Sitting playing in many sessions we get often get interrupted, or more annoyed by camera flashes. Musicians hate camera flashes! (Hands up who doesn’t get annoyed). Anyway, I just know that the photo of a session taken with a standard compact digital camera will not turn out well (but I don't mind being proven wrong); the subject is glared, the contrast and colour just turn out wrong and/or the flash is too bright or too dull. I often think the random tourist/photographer really just wants to capture the atmosphere, the sound, the thrill of the music when it’s going well, these are impossible (almost??) to capture on camera. When will the camera flashing public learn that?? Even though the flash of a camera annoys me a little (and sometimes a lot if it’s constant) I take it as a complement that maybe we’re doing something right and that the punter just wants to be part of that too and take it home with them.
It’s difficult to get a good photo of a session. Things cameras don’t like: movement, low light, windows/light behind the subject, lighted candle in the middle of the table (although sometimes that might work but not for an overall shot) and that’s just for starters.
My question is…how do you take a really good photo of a session? I’m really interested in how to, particularly without use of a flash. What type lens is ideal? And if you have to use a flash, what type is best? Be as technical as you like.
And….if you’ve a good photo(s) I’d really love to see them, would you please post a link or send a link to me by PM.
Here is a link to my favourite photographer of musicians http://www.myspace.com/conkelleher If you scroll down his page there is a wonderful collection of photographs.
Looks like a cheapo piece of advertising to me I don't see one session photo at all! I mean you talk about taking photos at sessions and being annoyed and then pint us to a professionals site, so what's the story laddie?
The brief for the Willie shots was to photograph all official events. I am not particularly fond of the first few from the first lecture but they needed to be included.
I was just thinking and I do have some nice session shots, unfortunately the B&W ones if printed at all are not scanned but I may put a few digital ones up later.
Too nice a day today to be inside.
Shooting sessions speed is your friend. Fast lenses high ISO.
I used to shoot sessions in available light on 800 rated film with a 1.4/50mm and a 2.0/24mm (and sometimes the 1.8/105 and 2.8/180). For the digital I now use a 2.8/17-35 and a 2.8/80-200. Digital cameras have now improved so much they shoot very good stuff at 1600 and pretty decent at 3200 and even higher. Most of the concert shots at Willie were 800 or 1600 (you may be able to lift the exif data for information). It can be a bit awkward but a monopod can give you stability.
I've taken numerous photos of my fellow musicians and have had numerous photos taken by other people. With today's cameras, I find it's just a case of blasting away and picking the ones you like. Then again...I'm not getting paid to take photos. However, I wouldn't be a lover of those studies of traditional musicians who look like something out of a catalogue by 'Krash of Ottawa'. We know it just aint true. Traditional musicians in full flight are either asleep, looking miserable, or acting the maggot
Here's one I made earlier....... http://www.flickr.com/photos/59302818@N00/4893093587/
A little off-topic, as these are some 'snaps' of our session as opposed to photos; some taken holding the camera in one hand in the middle of playing a set of tunes, but at least I'm sitting amongst the action!
Here's a few of mine http://www.flickr.com/photos/bakerart/sets/72157605770681675/
All of these are on film. I usually have an old camera with me but I hardly take any lately because we all get pi$$ed off at people constantly taking photos and I don't want to be that person.
Until now, I've been using a Nikon D90 with a 24mm lens for session photos, but its huge. A few weeks ago, I bought the Canon S90 pocket camera based on the recommendations of Ken Rockwell:
The camera combines one of the newer back-illuminated CCD sensors with an f2.0 lens to allow very clean shots without flash at ASA1600 and quite usable at ASA3200. It has program modes, aperture and shutter priority, and full manual modes, and has real dials you can use for setting value rather than having to dig through on-screen menus. All this in a pocket-size camera that sells for about $350.
I took it to the East Coast Noel Hill workshop, here's a couple of examples of shots in near darkness of the session at O'Neill's in New York City:
I have uploaded a totally random selection of stuff that I, for whatever reason, have sitting on the computer. It's all B&W shots taken on film. Flash was used on a few occasions, the shots of Gussie Russell and Paddy Killourhy just wouldn't have been possible otherwise. It was a dark room with a single naked 60W bulb hanging off the ceiling. We had great tunes though. The lighting in Gleeson's of Coore was always so flat the flash actually added a bit of texture, would you believe. I played in 'the band' for years since Junior twisted my arm, played every week so nobody minded.
Photos were taken in pubs, outside pubs, in people's houses. Sessions mostly 'from the inside', a few shots were taken at a CD launch or recital, they are few though. They span fro mthe late eighties to the early noughties. I have more recent B&W work on film but have no scans available. There's a lot more old stuff too that one day may come out.
Tom Munnelly for a while pushed me to do a book but I didn't. I thought (and still think) I have the best to do yet.
This summer Nuala O Connor told me to 'do a book before it's to late' . I said 'feck off I am not that old' but when Willie Clancy was my age he was dead six months.
Let's say I'll start doing good prints of the best ones, to start with.
Thank you all for the links to the wonderful photos of sessions and musicians.
RichardB has a good point about not wanting to be the person driving everyone mad by constantly taking photos at sessions. There are plenty of folk out there doing a wonderful job already and it's great to get this chance to see some of the photos..but still..I'd really like to do capture some of the characters an my local sessions and do them justice.
Just bring a camera, keep it handy pull it out when you think you have a photo, take the shot and put it away again. Learn to be efficient about it. People get used to it and when they know you they don't mind. Some nights the camera just stays in the bag, some nights you get some nice ones.
The shot of Denis Brooks for example, one Willie week we went out to Mullagh early and were having tunes. Denis was sitting opposite me playing the pipes. The place was pretty dark but there was a window at the back that threw in a lot of light and Denis was catching it all. . I went out to the car, got the camera and meanwhile Denis had lit a pipe to complete the image. I sat down again, took the shot and went back to playing tunes.
it's the music that's important, not the pictures!
But, since we're now in the 21st century, in the last year of the first decade, let's go electronic, get a good digital, turn off the flash, and let the electronics do the work.
Most people with a digital camera don't know how to turn off the flash, that's why they are so annoying !
Also, if these flashing punters were any good they'd be sitting in the session playing, not taking photos !
IMNSHO.
I used to do technical photography at my last job, but now I'm only a leisure snapper I'm mainly on digital, took a SLR with me on my last holiday and took about 3 pics with it.
It seems very hard to produce session photos that don't make the sessioners look as if they are swimming about in the depths of Loch Ness or a vat of heavy.
Hey Prof, lovely snaps there. I really enjoyed the. And I'd buy the book for sure.
There are four ways to photograph people. Snap your mates when they're ready for it. Snap your mates pap style. Snap strangers pap style. And snap strangers portrait style with their consent.
I can never understand why anyone would want to take a photo of someone they don't know - unless you're being payed for it.
I'm putting my hand up.
People taking pics is just par for the course. Be pleased thay they can be bothered.
The OP has answered his own question about how to take good pictures of musicians by providing his link: don't do it in sessions, preferably get them into a studio and use professional equipment.
Wonderful photos, Peter. Thanks. But is there a way to get the slide show to slow down? The photos change before the captions have a chance to appear. Usually I get to see the first three letters of the subject's name before the next photo appears.
Gary I looked to see if I could edit the speed but it seems that's not possible. There is a button though that appears to the right lower end of the pictures which enables you to stop the slideshow.
I wait until the session nights closest to the summer solstice for the best natural light. That time of year, either we're in the pub near a window, or we're outside on the deck. I do not use flash and take photos early in the evening when the light is as good as possible. Sometimes I edit the photos to lighten them later.
I hate flash. Would love to know if there is a good digital camera out there for under $1000 that will take good, crisp natural light or low-light action photos.
That's what I meant David. If you are not interested in the person, if you don't know them, the only reason to photograph them is because they merely look interesting to you. I think that's a terrible reason to take someone's photo.
The nearest equivalent in landscape to a session is the gnome yard in a garden centre. Or possibly an installation by Jake and Dinos Chapman. But maybe others exist in lurid places of entertainment I have not visited.
(is there a mock-up of Dublin in Las Vegas? If not, why not?!..)
Worthy, if you're looking for a pocket camera that is capable of taking excellent low light photos without flash consider the Canon S90 or Sony HX5V. For DSLRs, there are many options.
I don't think I am disagreeing with you Llig, but few words leads to ambiguity. There seem to be several permutations of ethics and purpose.
An unknown person with experience of photography and musicians might manage to take a candid shot from the edge of your session that was similar to the ones that would be in that book that you would buy. I guess you would be annoyed because you are not up on a stage expecting to be looked and you don't know the person.
But does it change the photographic merit of the picture and why does it matter if they are being paid for it ? Does it matter if the person is taking the photo just for themselves, to show other people, or if they are a student on an assigment ?
Thank you for putting up the names of the musicians on the photos on your link Prof. and I will heed the advice..
New mantra.."Learn to be efficient with it". The current over-enthusiasm with my new toy (DSLR) is, just maybe, beginning to annoy some folk..can't be having that!
That is a big issue with DSLRs in sessions, they make quite a bit of noise when the shutter fires, and if you do lots of burst shots you're absolutely going to annoy your fellow players with the ching-ching-ching of the shutter.
That's why I'm suggesting considering one of the later compact cameras that have the newest back-illuminated sensors, they can be setup to be absolutely silent when shooting, and in particular, the Canon S90 has nearly the same performance at f/2 and ASA 1600 as a DSLR, but fits in your pocket.
My mistake, Professor - they are not bw conversions at all, rather, shot on film.
Great job.
Definitely do use a p&s that has no shutter noise.
Why would someone take photos at a session? Egads, what if there were no photographs of sessions? Some things in life are worthy of documenting, certainly sessions counting among them.
I think the permutations of ethics and purpose with regards to snapping people in the pub can get a bit bloated. But certainly, people should at least be thinking about it. Especially those really annoying t w a t s that stick their flashes right in your feckin face.
Why does it matter if they are being paid for it? Because a professional photographer would not take a photo of an unknown stranger. There is no market for such a picture. (Paps are different. The people who get papped are asking for it). But amateurs and students do it all the time.
There's a book published by one of the big US universities (can't remember which one, an American freind came accross it and told me about it) about traditional musics of the world and in the chapter about Scotland there's a pic of me with the caption "A Scottish musician playing traditional Scottish music in an Edinburgh pub." Don't get me wrong, I'm not annoyed by the photo, as such, I'm annoyed by the sheer amateurish nature of it. It's supposed to be a repected academic tome and maybe the text is well researched (I've not read it), but the photos have no authority at all. It's embarrasing.
Student on an assigment? What photography lecturer would set an asignment with the brief of "take some pics of strangers in public"?
Sara, I quite like some of your photos. But a picture of strangers without a comprehensive and accurate caption of who the people are, where they are, why they are there and what they ae doing is not a document. It's merely a disembodied torn off corner of a document.
May not be a "document", but certainly I wouldn't use Llig's criteria to judge the artfulness or enjoyment of a photograph.
Interesting that what started out as a thread on how to take good photos of sessions without flash has turned into a philosophical discussion of whether sessions should be photographed at all...
The Folkways lp with sessions with Seamus Ennis, Maggie Barry, Michael Gorman etc had a Cartier Bresson photograph on the cover in some editions. Not of the sessions though.
Michael, I thought you meant Bonnie Wade's 'Thinking Musically' Don't see any Edinburgh pic in that at a quick run through. It's probably one in that series though. There's one called 'Music in Ireland' in that series as well.
I supplied pictures for both titles. It was an interesting experience, let's keep it at that.
On the noise issue, I don't think shutter noise is too much of a problem in pubs. It's a racket in there anyway. Singers, especially in concert situations tend to throw dirty looks (you tend to photograph singers at the end of a phrase, the moment of silence which can be utterly shattered by shutter noise).
People who can afford a Leica do well there. During the willie week I saw a guy snapping with an M9 with the 50 and 90 mm Noctilux lenses. A set up that cost more than my house did when I bought it.
I used to use an old Rolleiflex (but these days more often a Mamiya 6 rangefinder camera) for the quiet jobs. The Mamiya's lenses are not the fastest but absence of mirror shake and use of wide angle allows me to get away with longer exposures so it nearly (but not quite) levels out.
Most of mine were take with an old Canon AE1 (on B&W film) using fixed focus 28mm and 35mm lenses to get a wide angle shot. I also have an Olympus 35SP http://www.cameraquest.com/olysp.htm perfect for low-light photography with its 1.7 lens. Of course I develop and print my own - why wouldn't anyone want to? Such fun with real chemicals and prints hung up to dry, and no computer involved (except for buying the stuff).
The criteria for judging the artfulness or one's enjoyment of a photograph certainly does depend upon whether it's an abstract landscape or a portrait. Pictures do not stand alone. The context is very important.
Artistic portrait photography is all about the exploration of the human condition. Sure, there are certain instances where a limited insight can be gained from an anonymous model, Bresson was very good at it, but times have moved on, and such exploitation is now beginning to be seen for what it is.
Anybody recognise the name "Sharbat Gula"?
Do a google image search for that name and click through the pages and pages of results and you'll get some idea of what I'm talking about.
Michael, a compliment coming from you is worth a million $ (even with the "but" clause that follows)
I agree and disagree with your comment regarding captions, and much has been said/written about this subject in other fora.
A photo should absolutely be able to stand on its own with no words necessary, words which often interfere with the simple enjoyment of the image.
There are times, though when captions/descriptions are called for, say, for newspaper work and other kinds of documentary photography.
Sometimes I include captions/essays with my photos, sometimes not. (hmmm...I went back to look at what you were probably looking at and see that pretty much everything has a caption or even a little story).
as for the Professor's b&w photos - I thoroughly enjoyed them without knowing anything about who/what/when/where/why. They are composed well; powerful images in their own right.
as for digital vs film - I am very glad to have come up through the Tri-x/darkroom days -spent hours in the darkroom, no better way to learn the art and mechanics of photography imo, but have been totally digital for years now. Love love love it - the gadgets, the possibilities (endless), the technology - I'll never go back to film (unless godforbid all those satellites that make the computer work fall out of the sky), but I'm sure glad I have film as a foundation.
as for "no film cost," ha - keeping up with the latest gadgets, not to mention hours and hours of post-processing time is what you're paying for these days. : - )
Well done Pontus! About three years ago I acquired all the gear I needed to develop and print film not having done it since I was at art school in the 60's, and the first prints coming out of the trays caused as great a feeling of joyous delight as one is likely to get from anything at my age. To keep on topic for this site, among the first ones I printed were session photos. I just love handling photographic materials and mechanical cameras, measuring and pouring and timing. I just felt that this is a proper activity for a person rather than wasting one's life over a computer (like I'm doing now). It's like playing traditional tunes on an old fiddle. This one was taken with the Olympus rangefinder; http://www.flickr.com/photos/bakerart/3081816423/
Using a film camera can have advantages if you are a professional who exhibits and sells prints. though only in certain circumstances. But for any other kind of photography it's either a waste of time (i.e. too time consuming), too inflexible, technically too unresponsive or all of these.
Sure it's OK to have a hobby of messing with chemicals. But the irony of thinking you get better pictures, especially when after all your dripping labour of love, you scan them and put them up on flickr is obviously unrecognised.
It's your choice if all you want is to ride to work on a dreadfully inefficient and filthy - all be it beautiful - steam train, sit all day at a typewriter and send letters, then come home and play records.
But don't insist that the bloke who who rides to work on an efficient electric railway, who sits all day at a computer doing all manner creative things and corresponding by e-mail, and who then goes home and plays CDs is really missing out on anything.
Ah but I'm not saying it's better, it's just different. I take digital photos too for convenience. But as (supposedly) a bit of a dabbler in the fine arts, I like to have a picture that physically exists - something that can be handled, scrutinized, put in a frame, sell, be resold in the art market, go up in value. The photographic print is a thing of beauty in itself, and a scan is merely a substandard copy of it. Digital photography is a blessing for many things, particularly (for example) for photographing artwork where you can adjust colour temperature so easily.
Michael - well said!
Reminds me of a conversation I had once - back in digital photography's infancy when some of us were going into this newfangled stuff kicking and screaming - with a gentleman, well into his 90s at the time, debating the pros and cons of digital photography. He was extolling the virtues of the new medium, I was adamantly disavowing it. He told me, You're living back in the bible days; you're a fundamentalist - get over yourself. It was something - this old geezer telling a young modern thing she was living in the past. He was right, of course.
I agree that real prints can be very beautiful. But the best digital prints can be just as beautiful, and can only be distinguished from the "real thing" with a lupe. And I like the fact/concept that when you put a digital print in a frame and sell it, no greedy idiot from the art market is gonna invest in it.
We can't really work up a good argument here because digital photography is a fantastic technological achievement and has won its battles. However (back on topic) the reason why I take less photos now is because so many people are flashing digital cameras all over the place, at sessions, at folk festivals, everywhere, and they take hundreds of pictures, never assessing them critically, and upload them all to the web to be stored with all the other digital rubbish of our age in server farms that drain energy and destroy the planet. You see the phenomenom of the portly gadget-obsessed (usually male) photographer everywhere pointing his lens often somewhat obtrusively, and you think, "you know what, I think I'll just leave my camera at home"
Among the snappy/flashy tourists in the pub last night (it's Feckin' Edinburgh Festival time) was a girl who introduced herself as a photography student on an assignment. She asked us if was OK to take pics, which was good, and she even asked our names. It was a coincidence considering my post above and I was half tempted to have a discussion with her about all this. But you know what? I just couldn't be arsed. Her pictures will no doubt with go everywhere and nowhere, all over t'internet and into the bottomless and pointless pit of nothingness.
Llig, isn't that where the music goes? Ie it's "in the moment" and in our memories...so it seems appropriate if pictures of it are stuck up on the web and forgotten.
Yes, but why not just be a the session then? A photo is a record. A record should serve a purpose. If that record is forgoten then that's merely ironic.
I do like ricthewhistle's videos (see his comment further up the page) - after all, video and music are both about a sequence of things in time. I was nearly going to say I don't think still photos really "do it" for me, then llig's link (above) really stopped me in my tracks. Wow - uncomfortable, compelling, memorable.
How do you take a good photo at a session?
How do you take a good photo at a session?
Sitting playing in many sessions we get often get interrupted, or more annoyed by camera flashes. Musicians hate camera flashes! (Hands up who doesn’t get annoyed). Anyway, I just know that the photo of a session taken with a standard compact digital camera will not turn out well (but I don't mind being proven wrong); the subject is glared, the contrast and colour just turn out wrong and/or the flash is too bright or too dull. I often think the random tourist/photographer really just wants to capture the atmosphere, the sound, the thrill of the music when it’s going well, these are impossible (almost??) to capture on camera. When will the camera flashing public learn that?? Even though the flash of a camera annoys me a little (and sometimes a lot if it’s constant) I take it as a complement that maybe we’re doing something right and that the punter just wants to be part of that too and take it home with them.
It’s difficult to get a good photo of a session. Things cameras don’t like: movement, low light, windows/light behind the subject, lighted candle in the middle of the table (although sometimes that might work but not for an overall shot) and that’s just for starters.
My question is…how do you take a really good photo of a session? I’m really interested in how to, particularly without use of a flash. What type lens is ideal? And if you have to use a flash, what type is best? Be as technical as you like.
And….if you’ve a good photo(s) I’d really love to see them, would you please post a link or send a link to me by PM.
Here is a link to my favourite photographer of musicians http://www.myspace.com/conkelleher If you scroll down his page there is a wonderful collection of photographs.
# Posted on August 15th 2010 by gtag
Re: How do you take a good photo at a session?
Looks like a cheapo piece of advertising to me I don't see one session photo at all! I mean you talk about taking photos at sessions and being annoyed and then pint us to a professionals site, so what's the story laddie?
# Posted on August 15th 2010 by Shylock
Re: How do you take a good photo at a session?
I have been photographed by Con. Do realise he uses a large studioflash set up for his portraits.
Here's some point and shoot work from the Willie week:
http://s260.photobucket.com/albums/ii19/Kilfarboy/Willie%20Clancy%20Summer%20School%202010/?action=view¤t=958550e2.pbw
http://s260.photobucket.com/albums/ii19/Kilfarboy/Willie%20Clancy%20Summer%20School%202010/?action=view¤t=958550e2.pbw
# Posted on August 15th 2010 by Prof. Prlwytzkofski
Re: How do you take a good photo at a session?
Session shots can be messy. You cut out the clutter as best you can.
I can't think of any I have on-line except for this one, which was just a matter of snapping from behind the instrument.
http://www.uilleannobsession.com/photos/peter_laban/mathuna_oflynn_linnane_benagh.jpg
# Posted on August 15th 2010 by Prof. Prlwytzkofski
Re: How do you take a good photo at a session?
You need a very fast lens with as much glass as possible and a steady hand.
Or a tripod.
And depending on what you want printed,maybe a high speed film-that will give a grainy effect which can be quite atmospheric.
If you must use flash,then bounce it.
For portrait shots,choose a 100mm but otherwise a standard (35mm or 50mm).
Or you could go wide-angle for a group.
I don't know what the score is with digital,though.
# Posted on August 15th 2010 by biggus dave
Re: How do you take a good photo at a session?
Shylock you replied:
...you talk about taking photos at sessions and being annoyed and then pint us to a professionals site...
I assume you meant "point us" - but you should have just left it at:
....you talk about taking photos at sessions and being annoyed and then pint us.
# Posted on August 15th 2010 by Rudall the time
Re: How do you take a good photo at a session?
No harm pointing to Con Kelleher. He does good shots.
Personally I think out of the group of regular trad mus photographers Nutan has the eye.
# Posted on August 15th 2010 by Prof. Prlwytzkofski
Re: How do you take a good photo at a session?
Prof. Prlwytzkofsky - nice link thanks.
# Posted on August 15th 2010 by gtag
Re: How do you take a good photo at a session?
The brief for the Willie shots was to photograph all official events. I am not particularly fond of the first few from the first lecture but they needed to be included.
I was just thinking and I do have some nice session shots, unfortunately the B&W ones if printed at all are not scanned but I may put a few digital ones up later.
Too nice a day today to be inside.
Shooting sessions speed is your friend. Fast lenses high ISO.
I used to shoot sessions in available light on 800 rated film with a 1.4/50mm and a 2.0/24mm (and sometimes the 1.8/105 and 2.8/180). For the digital I now use a 2.8/17-35 and a 2.8/80-200. Digital cameras have now improved so much they shoot very good stuff at 1600 and pretty decent at 3200 and even higher. Most of the concert shots at Willie were 800 or 1600 (you may be able to lift the exif data for information). It can be a bit awkward but a monopod can give you stability.
# Posted on August 15th 2010 by Prof. Prlwytzkofski
Re: How do you take a good photo at a session?
I just noticed I posted the same link for the Willie pics twice. In fact the pics from the second half of the week are here:
http://s260.photobucket.com/albums/ii19/Kilfarboy/Willie%20Clancy%20Summer%20School%202010/?action=view¤t=c0cdbcf8.pbw
# Posted on August 15th 2010 by Prof. Prlwytzkofski
Re: How do you take a good photo at a session?
I've taken numerous photos of my fellow musicians and have had numerous photos taken by other people. With today's cameras, I find it's just a case of blasting away and picking the ones you like. Then again...I'm not getting paid to take photos. However, I wouldn't be a lover of those studies of traditional musicians who look like something out of a catalogue by 'Krash of Ottawa'. We know it just aint true. Traditional musicians in full flight are either asleep, looking miserable, or acting the maggot
Here's one I made earlier.......
http://www.flickr.com/photos/59302818@N00/4893093587/
# Posted on August 15th 2010 by Free Reed
Re: How do you take a good photo at a session?
Great photos Prof. Thanks for the links.
# Posted on August 15th 2010 by No Cause For Alarm
Re: How do you take a good photo at a session?
Tricky without using a flash, but I think a high ISO/low shutter speed can give soulful pictures, especially in black and white.
I lile Danny Diamond
http://www.flickr.com/photos/danny_diamond/
And Paul McEvoy
http://www.flickr.com/photos/paulmcevoy/4846057489/in/pool-irishtrad
The Irish Trad group at Flickr
http://www.flickr.com/groups/irishtrad/
# Posted on August 15th 2010 by eames59
Re: How do you take a good photo at a session?
A little off-topic, as these are some 'snaps' of our session as opposed to photos; some taken holding the camera in one hand in the middle of playing a set of tunes, but at least I'm sitting amongst the action!
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=54475447049&v=photos
# Posted on August 15th 2010 by Rick Payman
Re: How do you take a good photo at a session?
Here's a few of mine http://www.flickr.com/photos/bakerart/sets/72157605770681675/
All of these are on film. I usually have an old camera with me but I hardly take any lately because we all get pi$$ed off at people constantly taking photos and I don't want to be that person.
# Posted on August 15th 2010 by RichardB
Re: How do you take a good photo at a session?
Typo - should of course read Karsh of Ottawa. I was thinking more of myself when I typed Krash. - FR
# Posted on August 15th 2010 by Free Reed
Re: How do you take a good photo at a session?
Until now, I've been using a Nikon D90 with a 24mm lens for session photos, but its huge. A few weeks ago, I bought the Canon S90 pocket camera based on the recommendations of Ken Rockwell:
http://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/s90.htm
The camera combines one of the newer back-illuminated CCD sensors with an f2.0 lens to allow very clean shots without flash at ASA1600 and quite usable at ASA3200. It has program modes, aperture and shutter priority, and full manual modes, and has real dials you can use for setting value rather than having to dig through on-screen menus. All this in a pocket-size camera that sells for about $350.
I took it to the East Coast Noel Hill workshop, here's a couple of examples of shots in near darkness of the session at O'Neill's in New York City:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/eskin/4856644283/in/set-72157624493691873/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/eskin/4857266372/in/set-72157624493691873
# Posted on August 15th 2010 by Michael Eskin
Re: How do you take a good photo at a session?
I have uploaded a totally random selection of stuff that I, for whatever reason, have sitting on the computer. It's all B&W shots taken on film. Flash was used on a few occasions, the shots of Gussie Russell and Paddy Killourhy just wouldn't have been possible otherwise. It was a dark room with a single naked 60W bulb hanging off the ceiling. We had great tunes though. The lighting in Gleeson's of Coore was always so flat the flash actually added a bit of texture, would you believe. I played in 'the band' for years since Junior twisted my arm, played every week so nobody minded.
Photos were taken in pubs, outside pubs, in people's houses. Sessions mostly 'from the inside', a few shots were taken at a CD launch or recital, they are few though. They span fro mthe late eighties to the early noughties. I have more recent B&W work on film but have no scans available. There's a lot more old stuff too that one day may come out.
http://s260.photobucket.com/albums/ii19/Kilfarboy/Sessions/?albumview=slideshow
I'll leave this up for a couple of days.
# Posted on August 15th 2010 by Prof. Prlwytzkofski
Re: How do you take a good photo at a session?
OK that didn't work.
This one will:
http://s260.photobucket.com/albums/ii19/Kilfarboy/Sessions/?action=view¤t=7f32776b.pbw&t=1281892263
# Posted on August 15th 2010 by Prof. Prlwytzkofski
Re: How do you take a good photo at a session?
Some really beautiful shots there, prof. Great work.
# Posted on August 15th 2010 by Jon Kiparsky
Re: How do you take a good photo at a session?
Tom Munnelly for a while pushed me to do a book but I didn't. I thought (and still think) I have the best to do yet.
This summer Nuala O Connor told me to 'do a book before it's to late' . I said 'feck off I am not that old' but when Willie Clancy was my age he was dead six months.
Let's say I'll start doing good prints of the best ones, to start with.
# Posted on August 15th 2010 by Prof. Prlwytzkofski
Re: How do you take a good photo at a session?
Thank you all for the links to the wonderful photos of sessions and musicians.
RichardB has a good point about not wanting to be the person driving everyone mad by constantly taking photos at sessions. There are plenty of folk out there doing a wonderful job already and it's great to get this chance to see some of the photos..but still..I'd really like to do capture some of the characters an my local sessions and do them justice.
Prof.Prlwytzkofsky...do the book!
# Posted on August 15th 2010 by gtag
Re: How do you take a good photo at a session?
Just bring a camera, keep it handy pull it out when you think you have a photo, take the shot and put it away again. Learn to be efficient about it. People get used to it and when they know you they don't mind. Some nights the camera just stays in the bag, some nights you get some nice ones.
The shot of Denis Brooks for example, one Willie week we went out to Mullagh early and were having tunes. Denis was sitting opposite me playing the pipes. The place was pretty dark but there was a window at the back that threw in a lot of light and Denis was catching it all. . I went out to the car, got the camera and meanwhile Denis had lit a pipe to complete the image. I sat down again, took the shot and went back to playing tunes.
# Posted on August 15th 2010 by Prof. Prlwytzkofski
Re: How do you take a good photo at a session?
it's the music that's important, not the pictures!
But, since we're now in the 21st century, in the last year of the first decade, let's go electronic, get a good digital, turn off the flash, and let the electronics do the work.
Most people with a digital camera don't know how to turn off the flash, that's why they are so annoying !
Also, if these flashing punters were any good they'd be sitting in the session playing, not taking photos !
IMNSHO.
I used to do technical photography at my last job, but now I'm only a leisure snapper I'm mainly on digital, took a SLR with me on my last holiday and took about 3 pics with it.
# Posted on August 15th 2010 by Guernsey Pete
Re: How do you take a good photo at a session?
No music without the people. People, places and music are all connected. You can visualise some connections in these images.
# Posted on August 15th 2010 by Prof. Prlwytzkofski
Re: How do you take a good photo at a session?
It seems very hard to produce session photos that don't make the sessioners look as if they are swimming about in the depths of Loch Ness or a vat of heavy.
Perhaps, in reality, they are.
# Posted on August 15th 2010 by nicholas
Re: How do you take a good photo at a session?
Plenty of names get mentioned here. Thanks for a look at many of the faces.
# Posted on August 15th 2010 by David50
Re: How do you take a good photo at a session?
Hey Prof, lovely snaps there. I really enjoyed the. And I'd buy the book for sure.
There are four ways to photograph people. Snap your mates when they're ready for it. Snap your mates pap style. Snap strangers pap style. And snap strangers portrait style with their consent.
I can never understand why anyone would want to take a photo of someone they don't know - unless you're being payed for it.
# Posted on August 16th 2010 by ...
Re: How do you take a good photo at a session?
Do you mean you really don't understand why, or that you know why you wouldn't want to do it yourself ?
This said having enjoyed looking at the Profs photos simply as images of people doing something they 'care about' (not the best expression).
# Posted on August 16th 2010 by David50
Re: How do you take a good photo at a session?
I'm putting my hand up.
People taking pics is just par for the course. Be pleased thay they can be bothered.
The OP has answered his own question about how to take good pictures of musicians by providing his link: don't do it in sessions, preferably get them into a studio and use professional equipment.
# Posted on August 16th 2010 by Alex Wilding
Re: How do you take a good photo at a session?
Stay away from the Guinness.
# Posted on August 16th 2010 by dafydd
Re: How do you take a good photo at a session?
"Stay away from the Guinness." - That must qualify as being the worst piece of advice I've ever seen posted here on the mustard board
# Posted on August 16th 2010 by Rick Payman
Re: How do you take a good photo at a session?
Not if you don't like the taste of Guinness....
# Posted on August 16th 2010 by minijackpot
Re: How do you take a good photo at a session?
Professor - great job, excellent photography, and fine BW conversions.
# Posted on August 16th 2010 by sara505sings
Re: How do you take a good photo at a session?
I 've put names to the faces on the B&W series
# Posted on August 16th 2010 by Prof. Prlwytzkofski
Re: How do you take a good photo at a session?
A lot of people seem to view portrait photography as if it's the same as abstract landscape photography. It's not.
# Posted on August 16th 2010 by ...
Re: How do you take a good photo at a session?
Wonderful photos, Peter. Thanks. But is there a way to get the slide show to slow down? The photos change before the captions have a chance to appear. Usually I get to see the first three letters of the subject's name before the next photo appears.
# Posted on August 16th 2010 by GaryAMartin
Re: How do you take a good photo at a session?
Some people view photographing peoples faces as similar to representational landscape photography.
# Posted on August 16th 2010 by David50
Re: How do you take a good photo at a session?
Gary I looked to see if I could edit the speed but it seems that's not possible. There is a button though that appears to the right lower end of the pictures which enables you to stop the slideshow.
# Posted on August 16th 2010 by Prof. Prlwytzkofski
Re: How do you take a good photo at a session?
I wait until the session nights closest to the summer solstice for the best natural light. That time of year, either we're in the pub near a window, or we're outside on the deck. I do not use flash and take photos early in the evening when the light is as good as possible. Sometimes I edit the photos to lighten them later.
I hate flash. Would love to know if there is a good digital camera out there for under $1000 that will take good, crisp natural light or low-light action photos.
# Posted on August 16th 2010 by worthy
Re: How do you take a good photo at a session?
That's what I meant David. If you are not interested in the person, if you don't know them, the only reason to photograph them is because they merely look interesting to you. I think that's a terrible reason to take someone's photo.
# Posted on August 16th 2010 by ...
Re: How do you take a good photo at a session?
The nearest equivalent in landscape to a session is the gnome yard in a garden centre. Or possibly an installation by Jake and Dinos Chapman. But maybe others exist in lurid places of entertainment I have not visited.
(is there a mock-up of Dublin in Las Vegas? If not, why not?!..)
# Posted on August 16th 2010 by nicholas
Re: How do you take a good photo at a session?
Worthy, if you're looking for a pocket camera that is capable of taking excellent low light photos without flash consider the Canon S90 or Sony HX5V. For DSLRs, there are many options.
# Posted on August 16th 2010 by Michael Eskin
Re: How do you take a good photo at a session?
I don't think I am disagreeing with you Llig, but few words leads to ambiguity. There seem to be several permutations of ethics and purpose.
An unknown person with experience of photography and musicians might manage to take a candid shot from the edge of your session that was similar to the ones that would be in that book that you would buy. I guess you would be annoyed because you are not up on a stage expecting to be looked and you don't know the person.
But does it change the photographic merit of the picture and why does it matter if they are being paid for it ? Does it matter if the person is taking the photo just for themselves, to show other people, or if they are a student on an assigment ?
Why do people want to take photos in sessions ?
# Posted on August 16th 2010 by David50
Re: How do you take a good photo at a session?
Thank you for putting up the names of the musicians on the photos on your link Prof. and I will heed the advice..
New mantra.."Learn to be efficient with it". The current over-enthusiasm with my new toy (DSLR) is, just maybe, beginning to annoy some folk..can't be having that!
Thanks to you all for the advice and links
# Posted on August 16th 2010 by gtag
Re: How do you take a good photo at a session?
Not having to worry about film cost will do that to you
# Posted on August 16th 2010 by Prof. Prlwytzkofski
Re: How do you take a good photo at a session?
That is a big issue with DSLRs in sessions, they make quite a bit of noise when the shutter fires, and if you do lots of burst shots you're absolutely going to annoy your fellow players with the ching-ching-ching of the shutter.
That's why I'm suggesting considering one of the later compact cameras that have the newest back-illuminated sensors, they can be setup to be absolutely silent when shooting, and in particular, the Canon S90 has nearly the same performance at f/2 and ASA 1600 as a DSLR, but fits in your pocket.
# Posted on August 16th 2010 by Michael Eskin
Re: How do you take a good photo at a session?
My mistake, Professor - they are not bw conversions at all, rather, shot on film.
Great job.
Definitely do use a p&s that has no shutter noise.
Why would someone take photos at a session? Egads, what if there were no photographs of sessions? Some things in life are worthy of documenting, certainly sessions counting among them.
# Posted on August 17th 2010 by sara505sings
Re: How do you take a good photo at a session?
I think the permutations of ethics and purpose with regards to snapping people in the pub can get a bit bloated. But certainly, people should at least be thinking about it. Especially those really annoying t w a t s that stick their flashes right in your feckin face.
Why does it matter if they are being paid for it? Because a professional photographer would not take a photo of an unknown stranger. There is no market for such a picture. (Paps are different. The people who get papped are asking for it). But amateurs and students do it all the time.
There's a book published by one of the big US universities (can't remember which one, an American freind came accross it and told me about it) about traditional musics of the world and in the chapter about Scotland there's a pic of me with the caption "A Scottish musician playing traditional Scottish music in an Edinburgh pub." Don't get me wrong, I'm not annoyed by the photo, as such, I'm annoyed by the sheer amateurish nature of it. It's supposed to be a repected academic tome and maybe the text is well researched (I've not read it), but the photos have no authority at all. It's embarrasing.
Student on an assigment? What photography lecturer would set an asignment with the brief of "take some pics of strangers in public"?
# Posted on August 17th 2010 by ...
Re: How do you take a good photo at a session?
Sara, I quite like some of your photos. But a picture of strangers without a comprehensive and accurate caption of who the people are, where they are, why they are there and what they ae doing is not a document. It's merely a disembodied torn off corner of a document.
# Posted on August 17th 2010 by ...
Re: How do you take a good photo at a session?
May not be a "document", but certainly I wouldn't use Llig's criteria to judge the artfulness or enjoyment of a photograph.
Interesting that what started out as a thread on how to take good photos of sessions without flash has turned into a philosophical discussion of whether sessions should be photographed at all...
# Posted on August 17th 2010 by Michael Eskin
Re: How do you take a good photo at a session?
Henri Cartier-Bresson took pics of strangers in public.
Don't know whether he did sessions though.
# Posted on August 17th 2010 by eames59
Re: How do you take a good photo at a session?
The Folkways lp with sessions with Seamus Ennis, Maggie Barry, Michael Gorman etc had a Cartier Bresson photograph on the cover in some editions. Not of the sessions though.
# Posted on August 17th 2010 by Prof. Prlwytzkofski
Re: How do you take a good photo at a session?
Michael, I thought you meant Bonnie Wade's 'Thinking Musically' Don't see any Edinburgh pic in that at a quick run through. It's probably one in that series though. There's one called 'Music in Ireland' in that series as well.
I supplied pictures for both titles. It was an interesting experience, let's keep it at that.
On the noise issue, I don't think shutter noise is too much of a problem in pubs. It's a racket in there anyway. Singers, especially in concert situations tend to throw dirty looks (you tend to photograph singers at the end of a phrase, the moment of silence which can be utterly shattered by shutter noise).
People who can afford a Leica do well there. During the willie week I saw a guy snapping with an M9 with the 50 and 90 mm Noctilux lenses. A set up that cost more than my house did when I bought it.
I used to use an old Rolleiflex (but these days more often a Mamiya 6 rangefinder camera) for the quiet jobs. The Mamiya's lenses are not the fastest but absence of mirror shake and use of wide angle allows me to get away with longer exposures so it nearly (but not quite) levels out.
# Posted on August 17th 2010 by Prof. Prlwytzkofski
Re: How do you take a good photo at a session?
Given up taking photos, taking vids instead. Check out rtwhistle on Youtube.
# Posted on August 17th 2010 by ricthewhistle
Re: How do you take a good photo at a session?
Most of mine were take with an old Canon AE1 (on B&W film) using fixed focus 28mm and 35mm lenses to get a wide angle shot. I also have an Olympus 35SP http://www.cameraquest.com/olysp.htm perfect for low-light photography with its 1.7 lens. Of course I develop and print my own - why wouldn't anyone want to? Such fun with real chemicals and prints hung up to dry, and no computer involved (except for buying the stuff).
# Posted on August 17th 2010 by RichardB
Re: How do you take a good photo at a session?
The criteria for judging the artfulness or one's enjoyment of a photograph certainly does depend upon whether it's an abstract landscape or a portrait. Pictures do not stand alone. The context is very important.
Artistic portrait photography is all about the exploration of the human condition. Sure, there are certain instances where a limited insight can be gained from an anonymous model, Bresson was very good at it, but times have moved on, and such exploitation is now beginning to be seen for what it is.
Anybody recognise the name "Sharbat Gula"?
Do a google image search for that name and click through the pages and pages of results and you'll get some idea of what I'm talking about.
# Posted on August 17th 2010 by ...
Re: How do you take a good photo at a session?
I would like to have seen a session pic taken by August Sander.
# Posted on August 17th 2010 by biggus dave
Re: How do you take a good photo at a session?
A session pic by August Sander would be the guys marched out of the pub and stood in a line outside
# Posted on August 17th 2010 by ...
Re: How do you take a good photo at a session?
Yes,I know.
But you would see everbody for what they are.
# Posted on August 17th 2010 by biggus dave
Re: How do you take a good photo at a session?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1w2DLDioAPo
# Posted on August 17th 2010 by ricthewhistle
Re: How do you take a good photo at a session?
Get Spencer Tunick to take the pics: http://www.spencertunick.com/
# Posted on August 17th 2010 by RichardB
Re: How do you take a good photo at a session?
Michael, a compliment coming from you is worth a million $
(even with the "but" clause that follows)
I agree and disagree with your comment regarding captions, and much has been said/written about this subject in other fora.
A photo should absolutely be able to stand on its own with no words necessary, words which often interfere with the simple enjoyment of the image.
There are times, though when captions/descriptions are called for, say, for newspaper work and other kinds of documentary photography.
Sometimes I include captions/essays with my photos, sometimes not. (hmmm...I went back to look at what you were probably looking at and see that pretty much everything has a caption or even a little story).
# Posted on August 17th 2010 by sara505sings
Re: How do you take a good photo at a session?
as for the Professor's b&w photos - I thoroughly enjoyed them without knowing anything about who/what/when/where/why. They are composed well; powerful images in their own right.
as for digital vs film - I am very glad to have come up through the Tri-x/darkroom days -spent hours in the darkroom, no better way to learn the art and mechanics of photography imo, but have been totally digital for years now. Love love love it - the gadgets, the possibilities (endless), the technology - I'll never go back to film (unless godforbid all those satellites that make the computer work fall out of the sky), but I'm sure glad I have film as a foundation.
as for "no film cost," ha - keeping up with the latest gadgets, not to mention hours and hours of post-processing time is what you're paying for these days. : - )
# Posted on August 17th 2010 by sara505sings
Re: How do you take a good photo at a session?
I got started with digital but now I'm getting into film...
Just love the feeling of old cameras - all metal and no batteries to worry about...
# Posted on August 18th 2010 by Pontus Adefjord
Re: How do you take a good photo at a session?
Well done Pontus! About three years ago I acquired all the gear I needed to develop and print film not having done it since I was at art school in the 60's, and the first prints coming out of the trays caused as great a feeling of joyous delight as one is likely to get from anything at my age. To keep on topic for this site, among the first ones I printed were session photos. I just love handling photographic materials and mechanical cameras, measuring and pouring and timing. I just felt that this is a proper activity for a person rather than wasting one's life over a computer (like I'm doing now). It's like playing traditional tunes on an old fiddle. This one was taken with the Olympus rangefinder; http://www.flickr.com/photos/bakerart/3081816423/
# Posted on August 18th 2010 by RichardB
Re: How do you take a good photo at a session?
Using a film camera can have advantages if you are a professional who exhibits and sells prints. though only in certain circumstances. But for any other kind of photography it's either a waste of time (i.e. too time consuming), too inflexible, technically too unresponsive or all of these.
Sure it's OK to have a hobby of messing with chemicals. But the irony of thinking you get better pictures, especially when after all your dripping labour of love, you scan them and put them up on flickr is obviously unrecognised.
It's your choice if all you want is to ride to work on a dreadfully inefficient and filthy - all be it beautiful - steam train, sit all day at a typewriter and send letters, then come home and play records.
But don't insist that the bloke who who rides to work on an efficient electric railway, who sits all day at a computer doing all manner creative things and corresponding by e-mail, and who then goes home and plays CDs is really missing out on anything.
# Posted on August 18th 2010 by ...
Re: How do you take a good photo at a session?
Ah but I'm not saying it's better, it's just different. I take digital photos too for convenience. But as (supposedly) a bit of a dabbler in the fine arts, I like to have a picture that physically exists - something that can be handled, scrutinized, put in a frame, sell, be resold in the art market, go up in value. The photographic print is a thing of beauty in itself, and a scan is merely a substandard copy of it. Digital photography is a blessing for many things, particularly (for example) for photographing artwork where you can adjust colour temperature so easily.
# Posted on August 18th 2010 by RichardB
Re: How do you take a good photo at a session?
Michael - well said!
Reminds me of a conversation I had once - back in digital photography's infancy when some of us were going into this newfangled stuff kicking and screaming - with a gentleman, well into his 90s at the time, debating the pros and cons of digital photography. He was extolling the virtues of the new medium, I was adamantly disavowing it. He told me, You're living back in the bible days; you're a fundamentalist - get over yourself. It was something - this old geezer telling a young modern thing she was living in the past. He was right, of course.
# Posted on August 18th 2010 by sara505sings
Re: How do you take a good photo at a session?
I agree that real prints can be very beautiful. But the best digital prints can be just as beautiful, and can only be distinguished from the "real thing" with a lupe. And I like the fact/concept that when you put a digital print in a frame and sell it, no greedy idiot from the art market is gonna invest in it.
# Posted on August 18th 2010 by ...
Re: How do you take a good photo at a session?
We can't really work up a good argument here because digital photography is a fantastic technological achievement and has won its battles. However (back on topic) the reason why I take less photos now is because so many people are flashing digital cameras all over the place, at sessions, at folk festivals, everywhere, and they take hundreds of pictures, never assessing them critically, and upload them all to the web to be stored with all the other digital rubbish of our age in server farms that drain energy and destroy the planet. You see the phenomenom of the portly gadget-obsessed (usually male) photographer everywhere pointing his lens often somewhat obtrusively, and you think, "you know what, I think I'll just leave my camera at home"
# Posted on August 18th 2010 by RichardB
Re: How do you take a good photo at a session?
Couldn't agree more, of course.
Among the snappy/flashy tourists in the pub last night (it's Feckin' Edinburgh Festival time) was a girl who introduced herself as a photography student on an assignment. She asked us if was OK to take pics, which was good, and she even asked our names. It was a coincidence considering my post above and I was half tempted to have a discussion with her about all this. But you know what? I just couldn't be arsed. Her pictures will no doubt with go everywhere and nowhere, all over t'internet and into the bottomless and pointless pit of nothingness.
# Posted on August 18th 2010 by ...
Re: How do you take a good photo at a session?
Llig, isn't that where the music goes? Ie it's "in the moment" and in our memories...so it seems appropriate if pictures of it are stuck up on the web and forgotten.
# Posted on August 21st 2010 by Mark Harmer
Re: How do you take a good photo at a session?
Yes, but why not just be a the session then? A photo is a record. A record should serve a purpose. If that record is forgoten then that's merely ironic.
This is how to take photos of strangers
http://www.magnumphotos.com/Archive/C.aspx?VP=XSpecific_MAG.BookDetail_VPage&pid=2K7O3R151HV4&utm_source=Global&utm_campaign=d2844321a3-POTW0820108_20_2010&utm_medium=email
# Posted on August 21st 2010 by ...
Re: How do you take a good photo at a session?
I do like ricthewhistle's videos (see his comment further up the page) - after all, video and music are both about a sequence of things in time. I was nearly going to say I don't think still photos really "do it" for me, then llig's link (above) really stopped me in my tracks. Wow - uncomfortable, compelling, memorable.
# Posted on August 22nd 2010 by Mark Harmer
Re: How do you take a good photo at a session?
You use the word memorable Mark and its true. I just happened to click on about an hour ago and al the images remain uncomfortably ingrained.
# Posted on August 22nd 2010 by big_tab
Re: How do you take a good photo at a session?
Yep. Next time you take your camera out, think about purpose.
# Posted on August 22nd 2010 by ...