From my perspective it doesn't matter what they're called, or whether you're taking them for pay or play. The question is - is this "real?" - whatever that may be. And given that criteria, why not this?

That said, I love the light, and affect here, but the image itself seems fairly snap-shotty.

Photometric

bdcolen wrote:

Richard's call entirely - it's his forum. My take is this is the place to post photos -primarily of people and/or their impact on their surroundings - that capture reality. From my perspective it doesn't matter what they're called, or whether you're taking them for pay or play. The question is - is this "real?" - whatever that may be. And given that criteria, why not this?

That said, I love the light, and affect here, but the image itself seems fairly snap-shotty.

For education purposes....can you elaborate further on what in the frame looks snap-shotty and what would look more professional on a concert that is happening in real time? And let me explain further, being in a specific location (assigned seat) that didn't allow me to roam so I had pretty much what you saw for a view using a 70-300mm lens from the back of the auditorium

bdcolen

Photometric wrote:

For education purposes....can you elaborate further on what in the frame looks snap-shotty and what would look more professional on a concert that is happening in real time? And let me explain further, being in a specific location (assigned seat) that didn't allow me to roam so I had pretty much what you saw for a view using a 70-300mm lens from the back of the auditorium

God, I hate this web/email/posting communication thing. I can see that what I posted probably came across as a snotty put down, and I did not mean it that way. And what I say now may also come across that way, but it wouldn't if we were sitting down and talking.

Anyway -the best way to put it is that you have beautifully described what's wrong with the shot - it looks as though it was shot with a long lens from the back of the hall, and you were unable to move to get a better shot. For instance, I might suggest cropping in as much as possible on the figure with the raised arms, but - for me anyway - the fact that one arm is visually in front of the speaker ruins that possibility - I'd like to see both arms silhouetted in the smokey light. I think this is a case of it is what it is.:D

Photometric

bdcolen wrote:

God, I hate this web/email/posting communication thing. I can see that what I posted probably came across as a snotty put down, and I did not mean it that way. And what I say now may also come across that way, but it wouldn't if we were sitting down and talking.

Anyway -the best way to put it is that you have beautifully described what's wrong with the shot - it looks as though it was shot with a long lens from the back of the hall, and you were unable to move to get a better shot. For instance, I might suggest cropping in as much as possible on the figure with the raised arms, but - for me anyway - the fact that one arm is visually in front of the speaker ruins that possibility - I'd like to see both arms silhouetted in the smokey light. I think this is a case of it is what it is.:D

It wasn't taken as a snotty put down, which is why I prefaced my response "For education purposes...." I was interested in what could be done to make those circumstances and shot better.

Richard

Photometric wrote:

It wasn't taken as a snotty put down, which is why I prefaced my response "For education purposes...." I was interested in what could be done to make those circumstances and shot better.

You have to be closer--much closer. Compare your shot with these: http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=147343

Now it's true that it's hard to compete with someone who has access to the stage, but that's just the way it is. People will inevitably compare your work to the shots they have seen on the liners of CDs and in magazines. In the best of cases, concert shooting is very difficult--weird, harsh lighting, performers in motion, smoke. If you're at the back of the auditorium (and probably trying to hide your gear from the security goons) it may not even be worth the effort.

bdcolen

Richard wrote:

You have to be closer--much closer. Compare your shot with these: http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=147343

Now it's true that it's hard to compete with someone who has access to the stage, but that's just the way it is. People will inevitably compare your work to the shots they have seen on the liners of CDs and in magazines. In the best of cases, concert shooting is very difficult--weird, harsh lighting, performers in motion, smoke. If you're at the back of the auditorium (and probably trying to hide your gear from the security goons) it may not even be worth the effort.

Richard is absolutely right - BUT - yours are, because of the lighting, somehow more real than these, which while they are great shots of the artists, seem like publicity shots.

As to how to improve what you're doing given the constraints...try for closer seats. Sorry. As much as possible I'd frame very carefully, to get rid of as much extraneous material as possible, and then I'd crop to bring the subjects closer.

Photometric

Richard,

Luckily, we were allowed to bring in our equipment to the concert, but, of course, we had to keep our assigned seats. The closest I could zoom in on was here:


If there was a way to get better seats, that's different, but the band released a memo outlining their camera policy, which was you could bring almost anything but didn't have the rights to sell anything you got. So, I got some great memories.

An example of being able to get closer, tighter shot is here:



Thanks for everyone's comments. I just want to get better. As Einstein said..."The only reason I can see so far, is because I stand on the shoulders of giants"

bdcolen

Photometric wrote:

Richard,

Luckily, we were allowed to bring in our equipment to the concert, but, of course, we had to keep our assigned seats. The closest I could zoom in on was here:


If there was a way to get better seats, that's different, but the band released a memo outlining their camera policy, which was you could bring almost anything but didn't have the rights to sell anything you got. So, I got some great memories.

An example of being able to get closer, tighter shot is here:



Thanks for everyone's comments. I just want to get better. As Einstein said..."The only reason I can see so far, is because I stand on the shoulders of giants"

These are much more like it!

Photometric

I'm sure there's more that could've been done to improve, is there anything that pops out at you that will he helpful next time?
I was just checking this post as you were replying.

TIA.

Patti

Check out Todd's site for lots of info about shooting gigs. Also, the concert photography group on flickr has lots of discussion and some threads with good suggestions about live music photography as well.
Their official 'ask for feedback' thread is:
http://www.flickr.com/groups/concertshots/discuss/72157603996858425/

I've learned a lot from both sources. Enjoy!