Check 'em out...

http://www.bigmusicgeek.com/gallery/index.php?gazpart=show&gazgal=31

Granted, they only look like this due to odd lighting...

I think your presentation needs improvement. You posted a link to a large number of small pics. The alternate way to present is to choose 2 or 3 of your best and post them here with a size of 800 pixels or so on the longest side.

Imbed them, not a link. Post the link below that for those who want to see more.

That approach will show us which one you think are best, encourage critique of those pics, and allow a look at the rest. Giving a link to 26 photos will result in little or no feedback.

What's so "Artsy" about a bunch of out of focus, poorly lit pictures?

Sorry, these pictures don't work for me. They feel like concert snapshots that people post on myspace, not 'artsy'.

I second what Jim said above - select a handful that you think are the best and embed them here with proper numbering if you want to encourage critiques.

I hate to be as harsh but I have to agree with the others on this. Badly composed and badly exposed shots doesn't mean artsy (although I feel like you wee being a little sarcastic in your labeling them that). The lighting actually looks like it might have been halfway decent, lots of white light which should make your job easier. Almost all of the shots I looked at were soft on focus. Watch out for mic in the face shots. They are one of the biggest no-no's so far as I'm concerned in concert photos. They only work 1% of the time. Also there is a difference between motion blur from your shutter being too slow and from them moving too fast.

Hopefully you can take this as constructive. Keep working at it and good luck!

I just re-read what I wrote and it sounds pretty harsh - didn't mean to be rude. However I'm not editing it since it was my first reaction when I saw the pictures and you probably want to know how people really feel about something you put up.

alphakappa wrote:
I just re-read what I wrote and it sounds pretty harsh - didn't mean to be rude. However I'm not editing it since it was my first reaction when I saw the pictures and you probably want to know how people really feel about something you put up.

You weren't being harsh or rude -- you were simply being truthful. This was only my third attempt at shooting a concert and obviously these shots didn't fare as well as some of the others (most notably the shots of the headliner Korn). I'm sure with more practice (and perhaps better equipment), the results will be far more impressive.

It is not too late to post a few here for critique. I promise you someone will provide some suggestions and comments that may lead to a big improvement in your photos. Pick two or three of your favourites/best.

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.