Photo-a-day

Even allowing for the darkness, once you've taking out the blurred ones, then all the shots that are practical replicas of each other, you're left with a lot less shots than you started with. And then to say that they're 'publishable', even in the kindest sense of the word, requires a fair stretch of the imagination.

I went through all 95, at tbh I'd have to say there are only 4 or 5 that I would put up for critique.

Maybe we just have a different understanding of what constitutes 'publishable'.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bobster

so why aren't they fixed? shouldn't take more than 20 mins to convert all those again ;)

---

because im lazy :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IBM

Even allowing for the darkness, once you've taking out the blurred ones, then all the shots that are practical replicas of each other, you're left with a lot less shots than you started with. And then to say that they're 'publishable', even in the kindest sense of the word, requires a fair stretch of the imagination.

I went through all 95, at tbh I'd have to say there are only 4 or 5 that I would put up for critique.

Maybe we just have a different understanding of what constitutes 'publishable'.

---

granted alot of the pictures are replicas of each other, like i said, these were the unedited pictures, i simply converted to jpeg and uploaded.

there are a few pictures which can be cropped and used effectively.

as for my use of the word published... i dont claim to be anything more than an amatuer photographer, therefore by publish, i mean show to people, use for personal showing, or maybe even for for unsigned bands...

I would go through and re-light and show the pictures as they should be but i really dont have the time nor the inclination to go through them all and do each picture individually.

So, anyways, thanks for the critique.

right, since it seems that you didnt get the idea of those pictures were just what i dumped off my camera on here... and they were unedited, ive gone through a few of them and put a little time into them (granted not alot, im lazy and i get no personal gains for doing this)...

so to see reviewed photos www.stegough.com - /hdatv/2ndtake/

oh and, yeah, I've been doing this since January - this year, not years like some of you :) so, i can only get better.

lest we forget that different photographers also have different styles, so what one might think is genius, another may not, and so on and so forth.

To be honest for doing this for 2 months, i dont think im half bad at it, even if i do have more to learn.

ok, so now we've extablished that you've been doing gigs since Jan, and you have little experience (which you should have said from the start tbh instead of swanning on in boasting this and that) you're right you've alot to learn.. and for the record, you still have to find the perfect exposure for gigs.. i've only been shooting gigs since the middle of last Sept.. my first gig was ISO3200, f2.8 @ 1/60 or less

http://www.pbase.com/bob_hall/image/85588431.jpg
and 96% of all my gig shots only ever see photoshop for a resize and border ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bobster

ok, so now we've extablished that you've been doing gigs since Jan, and you have little experience (which you should have said from the start tbh instead of swanning on in boasting this and that) you're right you've alot to learn.. and for the record, you still have to find the perfect exposure for gigs.. i've only been shooting gigs since the middle of last Sept.. my first gig was ISO3200, f2.8 @ 1/60 or less

http://www.pbase.com/bob_hall/image/85588431.jpg
and 96% of all my gig shots only ever see photoshop for a resize and border ;)

---

lol...

swanning in boasting about this and that :D I would have thought that you would have noticed that i was new to it, by the thread where i said i "was new to photography and wanted constructive criticism" - but no, your ego got in the way when someone who was praising my gig photography mentioned your pictures too, nice of you to drop into the thread and pass comment on something other than the quote where someone referenced your photos, like some constructive criticism like i was asking for?

I merely stated that i usually get around 50% usable images, and in my opion, i DO get 50% usable images. fair enough, not in the folder that i demonstrated, but generally.

So do you not shoot in raw, and "tweak" the image before you border it and watermark it? because thats all i do? i dont see the need to do more in photoshop, as the Canon Raw function works perfectly well.

ISO 3200 = :crazy: Thats fantastic.. unfortunately, my camera doesnt go that high on ASA, but ah well, i make do with what ive got. But obviously a 400d would never do for you, as you have stated before, its not got all these fancy functions that you just have to have that the 20d sports.

lets see about your previous post shall we:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bobster

first 7 shots i wouldn't even bother editing they belong in the bin.. :ill:


13, should have been a tight crop on the singer, bin as i said, the photos werent cropped, just dumped into jpeg and scaled down
15, is an ok shot, if it can be rescued, or bin
17, unless your RAW conversion really darkend this shot, bin!
20, rescue or bin - might get away with an ok pic, but it looks like he's about to eat the mic strangely enough, people open thier mouths when they sing :rolleyes:
21, better, rescue or bin just a bit dark, due to raw settings
24, way too dark - bin dark due to raw (although the original is a bit dark, but can be rescued as seen on my deviantart
25, again too dark - bin
26, you guessed it - bin
27, holey mother of god!, bin holy mother of god what?
33, recover or BIN dark due to raw conversion
34, what a face! - bin and thats under my control?
35, better - recover or bin
36, its that dodgy angle again.. bin what dodgy angle?
37, recover or bin
40, did your finger get stuck? - bin *no i was taking multiple shots so i had a choice of which ones to use
42, recover or bin
43, ur finger is stuck again - bin*
44, take the finger of the shutter button! - bin*
45, can't see you recovering this.. bin agreed tis too grainy
46, no idea whats happening in this frame - bin
48, tighter crop on the guitar on the right theres no crop to begin with, did you read my original post at all?
51, blurred - bin agreed
52, goofy expression - bin dodgy angle too, twas not one of the better shots of the day
53, nothing happening - bin
54, recover or bin this one had 2 lots of raw settings saved for some reason, so although the levels were right, the second export messed it right up, its actually quite a nice photo.
59, too much headroom - bin cropping can sort it, again, these photos havent been cropped.
61, recover or bin again, 2 lots of raw setting data.
62, is that a keyboard on the left blocking the bass? bin yes, suprisingly enough, some stages arent big enough to have a touring bands gear on and another 5 piece band + gear :rolleyes:
88, what the beef is that?! bin this is where i got bored, beleive it or not, im not a huge country fan, but wanted to go to this gig, and i was messing about taking pics of the desk - i have to re-iterate, did you read my original post, because it seems you mistook the fact that these pictures were dumped straight from my camera, no picking and choosing, just a dump from my camera to online. you seem to be critiquing them on the basis that i was trying to enter them for photo of the year or something?

this is how i would have culled the photos..

so 13 possibles out of 95 shots (thats a what 14% keeper rate?)

---

as you can see my replies in red.

It seems that you didnt read the original post and take these pictures for what they are, unedited, non-final pictures, granted, on this particular shoot, the photos may have not turned out quite as high passable rate as i first mentioned, but theres still alot of recoverable and good photos there, regardless of how you try and belittle them.

I'm no ross halfin, not by a long shot, nor do i claim to be, but considering that i first went to a gig with the intention of taking photos in January, and my pictures come out like some of the photos shown before in this very thread, i think its very narrow minded of you to take what I've shown you, which is unedited "drafts" - if you like, and try to pick fault with every last photo.

The fact you went out of your way to write "bin" next to every one of my images speaks volumes about you.

Seems to me that as you are trying for the whole "professional photographer" thing that anyone else gets into photography, you give them attitude and non-constructive criticism in the vain hope that they leave it to the "professionals", such as yourself!

This is not the first time I have noticed your condescending replies when someone says something you do not agree with, or does something that is different to your methods, instantly that person is wrong, even if the picture looks stunning as-is - im not referring to replies you have made to me, but others that i have observed on the board.

so next time if i want your supercilious opinion, i'll kick over that rock you live under and beat it out of you, okay?

this is your 6th gig? so you really should have learnt by your previous gigs what settings you need to be shooting and what the histogram should look like for a decent exposure etc.. ur 6th gig should rock the world tbh

my 6th gig
http://www.pbase.com/bob_hall/image/89041828.jpg

what i suggest you do is, go back and look through your shots, think very hard about what you did when you took the photo, ask yourself what could i have done to get the right exposure, what works about the angle i've chosen, could i ask a band for money for this shot

pick up a copy of kerrang and flick through the gig shots in that, would they put one of your current photos in the mag?

if you want to pursue the route of shooting gigs, you need to invest in some fast glass, the nifty fifty is a cheap way to start into low light photography, if you have the freedom to manouver yourself at gigs then you should be able to frame some nice shots, hell the fixed focal length might even force you into thinking about the composition of a shot before you take it, atm it looks like you get yourself into a position without even thinking about what you're going to get in the frame when you put the camera upto your eye..

gig photography is one of the toughest photography disciplines to master because of the constantly changing lights, you have to try and become one with your camera and keep 1 eye out while your shooting for the next shot.

your 7th gig should be a blinder, if you haven't got it by then, look into shooting still life ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bobster

this is your 6th gig? so you really should have learnt by your previous gigs what settings you need to be shooting and what the histogram should look like for a decent exposure etc.. ur 6th gig should rock the world tbh

my 6th gig
http://www.pbase.com/bob_hall/image/89041828.jpg

what i suggest you do is, go back and look through your shots, think very hard about what you did when you took the photo, ask yourself what could i have done to get the right exposure, what works about the angle i've chosen, could i ask a band for money for this shot

pick up a copy of kerrang and flick through the gig shots in that, would they put one of your current photos in the mag?

if you want to pursue the route of shooting gigs, you need to invest in some fast glass, the nifty fifty is a cheap way to start into low light photography, if you have the freedom to manouver yourself at gigs then you should be able to frame some nice shots, hell the fixed focal length might even force you into thinking about the composition of a shot before you take it, atm it looks like you get yourself into a position without even thinking about what you're going to get in the frame when you put the camera upto your eye..

gig photography is one of the toughest photography disciplines to master because of the constantly changing lights, you have to try and become one with your camera and keep 1 eye out while your shooting for the next shot.

your 7th gig should be a blinder, if you haven't got it by then, look into shooting still life ;)

---

hmm, seems i we were both typing at roughly the same time...
okay, so in response.

this was my 3rd gig - i presume you looked at albums on my myspace...

Led Zeppelin - i wasnt there to take pictures, those were just some of the photos i happened to take with the camera on auto holding it in the air trying to get pics of my favorite band as i was honoured to be there when millions of people who wanted to be werent.... so i dont count those, although i did get some lucky fantastic shots...

so I dont personally count that as gig photography.

The first gig was at the Surge Showcase... there are 2 albums for this, as my bosses sons band were "science vs romance" and i said i'd take more phtos, and i didnt want to dilute the other artists' photos in the other album, so gave them an album of thier own.

the second gig was the rock cafe gig where there is one album

the 3rd gig was highway dave supporting albert Lee, 1 gig, 2 albums, to seperate the highway dave and the varmints pictures from the albert lee ones.

so obviously you have made some assumptions to where i am at.

so an example of one of my 1st gig photos:

http://a195.ac-images.myspacecdn.com...d5e82cb33a.jpg

2nd

http://a940.ac-images.myspacecdn.com...a784d49243.jpg

and finally 3rd:

http://a190.ac-images.myspacecdn.com...36065b1015.jpg

I have a 50mm lens (yes the cheap f1.8) and it is a very good lens for taking the shots on.

I do need to think more about framing, it is one of the key points that i have been thinking about... however, its harder to put into practise, especially when i get into a position thats good and the band member walks off as im putting the viewfinder to my eye, but it is something i am working on.

I have come off very harsh with you, but in my opinion some of your replies have been unjustified and harsh for no apparent reason, or with no real explination.

so thanks for the somehwat constructive criticism in this post, but i feel many of the previous ones have been more about the criticism and less about the constructive...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mmh

do you not shoot in raw, and "tweak" the image before you border it and watermark it? because thats all i do? i dont see the need to do more in photoshop, as the Canon Raw function works perfectly well.

---

well sure i tweek stuff in RAW, the whole point in shooting digital film is to tweek the same as you would in a darkroom, but if you don't get the exposure right at high-ISO your stuffed with digital..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mmh

ISO 3200 = :crazy: Thats fantastic.. unfortunately, my camera doesnt go that high on ASA, but ah well, i make do with what ive got. But obviously a 400d would never do for you, as you have stated before, its not got all these fancy functions that you just have to have that the 20d sports.

---

hey i started on a 300D which as much less features than the 400.. but i found that the low light capabilities left me wanting more, so i bought a 20D and some fast glass

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mmh

It seems that you didnt read the original post and take these pictures for what they are, unedited, non-final pictures, granted, on this particular shoot, the photos may have not turned out quite as high passable rate as i first mentioned, but theres still alot of recoverable and good photos there, regardless of how you try and belittle them.

---

even for unedited, it looks like you're leaving too much to software, shoot JPG for a while and try and get the exposure right in camera before you switch to RAW again..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mmh

I'm no ross halfin, not by a long shot, nor do i claim to be, but considering that i first went to a gig with the intention of taking photos in January, and my pictures come out like some of the photos shown before in this very thread, i think its very narrow minded of you to take what I've shown you, which is unedited "drafts" - if you like, and try to pick fault with every last photo.

---

you asked for crit, i gave it, if you can't take it, don't ask for it.. (and wasn't your zeplin gig in December?;))

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mmh

The fact you went out of your way to write "bin" next to every one of my images speaks volumes about you.

---

yeah i'm a fussy bastard, which is probably why i've been labeled by many venues around here as the best gig photographer in the area! and as i said that is how i would have culled that shoot.. hell i picked more keepers than IBM! :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mmh

Seems to me that as you are trying for the whole "professional photographer" thing that anyone else gets into photography, you give them attitude and non-constructive criticism in the vain hope that they leave it to the "professionals", such as yourself!

---

sure i'm blunt, but if you can't see the bigger picture.. you'll get far worse crit on other boards than what i give here

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mmh

This is not the first time I have noticed your condescending replies when someone says something you do not agree with, or does something that is different to your methods, instantly that person is wrong, even if the picture looks stunning as-is - im not referring to replies you have made to me, but others that i have observed on the board.

---

if you don't like it, report it :p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mmh

so next time if i want your supercilious opinion, i'll kick over that rock you live under and beat it out of you, okay?

---

NPS ;)

oh and every photo you take should be leading upto photo of the year ;)

do you edit in the dark?
http://a678.ac-images.myspacecdn.com...34f9e10c3d.jpg
this is still really under exposed, use the exposure slider to bring it up and then use the recovery slider to rescue the highlights, then tweek the contrast and brightness..

you should be able to see the steps in this
http://daystarvisions.com/Pix/Site/greyscale3.jpg

id say more undersaturated...

image from myspace:

http://a678.ac-images.myspacecdn.com...34f9e10c3d.jpg

I will say in defence of Bobster that while his criticism may be a little hard at times, it's typically justified, and he has the professional experience to back it up. If he's going to take his time to critique 95 of your pics, I'd start off by thanking him for his time, rather than threatning with physical violence.

And the other thing is that at least he keeps it about the photos.

I don't :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mmh

your ego got in the way when someone who was praising my gig photography mentioned your pictures too

---

Oh, so it's Bob's ego which is the problem here. Glad you pointed that out, wasn't so obvious to me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mmh

But obviously a 400d would never do for you, as you have stated before, its not got all these fancy functions that you just have to have that the 20d sports.

---

Want me to go get your rattle? I think you may have thrown it out of the pram.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mmh

but theres still alot of recoverable and good photos there, regardless of how you try and belittle them.

---

It's called constructive criticism

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mmh

i think its very narrow minded of you to take what I've shown you, which is unedited "drafts" - if you like, and try to pick fault with every last photo.

---

You made the boast, you showed them. If you don't want people to pick faults, don't show them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mmh

The fact you went out of your way to write "bin" next to every one of my images speaks volumes about you.

---

And that quote speaks volumes about you. Grow up for goodness sake.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mmh

Seems to me that as you are trying for the whole "professional photographer" thing that anyone else gets into photography, you give them attitude and non-constructive criticism in the vain hope that they leave it to the "professionals", such as yourself!

---

Oh god, everyone is out to get you! It's all a conspiracy! Yes, professional photographers everywhere are running scared you might take business away from them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mmh

This is not the first time I have noticed your condescending replies when someone says something you do not agree with, or does something that is different to your methods, instantly that person is wrong, even if the picture looks stunning as-is - im not referring to replies you have made to me, but others that i have observed on the board.

---

To which I will reply with a quote of your own, one of the best

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mmh

lest we forget that different photographers also have different styles, so what one might think is genius, another may not, and so on and so forth.

---

And last but not least.....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mmh

so next time if i want your supercilious opinion, i'll kick over that rock you live under and beat it out of you, okay?

---

Seriously, how old are you? 12?

Mmh, I like to critique other people's pictures. I'm no professional, but like to think that I've got a good eye for pictures. And typically people are happy to receive the criticism. There's nothing I hate more than taking the time to look at people pics only to have some snotty reply pushed my way. It's understandable to be defensive, but if you can't deal with it, don't post. It's easy.

I came back to check whether I'd been overly harsh in that post....but it just made me laugh....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mmh

id say more undersaturated...

image from myspace:

http://a678.ac-images.myspacecdn.com...34f9e10c3d.jpg

---

undersaturated!? you really need to look at this again, here allow me..
http://www.rjwhetton.co.uk/random/UnderExp.jpg

i've broken the histogram into the groups Shadow (red), Midtone (orange), Highlight (yellow)

as you can see you have nearly 0% highlight information, there is a bit from the stuff that is lit by that really badly placed stage light
again the Midtones, nearly 0%
and most of your information is stored in the shadows

if you had correctly exposed the photo (i've done some basic correction nothing major just enough to illustrate
http://www.rjwhetton.co.uk/random/Corrected.jpg

there is alot more information in the midtones and highlights this = better exposure and will give you a nicer looking photo ;)

thanks for illustrating your point, i can kinda see what you are getting at, but maybe its just me, as i said previously, i like dark photos, and although the cropping is a bit crap on the photo used, i think it looks good with the darkness to it.

I guess until i get over liking dark photos i wont adapt to trying to get this stuff in the highlights and stuff.

I will try with more varied exposures at the next gig i go to though and see if i can get some differing effects on the photos.