My World: Capturing a Musician's Emotion On Stage

[Adrian Wareham]

This is something I've been working on for a while, and all these people are friends of mine and I have permission to share these at my discretion.

I've met a lot of "event photographers" who could never quite get emotions in music. As someone who is a musician as well, I know when their body will pause with the music. The goal being soft, but not blurry, portraits without using a flash.

Lately, though, I've been using that blur in selective ways to enhance the expression of the emotion at the time of the picture, as seen here:

Canon 60D f1.4 50mm Sigma lens, 1/8th second Tv, 1600 ISO. An odd combination of settings for that camera, but a neat result:

-Adrian

-Adrian

-Adrian

Those two are a couple, by the way, which is why I tried to get that emotion in her expression, rather than a picture playing as there is one of them together doing so earlier.

The picture of them together was focused at a spot halfway between them because I could not use a high enough f-number without losing exposure or taking too long and being the bad kind of blurry. It almost looks as though it were painted! =)

Cheers!

 

[Ben Rubinstein]

Blur only works if you have good focus. Only the 3rd image approaches that.

 

[Christina Cericola]

I think it depends on the mood you want to express too. With such a slow shutter speed the ambient light in the background is brighter making the scene look light and fun, which could be very well what kind of music they were playing.

A faster shutter speed would darken the ambient light a bit and make the tone more somber.

 

[Mike Shimwell]

Hi Adrian

These aren't working for me, I'm afraid. The blur does not communicate to me what you have said you intended, looking more like the shutter speed just wasn't fast enough and the focus was off.

I think that the lighting balance is also not working - the very evn light between the environment and the performers reduces their impact and, together, with the lowish contrast weakens the images overall.

The third picture is the strongest and the one that most closely addresses the thoughts I wrote down. One thing that strikes me is that the mics are also blurred, suggesting camera shake rather than the musicians' movement. Blur generally needs something still to be set against I suspect. I'm not sure if a tripod or monopod would be practical, but that might help somewhat.

Mike

 

[Asher Kelman]

This is something I've been working on for a while, and all these people are friends of mine and I have permission to share these at my discretion.

I've met a lot of "event photographers" who could never quite get emotions in music. As someone who is a musician as well, I know when their body will pause with the music. The goal being soft, but not blurry, portraits without using a flash.

-Adrian

-Adrian

Adrian,

For this type of work, the best is to use a longer lens so that focus falls off. However, if that is not enough, then one can vignette the periphery. BTW, even lighting across pictures is a new fashion of the past 30-40 years and is not always a good idea. Here, I'd gently vignette the periphery as that's what appears to the eyes.

The picture does not need to be in focus. in fact the whole thing could be blurred. It just has to work for what you are trying to put across. Here, especially the second picture, I like the softness, but need some drop off of light, so that she is the feature I'm experiencing.

Asher

 

[Adrian Wareham]

I really appreciate the critique. Once I get a decent set of external flashes (the equipment list never ends, eh?) then I'll be able to frame shots better, faster exposure, high f-number, you get the idea. Until then, if I took the time to frame the shots, I'd miss the moments. I'm the type of photographer who leans towards taking pictures at just the right moment (sometimes at the cost of a little quality), rather than spend that time setting up a shot that will capture little more than a still image of some musicians almost posing- and that just doesn't seem appropriate to me when shooting live music. Does that make sense?

They're supposed to be moving! Alive! Clearly showing whatever emotion they are feeling and showing a sense of urgency in the slight blurring.

I only know one other photographer who takes pictures back there, and sharp as they are (and they are nigh perfect in any *technical* sense) the emotions don't fit the people. They're just ... standing with instruments and open mouths with pretty lights. Why not just do a photo-shoot at that rate?

Anyway, not all of my pictures are like that. It just depends on how the musician expresses him/her-self. In the following case, it's not in body motion at all, but in his face:

-Adrian

p.s. I hope that all makes sense to you, too- I like your suggestions and don't mean to downplay them at all. I just wanted to share with you why I didn't try to get "cleaner" shots. Well, that, and they get that expressive once or twice a night. If you blink, you missed it. So, considering I had no decent flash ... do you know a good way to work with the 60D's internal flash? THAT is advice I need badly. (I hate the thing- even my T2i did better)

 

[Adrian Wareham]

Christina? Bingo! I didn't have time to set up a tripod- I had no idea that moment was coming and I was probably literally running, then kneeling, to get some of these, in a crowded alley. The white balance back there is a mess with deep red and deep blue lights, surrounded by halogens. Yikes!

Anyway, you're spot on, and right in tune with what I must have not stated clearly; I only care (in just these situations) about reproducing the feeling I got watching them play. The biggest problem is that I have no time to stabilize the camera for active musicians. Less active ones, like pictured above? That I can manage. (though I wish I'd had the f1.4 Sigma, instead of the $100 Nifty Fifty, which had been broken once before that)

-Adrian

p.s. Maybe this B&W is better, as I DID have time to plan, with a relatively immobile musician and a large, well-lit, bar. Could have done better, I guess, but still: http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v14/SaabTuner/AndrewAtTheFalconer.jpg

 

[Jerome Marot]

You can't use a tripod in music venues, but I have seen a professional photographer use a monopod with some sort of cushion contraption on top, so that he could simply rest his camera on it. That seemed a pretty good idea.

 

[Adrian Wareham]

Another challenge is the dim light restricting a flashless exposure to a large aperture, and a shallow depth of field. Getting the right expressions, placing the depth of field even near where you'd like, while following the movements of the musician, is certainly no small task- and not for the patient.

Sometimes there is space, or time, for a tripod or monopod. But in venues that are standing-room-only, it's just not the case. Too many people, too much movement. Use the ground, rails, walls, other people (heh heh), or anything else you can find. It's all you'll have time to get. (you can more easily use your head and chest with cameras that have a screen like the 60D/T3i- though it's more helpful in filming)

-Adrian

 

[Jerome Marot]

Sometimes there is space, or time, for a tripod or monopod. But in venues that are standing-room-only, it's just not the case. Too many people, too much movement. Use the ground, rails, walls, other people (heh heh), or anything else you can find.

I was not talking about me, I am lucky enough to have stabilization. And I haven't taken concert photos very lately, but when I did, stab made it a dream to take pictures hand-held, as here:

Titilayo Adedokun




Titilayo Adedokun Band​

I was referring to your remark about "time to stabilize the camera" and thinking that in the same venue above, the house photographer uses a monopod. It is a jazz club so few people stand, but there is not enough place to use a tripod and I thought his solution was pretty clever. He uses a monopod but only as a support. The camera is not attached to it, as I said there is some kind of cushion he arranged on top of the monopod (self built). The advantage is that he can chose between portrait and landscape format easily and that the system can be quickly moved away: one second he has the camera standing on the support and the next second he has the camera in one hand and a slim pole in the other. It is like having a support that you move around. I hope I mayke myself clear, it is not easy to explain.

 

[Adrian Wareham]

That makes sense! That first shot is par excellence.

My next lens will probably be the shortest L lens I can find with IS and an f2.8 or so. I'd love to shoot in that lighting however. I'm just trying to make the best of an alley that is full of beer, people in early 20's knocking over everything, and so little light that, without the camera, you can hardly see faces.

I know there are a lot of photographers who worry first about a perfect image. I just think of it like a digital painting; and for me that just means any image that looks right to me, and the person within.

I don't take it personally, though. Photographers, as a necessity, must have great attention to detail. If some detail isn't what they expect, it looks "bad". Ignorance is bliss. (before my friend, Gina, got on my case about grammar, and spelling, as a teenager, sentences ending in prepositions, or common misspellings, were things I would have never even noticed- now, I wince lol)

-Adrian

 

[Jerome Marot]

My next lens will probably be the shortest L lens I can find with IS and an f2.8 or so. I'd love to shoot in that lighting however. I'm just trying to make the best of an alley that is full of beer, people in early 20's knocking over everything, and so little light that, without the camera, you can hardly see faces.

I don't want to start a brand flame war, but if you want to photograph this kind of things, you have a problem. I know, because I have taken photographs in venues where it was difficult seeing what I was aiming at in the viewfinder.

Your camera (60d) goes to iso6400, 12800 maybe. Other cameras may pretend that they go to iso 25600, 51200, 102400... but that is a fraud. The laws of physics do not change: cameras go to these sensitivities only with crafty software and at the expense of resolution. What really counts is aperture of the lens, size of the detector and stabilization (or a tripod). With the same processing (e.g. if you shoot raw at process using PC noise reduction software), iso 6400 on a full frame camera trounces iso 6400 on an APS-C camera. Size matters.

In these venues you can't really set up a tripod, so stabilization is the only reasonable choice.

Stabilization is tricky to test, meaning most test sites ignore its real value. The real use truth is that, without stabilization you will be lucky to get a usable picture under 1/25s with a 50mm lens equivalent and with it you will get most pictures reasonably sharp at 1/6s, maybe one in two at 1/2s and maybe 1 in 4 at 1s.

If the subject is not moving.

Now, 1 in 4 may seem bad but it is not: you can take as many pictures as you want.

Now look at the following chart:

1/64s: 102400 everything picture is sharp without stab, but IQ is a disaster
1/32s: 51200
1/16s: 12800
1/8s: 6400 IQ is OK and most pictures are sharp with stab, blurred without
1/4s: 3200
1/2s: 1600 IQ is good and 1 picture in 4 is sharp with stab...

Very wide angle lenses end at f/2.8 (all zooms) or f/2.8 (under 24mm, except Leica) or f/1.4 (for 24mm: Canon and Nikon and 35mm: Sony). Obviously, you know the following chart:

f/2.8 12800
f/2.0 6400
f/1.4 3200

The conclusion? For your camera, if you want anything wider angle than 24mm in 35mm format, you are limited to f/2.8. On your crop camera, because you need stabilization for what you want to do, your only choice is the 17-55 f/2.8 and you are limited to 28mm angle equivalent in 35mm film format. In the same brand, if you want a bigger sensor, your best choice will be the 24mm f/1.4 and you lose stabilization.

If you go to Nikon, your choices will be roughly the same with the added option of using the stabilized 16-35 f/4 on a full frame sensor. The lens is not fast, but it is really wide and stabilized.

If you go to Pentax, Olympus or Sony, the stab is in the camera, which means that you can have fast stabilized primes. Of all these brands only Sony has a full frame camera, the A900. It has the undue reputation of being bad in low light, but if you shoot raw and do the noise reduction in post treatment, it is just as good as the other full frame cameras. Unfortunately, Sony 24mm is only f/2.0 (and not f/1.4 like the competition) so the fastest lens is the 35mm f/1.4. If you need to shoot wide, the 16-35 f/2.8 or 20mm f/2.8 are stabilized, since all lenses are.

On crop cameras, Olympus stabilizes the wonderful 20mm f/1.7, but it is not really a wide angle. Sony and Pentax can use the Tokina 11-16 f/2.8 and Pentax has a 14mm f/2.8 prime.

 

[Adrian Wareham]

I have no brand preference. I went to a 60D because I used to have the same sensor in my T2i, and I got it because, at the time, it gave me the pictures I liked most for under $1,000. Simple as that.

I must disagree with ISO being fraud. Yes, you can "cheat" by brightening the image after with digital processing. But, do you remember "push processing" film? ISO 400 processed as EI 800? Basically the same idea. Where there's a will .... Also, 6400 is exactly the same on a different size sensor as long as you have ONLY increased the number of pixels in number. You will get a larger image of identical brightness. You're thinking of a situation like the 5dMkII, which has larger individual pixels, not just a larger sensor, and that larger sensor has many features to reduce noise not put on the 60D sensor or below. It doesn't cost THAT much more, but the 5d does cost more, so it's a way to make money.

A couple other points: those charts are rough guidelines and shouldn't be used to compare lenses with even moderately different designs. The problem is that they assume the aperture is the piece of the lens which gathers the light. It's not. It's the piece of the lens that restricts the light. The maximum "light-gathering-power" (a real term from astronomy to describe how many photons a telescope catches, and thus how small an object it can resolve at any focal length) is determined by the size/design of the outermost lens element and nothing more. (of course, a poor lens design can waste that maximum, but you get the point)

One of the reasons I bought the Sigma 1.4 over the Canon 1.4 was because it had a much larger outer lens area. Thus, you really can use a lower ISO speed than the Canon 1.4 in the same situation. It's not always enough, but it shows how using those charts can be misleading.

Anyway, I agree it's far from perfect for me, and I really DO appreciate the advice (which I'll be thinking about for a while, likely), but whether you collect more light with a bigger sensor, or a bigger outer lens (assuming it's a good lens and sensor here), that's what will determine the necessary ISO speed for an adequate EV, and all the other numbers and measurements are just the best general guidelines manufacturers could give photographers in a world of lenses with HUGELY different designs.

The Canon and Sigma lenses are drawn in this diagram (you'll find them, both 50's and 1.4) along with many Nikkor and others. If you use a physics lab ray-tracing program, and make sure to take into account the transitions between glass and flint in most lenses for the different indexes of refraction, you can measure how much light will make it through the lens, what colors will go where, etc. It's interesting.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/92/DoubleGauss4text.svg

Sigma interestingly reversed one of the rearward flint/glass pair elements compared to Canon (or any other double-Gauss I can see). Combined with the spacing, it should do exactly what they claim. It seems to ... but I am frustrated that it is not always enough.

-Adrian

p.s. Notice how Nikkor lenses don't seem to use flint, and use lots of thin elements in many cases? Also interesting. Hmmm ...

 

[Jerome Marot]

I have no brand preference.

Good.

I must disagree with ISO being fraud. Yes, you can "cheat" by brightening the image after with digital processing. But, do you remember "push processing" film? ISO 400 processed as EI 800? Basically the same idea. Where there's a will .... Also, 6400 is exactly the same on a different size sensor as long as you have ONLY increased the number of pixels in number. You will get a larger image of identical brightness. You're thinking of a situation like the 5dMkII, which has larger individual pixels, not just a larger sensor, and that larger sensor has many features to reduce noise not put on the 60D sensor or below. It doesn't cost THAT much more, but the 5d does cost more, so it's a way to make money.

Nope. High iso in recent cameras is a fraud in the sense that these cameras only manipulate the data, just as push processing film. What is important from the physics is the number of photons one collects, and that is directly dependent on sensor size.

A couple other points: those charts are rough guidelines and shouldn't be used to compare lenses with even moderately different designs. The problem is that they assume the aperture is the piece of the lens which gathers the light. It's not. It's the piece of the lens that restricts the light. The maximum "light-gathering-power" (a real term from astronomy to describe how many photons a telescope catches, and thus how small an object it can resolve at any focal length) is determined by the size/design of the outermost lens element and nothing more. (of course, a poor lens design can waste that maximum, but you get the point)

Being an amateur astronomer myself and having studied optics, I certainly get the point, but the "aperture" is actually just the size of the outermost element divided by the focal length. And poor lens/sensor design does waste the theoretical maximum.

In practice, for what you want to achieve, you want large fast lenses, large sensors and stabilization. And some computing magic to lower noise.

 

[Mark Hampton]

-Adrian

-Adrian

Adrian,

I do gigs sometimes - i am no expert at it but looking at the images I think you are 95% there... the light is **** tbh - you just have to cope with it. on the 5d mark 2 i can run on 90mm 2.8 and make sharpo blurriness at stupido isos ....

the images at the end of the thread are where I got to

it took a few goes to make the images the way i imagined them... at 1st i tried a 50mm - but as asher pointed out its to short - i guess I look to get rid of the clutter and hit the face.....

opps matey that's just me !

keep em coming !

 

[Adrian Wareham]

High iso in recent cameras is a fraud in the sense that these cameras only manipulate the data, just as push processing film. What is important from the physics is the number of photons one collects, and that is directly dependent on sensor size.

That's where the physics gets "funky". The photodiodes require a certain voltage bias for the photons to induce flow across the junction to register a hit. That's what they alter- the bias, to reduce the energy needed from that photon. However, the easier it is for electrons to be knocked across the junction by a photon, the easier it is to be knocked across by a hit from a thermal vibration (phonon) in the semiconductor. That, is the majority of your noise, and something chip-makers have been fighting since this all began.

I am in complete agreement about some of the nonsense about "extended ISO". I can't use 6400, let alone 12800, unless it's an emergency where I have to snap a picture before something disappears. They can still be useful for pictures where the quality matters almost none, but that I get an image is important. Otherwise ... pfft.

I know they are slimy for marketing needlessly high ISO speeds, but the performance at more normal speeds is impressive. I would love a 5d's 35mm sensor, but I'd love even more to have a 1.6x cropped sensor that had the same low noise properties as that 5d's sensor, even if it cost me several megapixels below what I have now. THAT would make for an awesome compact camera sensor.

But you know, camera makers and pixel count.

 

[Adrian Wareham]

It's a lot easier when the musicians sit down. Same camera, lens, lighting, just no rush. These two are always a good time (and, yes, it was supposed to focus on her eyelashes, and out from there):

-Adrian

 

[Martin Stephens]

The light is really working for you in this final photograph, where it wasn't working for you in the previous ones. More power here.

 

[Asher Kelman]

There's one difficulty we can't readily overcome: at times, there's no emotion to capture!

If the singer projects feelings, then it's a matter of being in a shooting position to be able frame face and body gestures without obstruction from the microphone or fans or other musicians. Also needed is a camera with enough light collecting ability, low light sensitivity and dynamic range, as lighting tends to be

• low
  
• off color
  
• uneven
  
• harsh

Generally, a 70-200 2.8 image stabilized lens is best for shooting individual musicians. A 50 mm fast lens can also work I'd one can get close. One can practice on TV shows like the oscars or song competitions. Even when the camera has a good angle, one has to go between grimaces to find shots that actually hold emotions we can read.

Sharpness is not essential for capturing feelings as we can read facial expressions, body movements and even intentions from the broadest shapes and outlines.

Asher

 

[Chris Calohan]

I shot these with a 35mm 1.8. I was fortunate enough to have a band who allowed me up close and personal distance while shooting. However, as you likely faced, the lighting was horrific at best which required a massive ISO boost. Still, I think I was able to capture Both the movement and body language sufficently to make them successful.

Tidewater Bluegrass Band: Chris Calohan​

 

[Asher Kelman]

I shot these with a 35mm 1.8. I was fortunate enough to have a band who allowed me up close and personal distance while shooting. However, as you likely faced, the lighting was horrific at best which required a massive ISO boost. Still, I think I was able to capture Both the movement and body language sufficently to make them successful.

Tidewater Bluegrass Band: Chris Calohan​

Yes, Chris, body language comes across!

Asher

 

[Adrian Wareham]

Just another old photo of a musician on stage. Older lens, so not as fine, but still a fun pic.

-Adrian

edit: p.s. The level of light is deceiving in most of my night shots. Most are in dark bars with open mics and no house lights. We're talking 1/30th second or longer. I do sometimes use flash for fun, as here:

-Adrian

 

[Asher Kelman]

Adrian,

So which do you prefer for mood? The 1/30 sec or the flash?

Asher

 

[Adrian Wareham]

Adrian,

So which do you prefer for mood? The 1/30 sec or the flash?

Asher

If they are moving, dancing, or playing, I prefer a slower shutter- just enough so you can see the full range of movement, and how fast what is moving. Flash can give you some idea, and ghosting with a flash does something similar, but I can't take 5+ frames per second with the flash, so you're a bit less likely to perfectly capture the moment. A flash can never really give you the same color as combinations of many ambient lights of different colors and direction. So, if it's bright enough ... it feels more "real" without the flash.

That's me, anyway!

 

[Adrian Wareham]

A musician in an earlier B&W photograph, but with no flash, and some editing to dim the corners slightly, and desaturate them. The first one edited with the GIMP:

Then a similar one edited with PS Touch on my Galaxy Note 10.1 tab:

-Adrian

 

[Adrian Wareham]

This photo probably has the most emotion. I guess it slipped my mind. Edited with vignetting by the GIMP:

-Adrian

 

[Chris Calohan]

Typical Bar muscian...they're all (well, mostly) pleasant to listen to, but few will ever make it to the big stage and it's always a thought one wonders about.

Louisiana Steve: Chris Calohan​

 

[Michael Nagel]

Joining in with two reposts (rest here) and two not shown before.


Reposts:

​

Not shown previously:

Guitarman

Happy​

Best regards,
Michael​

 

[Adrian Wareham]

-Adrian