Flash/Non Flash at gigs.

AnimalRights

Was at Whelan's last night and the light there is good enough not to use flash unlike most venues I shoot in and I got away with 640 ISO.
I took shots with and without flash and found the non flash shots give a terrible waxy look and lose so much detail...

Without


Flash


Have shown this example to friends and they all agree with my findings.
I don't think I'd use non flash again tbh as I've also had this problem b4 shooting at an indoors event which was not a gig but a debate.

Am I doing something wrong or does the flash simply highlight much more detail because the light "get's in there"?
Or does the flash simply nullify the coloured stage lights?

Rb

I quite like the effect that non-flash gives tbh, it sets the atmosphere and gives more indication of a "show".

Shots with flash look like they could have been taken at a Sunday parish fete in the local rec hall or something.

All my own (and very much amateur) opinion of course. I think by getting more detail you lose more of the "gig", if that makes any sense!

Ricky91t

IMO if i was buying a print off you and you showed me no.2 i'd walk away
Show me no.1 i'd buy it.
Why ruin good lighting with a bright flash,Bringing out detail in everything
One is a nice shot,but two well it's hideous TBH
Keep working without the flash you'll get much better results

Just to add:No.2 looks like a shot taken by some teenage kid with a p&s hold up and hope for the best due to the flash,1 just really really sets a great atmosphere,feeling,and energy to the whole gig

AnimalRights

But that's the thing Ricky I far prefer flash shots, most people go for the "mood" of lighting in their gig shots and to me that captures none of the energy of the type of bands I shoot.
I've mentioned this numerous times on these boards and last nights experiment has only copper fastened my opinion even more.

AnimalRights

Ricky91t wrote: »

Just to add:No.2 looks like a shot taken by some teenage kid with a p&s hold up and hope for the best due to the flash,1 just really really sets a great atmosphere,feeling,and energy to the whole gig

Just seen your ps!
The shot without the flash has little PP done to it and I normally go for a few effects in Lighthouse, it's primarily used to show the comparison to the non flash shot.




Here is shot again from last night's gig and flash used and LR effect added so as not to get the "P+S teenager effect"

Thirdfox

Slow sync fill flash is good when flash photography is allowed...

Here is one of my attempts at it:



Combines the best of both worlds - mood and energy I think.

AnimalRights

I call that style the Ghost effect! :eek:

Tactical

For me to truely compare I'd like to have seen two shots from the same angle to account for lighting at the gig.

Def like the first shot better though. More "feeling" to it.

AnimalRights

Tactical wrote: »

For me to truely compare I'd like to have seen two shots from the same angle to account for lighting at the gig.

Def like the first shot better though. More "feeling" to it.

99% of gigs I do are in pubs with no lighting so I suppose it's a moot point anyway!
Last night's gig was done as a favour, it's not my style of music that I normally shoot as anyone that knows me will attest too.

AnCatDubh

Had you custom white balance set? Or can you apply it in PP?

Eitherways - I'd be in the camp of favouring the "without flash".

AnimalRights

AnCatDubh wrote: »

Eitherways - I'd be in the camp of favouring the "without flash".

I've always known that the majority of people here prefer non flash as we've discussed it many times over the last 18 months.

Most people here do not photograph gigs but concerts, that is a big difference.
I remember my real 1st big gig and no flash was allowed and everyone loved this picture...



But on the Punk forums I use everyone preferred this one...


It's like sometimes Photography can be too artistic....the obvious (artistic) need not always be the obvious.

Mycroft H

AnimalRights wrote: »

I call that style the Ghost effect! :eek:

Brilliant shot:)

xshayx

AnimalRights wrote: »

Last night's gig was done as a favour, it's not my style of music that I normally shoot as anyone that knows me will attest too.

I was wondering! And I agree on the flash, for "our" type of gigs anyway

AnimalRights

xshayx wrote: »

I was wondering! And I agree on the flash, for "our" type of gigs anyway

Hehe....
tbh while it's not my music I did enjoy the night, lovely summers night, photography and Cider!

AnimalRights

landyman wrote: »

Brilliant shot:)

Thanks but you quickly get bored doing that type of shot.

sheesh

depends if you are allowed to use a flash I'd hate to think of the damage a bass guitar could do to my camera when wielded by a pissed off musician

AnimalRights

You'd be surprised at how many musicians love me photographing them...
Think I've only had 2 or so in the hundreds who I've taken be a bit moany, then again I literally stand in their faces.

Number 1, great photo.

Number 2 is boring tbh.
Different strokes for different folks, but there is nothing going on in that photo as far as I can see..

charybdis

There is a very big difference between using flash to change the quality of light and using a flash to change the quantity of light in a scene.

You are using flash for the latter purpose.

It is very difficult to directly compare photographs taken with and without flash as you're not just comparing different camera settings, you're comparing different light; it's like discussing camera settings by comparing photographs of a landscape taken at different times of year.

Personally, I find the on-camera, head-on, flash look to be amateurish and unimpressive. It suggests that your objective was to document something rather than making photographs, which is fine, but the results rarely have merit outside that of their subjects. Using available light or getting the flash off-camera typically means your images are "lit" rather than just "illuminated"; that you've made a qualitative choice about luminance and exposure rather than just nuking everything in-frame.

It seems like most of your issues using available light stem from a reluctance to shoot at a high ISO value and the inherent difficulties with using fast lenses at or near wide open. Your salve to this (using on-camera, straight-on, TTL(?) flash) produces more predictable and technically even exposure, but at the expense of using the available light in the scene.

The "waxy look" you have described in the available light images is most likely a combination of clipped highlights and unusual colour casts. It is considerably more difficult for a camera to meter a scene with rapidly changing light intensities and moving targets that it is for a camera to meter for a given, fixed amount of light emanating from a flash that overpowers other light sources in the scene.

For example:

AnimalRights wrote: »

The bassist's face, arm, and instrument are clearly overexposed. I strongly suspect the flat-white tonality and lack of gradation in these areas is what you are referring to as "waxy". To remedy this: you'll have to be more attentive to your exposure choices. I would imagine in a scene like this with a dim stage, partially illuminated with very bright lights, would exceed the capability of our camera's dynamic range. As such, I would recommend exposing "to the left" and preserving highlight detail as much as possible. Determining and shooting with this technique in this setting would be very labour intensive and a method that I have not tried, but suspect may generate usable results, would be to set the camera to one of the program modes, set the meter to spot meter, set exposure compensation to ~+1, and shoot by metering off a very bight part of the scene, hit exposure lock, and recompose and make your shot.

The unusual colour casts are a little harder to deal with in that the lights are usually at very different colour temperatures and establishing a neutral white balance would be practically impossible.

Another problem associated with shooting available light is the very shallow depth-of-field produced by your large-sensor camera and fast lens; dealing with moving subjects in low light is very taxing for autofocus and can be very hard to capture your subject as it crosses the plane of focus given the limited depth-of-field. I suggest you set your autofocus mode to AI-Servo and time your shots very carefully.

Taking these things in to account, you can see how it can be easier to produce technically better results using a flash: more light at a known colour temperature allows you to use a reliable white balance, stop down your lens to create a more-forgiving depth-of-field, and expose more predictably.

Additionally, don't be afraid of high ISO values; a noisy shot is better than no shot.

I don't know how possible this may be (frankly I'm surprised your're permitted to and do use flash a gigs) but you could try getting a couple of flashes and setting them up with light modifiers and radio triggers around the stage so you can use flash, but are doing so in a way that's actually based on some thought-out creative decisions and not just for moar light.

Obviously, there is no "right" answer and if you prefer one method or set of choices over the other then you have a very legitimate reason to continue in that, but I think any person who regards themselves as a "photographer" should at least understand the reasons behind their choices.

melekalikimaka

AnimalRights wrote: »

Most people here do not photograph gigs but concerts, that is a big difference.

It's like sometimes Photography can be too artistic....the obvious (artistic) need not always be the obvious.

hummm i'm understanding slowly your liking for flash... ya see most on forum here go for the technically correct and the majority favoured type of gig shot, lots of colour, no flash, bit of movement... the photos you post are the opposite, i dunno maybe its the punk thing ( personally speaking ) i'd consider myself a punk, bent over backwards for stiff little fingers photo pass last week(wow i can mention mcd!!) but at the end of the day its whatever the photographer wants to do, and a justified reason for a course of action finished the discussion.

but on that, personally i think flash flattens and takes the energy and life outta a image... with the exception of sweat being more visable... what draws you to the flash style exactly?

AnimalRights

See Mel SLF to me stopped been a Punk band from 83ish onwards, I seen them in the early 80s and these days they are pure tripe, Real Punk rock is DIY in dingy clubs/Pubs...only other person on these boards who goes for the same style would be Shay....then again he does photograph the same type of bands.
I wouldn't say as you say what do I go for but more of what do I not go for....
It's the fancy lights dictating the picture....
My biggest critical response was too an MCD gig
http://pix.ie/punkrock/album/334991/goto/835977
which as I said to my friends the next day I hated.....

I would go for been up as close and tight as possible to the bands looking for unorthodox shots and also band/crowd interaction which you're never going to get at concerts because of barriers/bouncers.

Charybdis posted some of the information I was looking at to my original query and I know I'm no light specialist lol, the shots I'd be going for as I described are very spur off the moment/off the cuff/no lighting in venue so doubt I'd have time for it but I guess I should also take on board some of it for when I do happen to have to go to a bigger venue, good thing about proper Punk rock music is that the bands play small cramped Pub places.
Charybdis said "Personally, I find the on-camera, head-on, flash look to be amateurish and unimpressive" but if he knew the bands I shoot or even came to a gig he would see what I'm after and not after, I often get right in with the band believe it or not, anything goes at a Punk gig.
example
Getting in and behind Drummers




Standing in with the band


This is where Charybdis information may help me is because I have the guitarist's face too over exposed because of the flash, I use flash on auto* as it seems complicated on manual but I will have to learn it as I do lose some photos to this problem...
*I do use a diffuser and pointed upwards

AnimalRights

melekalikimaka wrote: »

bent over backwards for stiff little fingers photo pass last week(wow i can mention mcd!!)

Did you get a pass in the end and if so would be interested in the shots, although from experience there b4 it's impossible to get the angles I'd be after because of the set up and bonehead bouncers?
I know the promoter of that show and he was the guy who got me the pass for Rise Against, I could've got a pass for this but I never bothered.
What did you think of Blood or Whiskey too?

thebaz

To me its about style and taste - we usually agree Janer on what we like , but differ here , I prefer non flash, you prefer flash -- thers no right or wrong - just different taste

BTW - I was at Whelans last night and thought lighting was awfull, really hard to focus.
b

PCPhoto

I've shot in Whelans and a couple of other dark pubs/places for gigs...... lots of the time its about getting the settings right - enough flash for ambient light to brighten the rest - very tough to do if the band are jumping all over the stage - bit of a hit and hope technique.

I've done gigs where the lighting is so bad that you can hardly see anything (maybe that was the way the band liked the setup - they were loving the random flashes tho' !!!)

DaireQuinlan

AnimalRights wrote: »

This is where Charybdis information may help me is because I have the guitarist's face too over exposed because of the flash, I use flash on auto* as it seems complicated on manual but I will have to learn it as I do lose some photos to this problem...
*I do use a diffuser and pointed upwards

You probably just have to experiment experiment experiment. For example, post above, you note that the face is washed out. So now you know, in future, in similar situations, dial in 1/2 stop of minus flash compensation. You'll basically have to wing it, just get the experience in with your camera/flash/shooting style combination and you'll start getting the shots a little better.

That waxy look is probably down to the direct flash. You're bouncing it but I'd say you're getting little out of your bounce. Most gig venues would have black stage/backdrop so very little light will be bounced back, so you're left with almost direct on-camera flash. Not the ideal light, but in some situations it's probably the best you'll get unless you want to take the flash off-camera. That might not be an option if you're clambering all over the stage and the band :rolleyes:

To combat at least some of this I'd try and get your ambient as high as possible to balance out the flash. Drag the shutter if neccessary and use rear sync to get some of the stage light into the shot and rely on your TTL flash to expose the foreground performers correctly. Experiment !

I gotta say though, flash aside, those Rise Against shots -are- fantastic

Ricky91t

AnimalRights wrote: »

Just seen your ps!
The shot without the flash has little PP done to it and I normally go for a few effects in Lighthouse, it's primarily used to show the comparison to the non flash shot.




Here is shot again from last night's gig and flash used and LR effect added so as not to get the "P+S teenager effect"

Even that image,Although better it still takes away the power of the blue light in the first one :pac:

AnimalRights

AnimalRights wrote: »

and found the non flash shots give a terrible waxy look and lose so much detail...

DaireQuinlan wrote: »

That waxy look is probably down to the direct flash.

Cabaal

Out of your first post I'd much prefer #1 then #2, #1 just has more of a feel; to it and actually looks like a concert/gig

DaireQuinlan

AnimalRights wrote: »

:rolleyes:

melekalikimaka

DaireQuinlan wrote: »

:rolleyes:

:cool:

GhostInTheRuins

What metering did you use for the first shot?

AnimalRights

GhostInTheRuins wrote: »

What metering did you use for the first shot?

I use manual and always try and shoot 1-2 notches under exposed (to the left of middle notch)

melekalikimaka

AnimalRights wrote: »

I use manual and always try and shoot 1-2 notches under exposed (to the left of middle notch)

does the flash underexpose too?

AnimalRights

That's the thing, never really spent much time on the flash lol, it's set to auto.
If I had to spend too much time setting the flash and distance, metering etc I'd miss too many shots at a guess.
I really should dabble more with the manual...
Will read up on Charybdis' advice some more too.

melekalikimaka

AnimalRights wrote: »

That's the thing, never really spent much time on the flash lol, it's set to auto.
If I had to spend too much time setting the flash and distance, metering etc I'd miss too many shots at a guess.
I really should dabble more with the manual...
Will read up on Charybdis' advice some more too.

sure flash works off the ev theory anyway, uou can stop it up and down same as shutter or ap, pretty easy once ya get going. ever considered gels?

AnimalRights

Gels?

melekalikimaka

couloured plastic to throw a colour on the musicians, one or two on remote gives you utter control on the lighting... tailor it to exactly what you feel suitable

AnimalRights

aahh I did see a girl using some perspex looking coloured pieces of plastic the other night...
Wouldn't really suit the type of music I photo tbh...
I'm about 90% happy with my stuff cept the flash which I want to control more....that will be addressed shortly once I get off my lazy arse.

melekalikimaka

http://strobist.blogspot.com/2007/06/l102-light-controls-overview.html

melekalikimaka

http://www.flickr.com/photos/25065416@N03/2410439033/

not too far off your style no?

or

http://www.flickr.com/photos/25065416@N03/2410439273/in/photostream/

AnimalRights

Ha!!!
1st pic in 1st link I looked at and I laughed, I see what you're up to Mel Mel!!
They don't do much for me, the colour is too er colourful and there just doesn't seem to be as much action in fact some of them reminds me of actors hired to play a rock band, they're very fake.
I'll be the 1st to admit that Punk Rock is very good to photograph as it's so full of full of energy and characters.

Only person whose style from these boards that would be similar would be Shay's and that's because he knows the music the way I know it.
I think this thread has been a very good read/debate though.
Maybe sometime you will come to one of my gigs and we'll each photograph it in our own styles, I brought Barry along before.

kumate_champ07

i never use a flash, i see people bouncing a flash off the walls but i just stick to iso1600 and f2/f2.8. if the lighting is good ill use iso800. and i switch from spot metering to evaluative alot.

heres some from whelans
<img src="http://fc07.deviantart.com/fs38/f/2009/001/0/6/06abca4e7ef60243d7c8bb36252b7dfc.jpg"&gt;

<img src="http://fc00.deviantart.com/fs38/f/2009/001/1/9/19b82503a5634f174066e253e67e41ed.jpg"&gt;

<img src="http://fc08.deviantart.com/fs39/f/2009/001/d/2/d263ab8b10e745497d78cb336f750fd2.jpg"&gt;

http://fc07.deviantart.com/fs38/f/2009/001/0/6/06abca4e7ef60243d7c8bb36252b7dfc.jpg

http://fc00.deviantart.com/fs38/f/2009/001/1/9/19b82503a5634f174066e253e67e41ed.jpg

http://fc08.deviantart.com/fs39/f/2009/001/d/2/d263ab8b10e745497d78cb336f750fd2.jpg