Too much noise for a dance performance?

 

<p > </p>

<p >I had an odd experience last night, and I wanted to describe it to see what other photographers think:</p>

<p > </p>

<p >I've been shooting dance shows for about seven years, usually as the sole paid professional with a standard, simple contract. Last night I went to a show by a new local troupe in which a good friend was performing. A few months ago she asked the producers if they wanted my services, but they had already contracted with a professional and his second shooter. So I told her I wouldn't be shooting this like a normal dance show, but I said I'd try get some good shots of her anyway.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >When I got there I found the "professional" was a friend of the producer, and the second shooter was his son. They each seemed to have a rented D3 with a hulking flash and tripod (for a dance show?) and set up at some odd positions and angles. As soon as the show started I suspected they didn't really know what they were doing --- unless they were geniuses their shutters weren't clicking nearly often enough in those very challenging light conditions (I was often at ISO 6400 to keep 1/250 @ f/2.8), to get the concurrence of in-focus, sharp, and well-composed shots of fast moving dancers, and it felt to me like they were missing some of most beautiful moments. At least they weren't using the flashes! So I figured what the heck, I only brought one body with me, but maybe I'll try for a pretty complete set of photos, let my friend show them to the organizers and maybe they'll decide to hire me instead next time.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Normally I'd be shooting two bodies at 8 fps; last night I shot one body that would only go to 5 fps, and was also concentrating on following my friend around on the stage, and so took probably a third as many frames per dance as I normally would for a paying job.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >At the end of the first dance (while the dancers were still performing!?!) the man seated in front of me turned around angrily and said "this is just too much, too much" and continued berating me for taking too many photos during the break before the next set. I was really surprised by this, because I had never had this happen, having photographed almost a hundred dance shows over the years. I stammered an apology and said I'd try to take fewer photos in subsequent dances. My friend wasn't in all of the dances, so I figured I'd change my plan, and ease off and just grab a couple frames of the dances she wasn't in. This didn't satisfy the man, who asked after a couple more sets that we exchange seats. It was a little awkward to climb over the row of seats during the short break between sets, but I obliged anyway. I looked around to see if I could move somewhere else, but there weren't free seats with any reasonable vantage point. Being behind me instead of in front of me didn't satisfy him either, except now he could tap me on the shoulder every time I took a burst. Great.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >He was irate during the intermission again and nearly yelled at me for a few minutes. Part of me felt terrible that I was impacting his enjoyment of the show, and I told him so. But I also told him that I have photographed about a hundred dance shows, and have never had this kind of reaction. I admit I was also upset when he said, "you don't know what you're doing, taking too many photos like that" and suggested that these days "any yahoo can buy a big digital camera and pretend he's a photographer". He called me a yahoo! In Massachusetts!</p>

<p > </p>

<p >He then found an usher during the intermission, who came over and asked me not to take any more photos. At that point, of course, I put away my camera. Maybe this was for the best, I had gotten some nice shots during the first half, and he was now satisfied.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >But my take on this is a bit uncertain. I wasn't the paid photographer; I was just another paying customer like the irate gentleman, and obviously I had impacted his enjoyment of the show. In retrospect I think I probably should have ceased any photos once he complained, or found a way to move my seat. I think if I hadn't had the experience of shooting shows similarly with no problems, I wouldn't have been so flummoxed by his request. On the other hand, in addition to the two professionals, there were plenty of other people with DSLRs clicking away. Maybe he could have moved his seat instead. I asked my friends who were sitting next to me if the noise bothered them at all, and begged them to be honest. They said they hardly noticed it at all. I'm reminded of how one summer back in college I lived above a girl who would throw a tantrum if I took more than a tiptoed step in my room at night. I did feel bad for disturbing her, but eventually I made her ask to switch rooms, because it was just an unreasonable imposition. Maybe the floor creaked in an unusual way, but I think she was probably a little crazy too. I think I feel the same way about this fellow.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >But what if this happens when I'm the paid professional? Have I been annoying the paying customers around me all along, and this fellow was just the first with the admirable courage to voice it? Or was he just overly bumptious and perhaps cursed with bionic ears? Should I put something in my standard contract boiler plate about this situation for the future? If so what? Something like "photographer is indemnified from any losses resulting from complaints from patrons regarding noise or light from his cameras?" I'll sometimes take photos at the tech rehearsal as well, but almost all groups want me to come to an actual performance.</p>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

<p >A Jacobson Blimp or its DIY equivalent seems like over-kill, but should I buy a soft Camera Muzzle and get in the habit of using it at dance shows, or at least always have it on hand? I don't mind buying one, I just never thought I'd use it --- normally I'm shooting from the first row, and never really thought much about this situation. I've never been asked by the organizers of a show to use a blimp, but as I said, I'm not talking about classical music concerts or stage plays, where I have just shot during a tech rehearsal.</p>

 

<p > </p>

<p >Now, I think this might have also been a special situation that was no one's fault. It seemed like there were some strange acoustics in this hall, especially in the middle where we were sitting, and the music was way too soft. I could hear the other photographers' shutter clicks more clearly than normal. A Chinese dance show isn't a heavy metal concert, but it isn't a classical music concert either. This was a large concert hall, and there was not nearly enough sound to fill it. It's hard to remember precisely, but I think this was the quietest dance show I've ever photographed, at least as heard from where I was seated. My friend, the dancer, felt the music was too quiet too, even on stage.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Frankly, I have to admit I'm dying to see what the other photographers produced. Maybe I'm not as good as I think I am and so rely on taking more frames? I will take almost 3,000 frames per hour during a fast moving dance show. But my clients have always seemed very happy with the 100-200 images I end up providing to them. (At least they keep hiring me back!)</p>

<p > <br>

Sorry for the long post, but I didn't know how else to describe this one! Much obliged for any thoughts.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>On the other hand, in addition to the two professionals, there were plenty of other people with DSLRs clicking away.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Samuel, I'm rather taken aback. I have never attended, or participated in, a theatrical performance where photography was NOT specifically prohibited. In my photographic experience, mostly with theatre and some with dance, photo calls are held usually during or around a dress rehearsal, not during the performance run. Hell, the sound of my 7D even annoys ME during public events.</p>

<p>It is like a wedding, if the bride-and-groom hire a photographer, the hired photographer has control of the 'show.' By you bringing a camera and trying to duplicate the 'hired' photographer -- the extra camera noise managed to offend at least one man (as you found out.) Who knows, the man may have been the uncle of the second shooter?</p>

<p>If you were a cake baker instead, would you have brought a second cake to the dance show, knowing the back-stage manager had ordered a cake already for the after-show party?</p>

<p> </p>

I attended a wedding yesterday, and, of course, the videographer and photographer were both very disruptive, but as they

were hired, the guests and wedding party accepted it. For a guest to have been similarly disruptive would have been rude.

 

"Disruptive" is a matter of opinion, of course.

 

In any performance that isn't itself loud, I can understand how shutter noise (judging from my D700) would be disruptive.

 

Assuming that the first request from the man who was bothered was polite, I can also understand why he escalated it

when it didn't work.

 

So, my advice is to make a disruptive shutter noise only when you are the official photographer.

 

-Marc

<p>It no longer seems sufficient for people to take a couple of nice shots at any performance these days; photography and youtube videography have taken over from enjoyment of live performance at many concerts I have attended.</p>

<p>It does affect my enjoyment. I prefer to listen to the words and music than the staccato chatter of "machine-gun" photography and I prefer to view the performance unmediated by thousands of backlit screens. With the advent of flip screens, cameras now are held aloft regardless of the effect on the seats behind.</p>

<p>The suggestion that the patron you continued to annoy should move to a seat with an inferior view, just so that you could carry on, is the most telling in your post.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>unless they were geniuses their shutters weren't clicking nearly often enough in those very challenging light conditions</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>I don't understand what the lighting condition has to do with how often the professional photographers clicked their shutters. I'd suggest taking a queue from them. In some situations, you may be better served going for quality over quantity.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>except now he could tap me on the shoulder every time I took a burst. </p>

</blockquote>

<p>That's the problem. Why are you taking bursts? There's a time and place for that. Dress rehearsal? No problem. Outside at a sporting event? Absolutely fine. In the middle of an otherwise quiet theater? Absolutely inappropriate regardless of how many others are taking photos. Why not take a few single shots that are well timed? You're going to throw away most of the burst, anyway.</p>

<p>If you don't want to get a blimp, I'd suggest using a camera that has more silent operation. The latest Canon 1D has a "silent" mode whereby only the shutter is tripped when you depress the button. It recocks only when the button is released, and it does so a lot quieter than in normal operation. This comes at a trade-off of speed. I could probably get 3 fps in this mode, but that would defeat the purpose. :) </p>

<p>Eric</p>

<p>I don't do many shows, but find that photographing local plays at dress rehearsal to be very nice. Everything looks the same, and I don't have to worry about disturbing anybody. I think I saw a Joe McNally video endorsement that he did for Nikon one time; he was photographing some dancers, and he was also getting his stuff done during a rehearsal.</p>

<p>Why photograph the show itself? Except maybe as a newsworthy backup? Will the actual show look so different from rehearsal that your viewers would know the difference in the photos?</p>

<p>A friend of mine who has been a working actor for years once told me <strong>to never fuss about those blimp contraptions.</strong></p>

<p>His point was, it's just better to make the photos separately because the stills are a low priority relative to the performance production. Well, my pride aside, I could see he was right.</p>

<p>There's nothing to do in recording the event that should supercede the value of the event itself. So, if the camera needs to be silenced that much, then maybe you should be using other limitations, like judgment, first. What about respect for subject?</p>

<p>So, start looking at the shot plan and ask yourself: how critical is it that I make this photo the way I preconceived it? It may very well be that it is easier and better for you to make the photos at rehearsal instead of at the event itself.</p>

<p>Shoot a crapload of B-roll at rehearsal. Look at that shot plan. Do you have a list or set of sketches or collection of previous similar photos that outline what you want to make a picture of at that show? Look at those photo ideas. Of those, how many have to be made that night?</p>

<p>Final bow? Audience reaction pictures? Maybe a special one-time event like a fight scene, crash or explosion? Isn't that list of one-time events smaller than the list of photos which would illustrate the entire event?</p>

<p>Well, can you get the list of critical photos trimmed down by supporting them with some previous photos at rehearsal? Wouldn't this be part of location scouting and <em>your</em> rehearsal?<em><br /></em></p>

<p>Hey, if you are intruding, wouldn't it make sense to spend your political capital on intrusions which were critical to your storyline? In order to get that done, how else but to get the shot list trimmed by making supporting photos at another time, like during rehearsal?</p>

<p>If the only photos you are making of the event are on the night of the event, then how is that helping the people who are staging the event? Clearly, they have a commercial need to get the word out about the performance before it happens. If your recordings are only taking place as the show is going on, then how can that help them advertise? Maybe not an initial motive; but, in <em> </em>these markets, shouldn't we keep one eye on satisfying a commercial need?</p>

<p>Wouldn't a picture of the performance, before the performance, be a little more valuable to the people who have to pay for the costs of the show? Wouldn't making that picture at rehearsal, or some other time before, be of slightly improved commercial value?</p>

<p>Ever buy a ticket to a show that happened yesterday? Ever go back to the box office and pay more for your ticket, after the show, because you thought the show was good? Nope. Shows are a front-end payment deal. That payment plan also translates to the commercial value of your photographs. Not to say that they won't have any value after the performance; but, they probably would have a greater value before the performance, especially during peak ticket sales windows a week to half a week before.</p>

<p>So, <strong>it might not only be nicer</strong> to make the pictures before the night of the show,<strong> it might pay better.</strong> At least to get some of them done that way.</p>

<p>Sorry, Samuel, but I have to side with the complainer, even if his reaction was a bit over the top. Live musical performances are unique in their need for audience silence, and someone who coughs at the wrong moment can collect a host of dirty looks.</p>

<p>Camera noise is very annoying to the audience, and sometimes the performers, during a performance. I do most of my shooting at dress rehearsals, where I have the freedom to move around and shoot freely. If I shoot during a performance, I stay out of the way - in the sound booth or wings - and use a blimp if there is any chance the sound can be heard otherwise. I do pretty much the same at weddings. You can shoot away during the procession and recession, but stay quiet during the ceremony unless you can tuck yourself out of the way in back or in the Sacresty (well behind the door).</p>

<p>As a classical concert, opera, dance and jazz goer I appreciate your raising the question of sensitivity. I agree with others, that dress rehearsal or the curtain call at the end is the time for photographs, not during the performance the audience pays to go to watch and hear. In fact, many of the venues I have attended in the last few years, cameras and cell phones have been banned during performance. One rather famous performer, who will go unnamed, even stopped in mid performance because of a "cougher" in the audience, and waited for the person to either take a cough drop or leave and get a drink of water....it seemed extreme, but the performance thereafter was much more enjoyable for the rest of the audience. If the production company hires professionals to shoot the actual performance, I would hope they respect the wishes of the audience and not interfere with their enjoyment. I know that many of the popular music concerts actively encourage people to take lots of shots, even with flash cameras, and unfortunately many people assume all venues are the same and they can shoot away to the annoyance of other attendees....they are not the same! Thanks for raising the sensitivity issue for commentary.</p>

<p>I have been an actor, set builder, lighting designer and sound tech. I have never even HEARD of someone firing 'bursts' during a paid performance. If I heard that at the local Arts Center, I would find the House Manager and insist that the person be stopped forthwith. It is probably the rudest thing one could do, short of loud conversation.</p>

<p> So during a show you are sitting in the audience, arrogant about your super skills and the professionals are dupes in your own mind. People want to watch the show and your running your digi snapper at 5 fps completely ruining the evening for everyone around you. Even after there are multiple complaints you keep snapping off your camera and will not stop until officials from the theatre order you to. "Wow"! </p>

<p>Hey, for frame rate, I think my high average is 45 pictures, for a full day.</p>

<p>[About 3 rolls of 120 in 645 or a similar count in small format. Sometimes more, sometimes less, but 45 pictures is a full day and a week of everything else that follows for me.] </p>

<p>I know that sounds low. Yet, think on it like this: can you figure out what that picture should look like, in the end, in its final viewing, before you raise the camera to your face? If the answer is, "No," then put the camera down and think for a minute.</p>

<p>High frame rate is not synonymous with professional photographic work. It's common sometimes, in some ways, <strong>for some reasons</strong> (like there should be a reason why the rate of making pictures is high), but it is not the only way to go. I find that my frame rate is about right when the total frames I've shot have about a 10% : 80% : 10% split. That is, there will be a bottom 10% of misfires and unprintable bad errors. There will be an 80% of "about good" or "okay." There will be a final 10%, the top ten per cent, that's "okay, close to what I want." Every so often I might make a good photo.</p>

<p>For 3,000 frames, with 100 as acceptable: that's about a 3% success rate. [<strong>Or, less! </strong> Are you there for more than an hour?] Don't you think it's time to beef up that set of returns? How about a 3% rejection rate instead?</p>

<p><strong>Why do you have a 3% success rate? </strong></p>

<p>How about slowing down and composing some more? Can you draw a rough sketch on a sheet of paper what the photo should look like before you make it? <a href="http://www.agxphoto.net/photoinfospt/concept%20sketches.pdf">Crude cartoons are acceptable.</a></p>

<p>Slow down. Compose. Think the story through.</p>

<p>What is going to be in that picture? What is that picture going to look like? Are you a camera operator, or a photographer? Photographers draw with light. Camera operators push the button and swing the big lens around. Maybe toughen up there. 3% success rate is not what's expected of guys who think they can handle themselves with a camera. So, proceed with confidence, but I want you to consider composing some more.</p>

<p>That spray and pray stuff has got to go. Replace it with artistic marksmanship with a camera.</p>

<p>It's got to go, even though you don't have to listen to me, because not only are you ticking people off, but you are also failing. 3% success is not success. You have got to get that rate up.</p>

<p>Getting 3% correct on a test is not the example of a right answer. Is it? You need to get at least a "D" on the test. Try for a "D." One day, if you study hard and keep on practicing, you can be a "B" student like me. </p>

<p>"D" means "Diploma." Compose!</p>

<p>Next time try a quiet Leica. </p>

<p>see <a href="../casual-conversations-forum/00WgK4">this thread</a></p>

<blockquote>

<p>Next time try a quiet Leica.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>There are Canon cameras that are less expensive, more versatile, and have a "silent mode."</p>

<p>I have a Leica, and I can assure you it is not silent. Nor is the shutter the only issue. The noise of winding a Leica M is comparable to that of an SLR. Then there is functionality. I use a 70-200 VR more than any other lens for stage and concert photograph, even during dress rehearsals. How does that work with a rangefinder camera?</p>

<p>Posts like this rank near the bottom of usefulness, along with "Stop talking and shoot pictures" and "It's the photographer, not the camera."</p>

<p>"There are Canon cameras that are less expensive, more versatile, and have a "silent mode.""</p>

<p>What evidence do you have of that?</p>

<p>I own one.</p>

<p>Samuel, while I agree that 3000 frames in an hour is quite excessive, I also understand that lay people can be extraordinarily naiive about how many frames are needed to photograph any given scene or event. I've had people complain to me when I've taken as few as 10 frames (e.g. 1 test shot and three bracketed sets at, say three different apertures) of a given scene. In their view, 1 frame should be adequate, and 2 or more is being hoggish and inconsiderate.</p>

<p>Only a couple of weeks ago, I set up a tripod on a bridge to photograph a waterfall, photographed it (rather quickly, I thought), and was breaking down the tripod when some guy on the other side of the bridge (away from the waterfall) fussed at me that I wasn't moving along fast enough. He wanted the road in his photograph, but not me. (Geez, Louise! I think I'm more interesting than a dirty piece of asphalt!)</p>

<p>And then there was this time when I was covering the <a href="http://www.graphic-fusion.com/equalitymarch.htm">Equality March</a> in Washington. At one point I was in a crowd, holding my camera high over my head, using liveview to frame my shots. The New Yorker guy behind me fussed at me for blocking his view with my arm. (It's not a fat arm.) Forget that nobody could see anything anyway. Forget that everyone else had arms in the air, taking pics with their cell phones. It was MY arm that was pissing him off. I invited him to trade places with me, so that my arm would no longer offend him. Then I got this great shot of his arm in front of my camera:</p>

<p><img src="http://www.graphic-fusion.com/equalitymarch0062.jpg" alt="" width="700" height="467" /></p>

<p>I think it made the shot! Thanks, rude NYC guy! ;-)</p>

<p>Pissy lay people aside, you don't have to photograph an entire performance to come away with a good collection of representative shots. I understand needing to take short bursts, but I'd try to minimize my impact. I suspect what the guy was angry about was his perception that you weren't even trying to minimize your impact on the performance.</p>

<p>With regard to the noise issue, there are some pretty quiet DSLR cameras. I think my 40D is pretty quiet -- quieter than my Leica IIIf -- and it manages 6fps.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>So during a show you are sitting in the audience, arrogant about your super skills and the professionals are dupes in your own mind. People want to watch the show and your running your digi snapper at 5 fps completely ruining the evening for everyone around you. Even after there are multiple complaints you keep snapping off your camera and will not stop until officials from the theatre order you to. "Wow"!</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That pretty much sums it up - I sure would be annoyed by someone sitting near me (or anywhere I could hear it) firing away like you did. If you were the paid photographer, I sure hope you wouldn't be sitting in the audience either, firing away at 8fps with two cameras now instead of the lowly 5fps with one camera you managed this time. There is a huge difference doing what you did from within the audience or from the positions you could get to if you were the paid photographer. Even then I'd hope you would take care not to interfere with the enjoyment of the performance for others.</p>

So much virtual ink spilled when there is such an easy answer. As with almost any problem in photography, the solution is a good camera support. Next gig, take along a lightweight but sturdy monopod or tripod. When you arrive, hand it to whoever is sitting nearest you. Tell them they may bonk your head with it whenever you take a picture during the performance, or at their discretion if you shoot faster than they can bonk. The instruction may initially meet with resistance but this will evaporate within the first few hundred frames. At the end of the evening, you will be a better and more efficient photographer and possibly a more thoughtful and considerate person, and those sitting near you will have received a certain degree of satisfaction. At home, look forward to a couple of Excedrin and a shorter raw conversion and editing session.

<p>Samuel, if anyone even noticed you taking photographs during a performance, you're doing it wrong.</p>

<p>Even if I was the officially designated photographer being paid I'd do everything possible to avoid distracting anyone. Besides photography, I've also performed in live theater and directed several stage plays. It's just a given that you never, ever distract the audience or performers during any official run show. Even during final dress I wouldn't do anything that might distract the performers or crew. The show is about them, not you.</p>

<p>I've alway used a blimp or, without a blimp, shoot from the tech booth or other area where I cannot disturb either the performers or audience. With a blimp I've been able to shoot rapid fire sequences of choreographed movements and nobody could hear it, even when my tripod was set up only a few feet behind the seats.</p>

<p>When I've taken snapshots from the regular seating area, I use only a small compact rangefinder - either a 35mm compact with quiet leaf shutter or an even quieter P&S digicam. I use only an optical viewfinder, never a glowwinky LCD screen.</p>

<p>For what it's worth, only once has an audience member ever become irritated with me. It had nothing to do with the photography. She objected to my holding an unlit cigar. We were outdoors and she must have had an extraordinary sense of smell. I put the cigar away. She didn't even notice that I was also taking photos, because the camera was absolutely silent.</p>

<p>You won't get much support here nor sympathy from yours truly. The sentiments of the audience take primacy over your desire to come away with a good shot or two. So no matter what happened before,now you have a better feel for the decorum. And while you are at it, think of how your shooting behavior and apparent indignation sets a reputation for those who follow with equally honest intent. Shhhh trumps clickkk.<br>

However, that said, my OIympus E-1 in single frame mode is very quiet indeed and I would maybe pull off a couple shots if I had the urge. But cautiously, I think. Sometimes these things result in a knuckle sandwich or so I have heard.<br>

Now. What does a <em>Massachussetts Yahoo</em> look like, anyway? We use stronger language than yahoo even out here in alohaland :)</p>