| Plunging headlong into the art of darkness |
[Jul. 8th, 2009|09:32 am] |
There was a flurry of interesting gigs in London over the last week, and I took myself off to a few of them with a view to putting some words and pictures in the next issue of Nemesis To Go - and also because going to gigs is my idea of a good night out.
I haven't done the words yet, but I can show you some of the photos which may or may not make it into the next issue.
In general, I try to make my gig photos as no-nonsense as possible - subject in the middle of the frame, nicely lit, everything sharp and clear. That may not always be possible, given that often I'm struggling with the stage lighting, and performers who never stand still for even 1/125 of a second. The first thing you learn as a live music photographer is that everything is completely out of control. In a way, I rather like this, because it levels the playing field between the experienced professionals with their hi-end kit, and point-and-pray merchants like me. Getting a good photo is probably more than 50% sheer chance for everyone.
In spite of all that, I try to shoot for my simple goal. Nice clear pictures. No funny stuff. And no ART, dammit.
So, I'm in two minds about this one. Is it a cool shot that captures the frenzy of a band in full rock 'n' roll flow? Or is it a bit of a crap photo with too much blurring? In short - art or fart?
Mostly, I don't use flash at gigs. It just creates a stark, washed-out look, with the band as harshly lit as if they're standing around in somebody's kitchen. But sometimes, when the stage lighting has been turned down to 'midnight in a coal mine' level, I have no choice. It's a flash shot or no shot.
The photo below could go either way. It's not quite as harsh as most flash shots, but I don't know if it's un-harsh in a good way - note what's happened to the bassists's head. Cool effect or just a bodge-up?
I'll probably end up using this one, because it's practically the only bass player shot I got all night - she was standing in her own bespoke pool of darkness throughout the gig. But I can't help thinking the people here look strangely artificial, like Gerry Anderson puppets. Maybe they're the Destiny Angels on their day off:
The photo below was taken at a gig where the only lighting came from films projected over the bands. This, of course, practically screams 'ART!' - and I was practically screaming, too, with frustration at my inability to get a decent un-flash photo. The reason this pic is so small is because it looks shite at a bigger size. At this size, I might just get away with it.
This one almost has a beige tone - very inappropriate for this performer, who is one of the most un-beige artists I've ever seen. But I swear they had the sepia gels in:
Here's one with relatively good lighting. You'll probably know it's Samantha Valentine out of Ipso Facto. Her curly bass and non-curly hair are instantly recognisable, although she was playing for another band on this night.
I quite like this photo apart from the big blurred hand. Strangely enough, I had that problem with Samantha Valentine before. I got around it by ruthless cropping (see the top-right pic from the Offset Festival set here). But I don't think I can do a similar crop-job on this one. The hand stays in the picture!
So that's a little dip into the Art of Darkness that is gig photography. I see some more interesting gigs looming up on the calendar, so maybe I'll have a few more visual excitements in the near future. In the meantime - bands, throw your photographers a bone here. Switch a light or two on! |
|
|
| Comments: |
I like the projecty one best, that "practically SCREAMS art". It looks good at that size.
The top one, I can't make my mind up about because all I can think of is "It looks like an old man in a bandana... and tassles on his jacket!" which is a concept too much like anathema to get beyond.
The bandanna man is the lead singer out of Ulterior, who is basically a one-man assemblage of rock 'n' roll style clichés. Bandanna - fringed jacket - leather trousers with the button tantalisingly undone (don't all rush at once, girls) and pointy boots. He always wears this stuff.
Opinion is divided about the pointy boots. Some say biker boots would set off the outfit more appropriately. You can't ride your Harley in winklepickers. It just isn't done.
But anyway - his whole image is so deliberately OTT that he must be making a point. I just can't decide if it's an ironic point or not. In a way, it challenges people - you've got to get beyond the image to get to the music, which I rather like. But I feel almost guilty about liking a band fronted by a bloke who looks like that. I didn't fight in the punk wars so that modern new wave bands can wear bandannas and fringed jackets!
I thought the top one was Wolfie-Citizen Smith - until I realised that it was a bandana not a beret.
Next time I see the band I'll shout 'FREEDOM FOR TOOTING!' at them. That'll give them something to puzzle over!
Getting a good photo is probably more than 50% sheer chance for everyone.
More like 90% surely, if the number of shoddy ones I get is anything to go by. | |
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}