[matthew]

Last week, I was asked to photograph a concert put on by a small collective of amateur singers. (Just like in photography, they're amateurs since they do it for love instead of money.) This was my first such event, but I enjoyed it and would like to do more. Here's a sample of my better shots.

I'd appreciate any comment or critique on any aspect of the shots. My intention is to create images that can be used in the portfolios of the individual performers, and in the future I may also want to create photos to promote the event itself.

1

2

3

4

5

[NT73]

Honest opinion! I can't make up my mind.
I see 'kind of candid shots'. I would imagine the lighting was pretty grim, but you seem to have mastered the exposure.
I think you should be more to the right as we see it, to put more of the occupants of the stage in view.
If I were the singer I would like the pianist in view, but not in the limelight.(maybe a rear view.):/ in some of the pics.
Only my thoughts, not really criticism of the photos.

[Irma]

I think you did well with the light and colors in this series.

About the message you want to give.... I find them a bit passive, static. I see people in a stage, that they might be performing for an audition or in a theater with hundreds of people. As I don't see any relation or response from the public, I have the doubt whether they are good performers or not. I am lacking the ambience, somehow.

[matthew]

Thanks for your feedback, NT & Irma. The lighting was pretty grim; I was at iso1600 and between f2-f3.5 at an equivalent 200mm focal length. I used shutter priority between 1/100 and 1/200, with most shots at 1/125. I was actually there two nights, and was able to use a monopod the second time around. Photos 1-2 were handheld and using auto white balance, 3-5 were on the `pod with a manual white balance. At least the lighting was constant and simple incandescents. No spotlights and no colours to deal with.

I've just finished editing and printing a bunch of photos for the woman in #4; that's taught me that even though I thought that they were pretty good, I need to get a lot better on the exposure and noise control. (Both of which have the same solution, but more about that later.)

For this shoot, I behaved pretty conservatively. For the first night I was under specific instructions to keep a low profile so that I wouldn't spook the less experienced singers. By the second night the singers had seen some proofs and were more comfortable with me there, so I had more latitude, but the hall was more crowded and I kept to a small area at the back of the hall. There was also no side-stage area where I could hide to get shots from a non-audience point of view. Next time I'll be a little bolder and a little better equipped.

Another problem that I ran into was the camera's noise. Actual noise. The E-1 that I was using has a very soft shutter, and the 35-100 f/2 has a subdued focusing motor, but it could still be heard from several feet away. That restricted my shooting to louder moments of the show (no photos of the a capella song!), which was its own challenge. People singing usually have their mouths open, which makes for unflattering poses, but when they stop, its too quiet. It's a classic Catch-22 situation. Next time I'll puzzle out a DIY version of a 'sound blimp' to reduce this problem.

All told, I'd call it a good pair of shoots with a lot of keepers, but no "wow!" photos. That gives me something to aim for next time.

[NT73]

I think you need to plan a day at rehearsals. Then noise would not matter. And you could use flash or your own lights........ plus a few with audience looking on.

I don't think I could do it.:/

[matthew]

Rehearsals would be great -- I could bring my little Alien Bees and blow that theatre lighting away. I hate the double shadow that it's casting. Plus I could be as much of an idiot as I want without bothering anyone. I'm always concerned about being 'that annoying guy with the camera' when I'm trying to do my thing.

You've just put that on my 'next time' wish list.

[shuttertalk]

Great stuff Matthew... like the others have said, the exposure and lighting is excellent.

If I were to give any criticism, I think the poses look slightly rigid, apart from the first one. It must be hard to capture great shots given the conditions though, and I think you did a great job.

[matthew]

Thanks, Jules.

It's funny that looking back at the photos that I didn't think were worth including here, I do see some that show a little more life to them. I have a gallery on my site for the performers; these are completely unedited photos but give a better range. They've all made it through a couple of selection rounds, but the ones that I included in this thread were the ones that I prefer.

I've been called "too clinical" by my old photography instructor -- I think he knows what he's talking about. :/

[Wedding Shooter]

Having a look at your site Mat it becomes very obvious how small the theatre is. I think you did ok considering what you had to deal with.

Noise of the mirror slap can be quite obtrusive in a quiet theatre.