NPZ for concert

[kariann]

Okay, I am going to be shooting a live concert in May for a CD

cover. Just a local band. I ordered NPZ, because I'm assuming the

lights will be off. I've never shot NPZ, only NPS and NPH. Actually,

I've never shot with ISO 800 film, that I can recall. I always shoot

with 400, and overexpose it a couple f-stops, if need be. Anyways,

just wondering if anyone has any advice for me? Thanks. Kari

[rolfe_tessem]

NPZ was a good choice. I'd rate it at 640 if there is lots of tungsten light. You certainly don't need to derate it by a couple of stops. It is similar to NPH only faster and a little bit grainier.

[roger krueger]

Shoot some other band under the same lighting first to see how much trouble you're in.

Get some Fuji 1600 too--it's ugly, but not as ugly as motion blur.

<br><br>

If all you've got is the N60 and the zooms mentioned in other threads you'd better hope

the stage lights are really cranked up--a lot of small venues have light that'll give you

maybe 1/100 at f2 at an EI somewhere between 3200-12,500. With slow zooms and 800

speed film you'd get nothing.

<br><br>

Do you intend to shoot flash? How does the band feel about this? Will flash give you the

look you want for the CD? You could try a flash combined with a slow shutter speed--1/2

second at f5.6 might be a place to start--this'll give you blurry stage lighting color

combined with a sharp flash image.

<br><br>

If you're still considering a D70 that'll do a MUCH better job at EI 1600 than fast film. Get a

50/1.4 or 50/1.8 to go with it and you'll have at least a fighting chance. Something wide

and fast would be good too--my Canon 24/1.4 on full-frame is my concert favorite--but

that sort of thing may be beyond your budget. Don't buy from the schmucks at Circuit

City, and don't buy from whoever conned you into the Quantaray either.

<br><br>

www.bhphotovideo.com is reputable and cheap, www.calumetphoto.com is good also--

I've gotten big-ticket items from both with absolutely no problems. But I wouldn't

approach ANY camera dealer without a very firm idea of what you wanted to buy--they'll

try to sell you whatever is best for THEM, not for you.

<br><br>

Again, DO NOT go into this shoot without having already proved to yourself that you can

successfully shoot in this club with whatever equipment and film it is you intend to use!

<br><br>

<img src="http://www.punktures.com/supersuckers1/VW1C3047.jpg">

<br><br>

Eddie Spaghetti of the Supersuckers, probably (I lost the EXIF data) 1/100 at f2.8 using

24/1.4 on 1ds II at EI 3200, 1-2 stops underexposure fixed in Photoshop.

<br><br>

Roger Krueger<br>

<a href="http://www.punktures.com">www.punktures.com</a>

[ivan_dzo]

I shoot a lot of bands and only use npz. It's great a bit grainy but good colours and handles tungsten well. BUT... you will need a fast lens. I mainly use a 58mm f1.2. Any wide angle will need to be at least f2 for you to focus. Avoid flash, it kills atmosphere. Occas slow sync flash can work with a speed of 1/15-30th to get a good motion blur. Good luck and shoot lots of film!

[kariann]

Hey guys.

 

Thanks for all the advice. I'm laughing, because I think some of you are VERY concerned about me doing this concert! And, your concerns are well-founded. That's not what has me laughing. Actually, the reason I ask so many questions is because I haven't taken a photography class since high school-a long time ago! There is a lot I DON'T know.

 

What has me laughing is that I need to be more clear on this "concert." It's a small local band from Pleasureville, Kentucky. The concert is at a church. There is no stage lighting-they can't afford it! And, believe me, I have seen their past CD covers-I know I can do a better job. They have seen my work, and think it's some of the best they have ever seen. (if that doesn't say it all! not that I don't think I do a good job, but there are many of you who could do better, I am sure.)

 

Anyways, I really don't think this is over my head. If the lights are off, it's usually the back lights in the church, but the overhead lights in the front are still on. It's not a club, there won't be screaming fans waving beers around! I love the picture you uploaded, but I laughed because that's not quite how it's gonna be. I like the photo, by the way. I would love to learn how to take more pics like in that lighting.

 

Anyways, hope that puts it more into perspective for all of you. Maybe that will change your advice, maybe not. I am interested to know. By the way, I ordered my D70 yesterday, but the guy doesn't want digital shots! Should I try to talk him into it-at least for the concert shots? I could still shoot film for our outdoor cover shots. Whaddya think? Kari

[magumi]

NPZ is a good choice, see my <A HREF="http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=450916">my pictures here</A>. You can also consider shooting B&W. Just remember, that at a concert there is always less light than you might expect, so take a fast lens and at least one roll of superfast film just to be sure. For a venue like yours, I would not bother lugging more than one or two lenses, though, as you can agree with the band beforehand to let you walk around the set and perhaps even on the stage.

[roger krueger]

<i>The concert is at a church .... It's not a club, there won't be screaming fans waving

beers around!

</i><br><br>

So I guess the bra thrown from the crowd and left hanging on the microphone stand (right

side of photo) is a no too?

<br><br>

I'll still stick with the advice to try shooting--or at least metering--the venue with

concert-level lighting. Work your way backwards to film speed needed to get a 1/100

stopped down 1 stop on your fastest lens. Maybe you can get away with 400, maybe you

need 1600--better to know before the show.

<br><br>

re: the D70--even in this lighting it'll beat 800-speed film pretty handily, Sometimes you

need to educate clients--probably the only digital they've seen is a P&S with ugly direct

flash. Explain to them the difference between professional digital and toys. You also need

to be sure they understand that ISO 800 available light shots--especially on film--aren't

going to look nearly as clean as the overexposed NPH (which I like too) stuff they saw in

your portfolio.

<br><br>

Whatever it was they reacted to best in your portfolio, shoot some more like that with the

D70, and get some nice prints done to show them what digital can do in YOUR hands.

<br><br>

Point out that if this is a one-chance-only thing shooting two different bodies is good

insurance anyway. This way you can come off as very conscientious and still shoot your

digital.

<br><br>

Even in this brighter light a 50/1.8 is going to be a lot easier to shoot than your zooms,

and a lot sharper.

[kariann]

Thanks, Roger. Didn't notice the bra! :) I'm still laughing! Hopefully the bras will stay on at this concert!

 

Okay, you're gonna really start getting concerned for me now. What did you mean by "Work your way backwards to film speed needed to get a 1/100 stopped down 1 stop on your fastest lens."? Huh? Layman's terms please.

 

I'll look into the 50/1.8 lens. Alot of people have recommended it.

 

Before I ask this next question, please remember that I haven't taken a photo class since high school. (a long time ago) And, I don't think they covered this! :) Everyone keeps saying I should get the 1.8 lens. Is that just the lowest aperture rating? People keep mentioning speed. Is there really different speeds to lenses? Yah, now you can see how I got "duped" into buying the quantaray lens-which, by the way, I have never had a problem with. I wasn't buying a camera at the time for "industry standards", just wanted a nice camera for everyday photos. I shrink as I write this...beginning to feel really stupid..crying. (not really crying)

 

I have shot a lot for paying clients, and they have always been happy, but hey, I'll be the first to admit I have alot to learn. That's why I'm here. And, really, I haven't had a lot of experience with flash/indoor photography. (just a couple weddings) Most of my weddings have been outdoors, when we lived in southern California-how can you go wrong? Same with senior pics, family photos, etc...all outdoors.

 

 

 

Please be nice and gentle with me! And, I'll take all the wisdom I get! Kari

[roger krueger]

Sorry I went too fast...

<br><br>

Maybe a better way to put it is: go to the church to check out the lighting. (make sure

you're seeing the same lighting the event wil have. See what exposure your camera gives

you for 800 speed film in aperture priority. You want to be stopped down one stop from

your lens' maximum aperture, so if it's an f4 lens choose f5.6.

<br><br>

If,--metering for ISO 800--you're getting a shutter speed faster than 1/200 you can

afford to shoot 400 speed film or maybe use the NPZ at 400 to overexpose. If you can't

even get to 1/80 or maybe 1/60 you'll need either 1600 speed film, push processing on

the NPZ (rate it at 1600 and have them overdevelop it) or a faster lens. If you can't even

make 1/30 you need a faster lens, or black and white EI 3200 (Kodak TMZ or Ilford Delta

3200)

<br><br>

Or, put even more simply, just go in and see if you can get acceptable exposures with the

lenses and film (or digital body) you intend to work with, making sure that the lighting is

the same as it'll be for the show.

<br><br>

<i>Everyone keeps saying I should get the 1.8 lens. Is that just the lowest aperture rating?

</i><br><br>

Yes, that's the lowest aperture rating. That's over two stops faster than an f4

zoom. Not only does this give you two extra stops of exposure, but it also makes the

viewfinder a lot brighter. (on modern SLRs you're always looking through a wide-open

lens, it doesn't close down to shooting aperture until the mirror is going up.)<br><br>

There are plenty of other (non-zoom) lenses that are faster, better built and (a little)

sharper, but they all cost 5 to 10 times as much. 50s are the biggest bargains in

photography, and considerably sharper than consumer zooms

<br><br>

<i>Most of my weddings have been outdoors, when we lived in southern California-how

can you go wrong?

</i><br><br>

Oh, you can go very wrong...<br><br>

June, Temecula, 2pm 95F full-formal ceremony in a grove of trees that killed any breeze.

Bride wanted big prints so I had to shoot medium format. Latticework gazebo casting

bizarre shadows so I had to run around with a big flash for fill to kill the shadows. Just

about passed out before it was over. Formals? I got about five minutes before all the guys

ditched their jackets. Couch potatos in soaking wet white dress shirts turning transparent,

yum!

<br><br>

<i>I have shot a lot for paying clients, and they have always been happy, but hey, I'll be

the first to admit I have alot to learn.

</i><br><br>

You appear to be proof that technical mastery is not the prerequisite some think it is for

many kinds of professional photography. Weddings in particular are more about posing,

herding and crisis management.

<br><br>

<i>the quantaray lens-which, by the way, I have never had a problem with.

</i><br><br>

It's not that it's unreliable, it's just that it's not going to be terribly sharp, especially at

wider (numerically lower) apertures. Not really ugly, but not great either. The kind of thing

you might not notice until you have a better lens to compare it with.

<i><br><br>beginning to feel really stupid

</i><br><br>Nah, you know you need info and are asking the questions you need to

ask. Stupid is realizing after the event that you have no keepers.

<br><br>Really, really stupid is getting to an event a half-hour from home with flashes,

backup flashes, monolight for formals, backdrops, laptop, memory cards, film, lenses,

batteries, tools... but neither camera body. (Yup, I've done exactly that).

[James G. Dainis]

Really, really stupid is shooting a wedding and getting to frame 40 before realizing you have forgotten to put film in the camera. (Yup, I've done exactly that).

[kariann]

Hey, Roger. Thanks. That helps a lot. I found the 50mm/1.8 lens at B&H for $89.95-it'll be my next purchase. I get my D70 on Friday and am thrilled.

 

And, thanks, Roger and James for sharing your horror stories. Makes me feel a little brighter! I haven't done either!:) But, I must say I often forget to take the lens cap off, although I always see it when I look through a black viewfinder!

 

Hey, Temecula! We lived in Murrieta, and I must say that's where I did most of my weddings. Did one in Costa Mesa. I even did one in July(Murrieta), when I was 3 months pregnant and had previously been on the couch for those 3 months with morning sickness! I almost passed out a few times,too. (outdoor wedding, outdoor reception) And, I've never thrown away more than 25 or so pictures out of 10+ rolls that I've taken at any wedding. So, I'm feeling better about myself! Thanks!!!

 

Well, I look forward to getting my Nikon lenses in the future and seeing the difference I haven't previously known.

 

Thanks again for all the help. You were gentle with me-explained things well. Sometimes I read posts and am just lost and think-why am I doing photography-I don't know what in the world half of you are talking about!!:) You all have helped me greatly. I'll let you know how the concert goes. It's not til May, so I have some time to figure it all out. God bless. Kari