On Sun, 9 Jan 2005 23:53:19 -0500, Luigi de Guzman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Lighting's a funny thing. In situations like this, I almost don't mind the > killer contrast range (like your b&w concert shots), because it lets me > pretend that the light wasn't as bad as it really was. I don't know if I made > any sense there. Sort of... <vbg> > > Curiously, for those, what film were you using? Tri-X at 1600? Nope, it was either Fuji Neopan 1600 pushed a stop or Ilford Delta 1600 pushed a stop. I liked the Fuji better, so I've used it more (I only bought the Delta 'cause they were out of Neopan that day. That'll show you how dim the one teeny red spot was on Jen - with 3200 film, I had my SMC 2.5 135 wide open, and was shooting at around 1/60th most of the night... You probably > had much nicer light than my local bar (where I do most of my snapping) > does.... a couple of tungsten lights (when they work) and a discoball is > about it. By memory, it's 1/30th or thereabouts at f/1.4 if I'm using Tri-X > at 1600...nearly impossible to get decent photos while simultaneously > dancing. > > http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2225272 Nice! As I was shooting 3200, at around 2.5 and 1/60th it sounds like the light was pretty similar - maybe one stop less light for you (if my rough mental calculations are correct). > > I have used flash before, reasonably successfully, I think, anyway: > > http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2225294 I've used flash for rocks bands, and they didn't mind it at all. But Jen's band does relatively quiet torch songs, and when I told her I wouldn't use a flash, she said she preferred it that way. My most recent shoot of her was in collaboration with a dancer, and it was in a theatre, rather than a bar: http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2923088 http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2920203 http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2920209 The lighting was still a bit sparse, but it was certainly more even and not nearly as harsh as the bar. > [gee. I gotta put new stuff on the photo.net gallery] > > Concert photography is great fun, though. It certainly lets me meet > interesting people, like this fellow, who somehow got it into his head that I > was with Rolling Stone > > http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2225468 > > And it (usually) leaves me sober at the end of the night. With both hands on > the camera, it's pretty tough to hold a beer at the same time--although I > have managed it from time to time. Agreed on all counts - a camera at a bar is a great social tool, and if there's a band there, they tend not to kick you out when the flash starts going off. And, yeah, I don't drink as much when I'm shooting either, so (a) I don't get as drunk, and (b) I don't spend as much on booze (but that's likely offset by film and processing costs <vbg>). Mind you, Jennifer puts me on the guest list, so I save cover, and the shots I just posted in this post were at a Jazz Festival last spring, where it cost about $25 for the evening, and I got a cool looking "All Venue" pass to hang around my neck and wander around before their show - I had people figuring I was press of something (as if!!) <g>. Tomorrow night, I'm going to a "party" at a bar where the jazz band of a friend of mine is playing. Haven't shot jazz before - should be fun, especially as I now have the K 1.2 50mm (woo hoo!). I'll post the pix if they turn out. cheers, frank -- "Sharpness is a bourgeois concept." -Henri Cartier-Bresson
