zoetmb Offline Upload & Sell: Off
|
p.1 #9 · Concert Photos: The 'Artsy' Approach... | |
Concert photography is hard, especially if you can't shoot with flash. When you shoot major acts, there's usually plenty of good quality stage lighting. But when you shoot local bands in clubs and smaller venues, the lighting usually sucks, especially when they light the performer in only red or orange light, which is almost impossible to get anything out of. Othertimes, the dynamics are broader than the DSLR sensor can handle. Even when the lighting is okay, 80% of the time, there's a microphone in front of the lead vocalists face. And if you're in a crowded club, it's impossible to move into a good position. If you're non-authorized and shooting from a seat, you can't move at all. I do a lot of concert photography and it's always a crapshoot. Sometimes you get lucky.
But I agree with the others about being selective. If you don't post a bad photo, people can only judge you by your better photos. If you can't be your own editor, because you're too emotionally tied to each image, get someone else to edit for you. Imagine that you're supplying photos for a story about the act and they can only fit (or afford) three photos. That's how selective you have to be.
These don't look post-processed to me. There's a lot you can do in post-processing to "save" concert photos. Sometimes you just have to bump levels on the face. Other times, you bump the right side of the curve and then use selective color to restore the blacks. If you wind up with a lot of noise in dark backgrounds, you can smooth them out. A lot of times in post-processing, if the photo is "too busy" with amps, cables, mic stands, etc., I'll de-focus them both in front of and behind the performer. When you do that, the subject will seem sharper in comparison. Other times, a diffuse look on the subject will help: sort of makes them seem more mythic and it will get rid of distracting details like pores on the skin, etc.
They're not all that bad. #1 and #9 are okay, IMO.
|