IF you were shooting "night club" and had any lens of

[cindygillespie]

<p>I wish I so badly could post the images I have at 35mm however due to confidentiality I can't. I will look through my files to show the difference that I am talking about.<br>

And THANK you all so very much for the much needed directions.<br>

Since I don't do this much I think that I will stick with my fast primes and change out when needed. I have the space (and a clean one) close to the lighting box so I am not worried about changing out. So I do believe the Tamaron will go back and a 50mm will join my bag.... I just like the clarity and the ability to pop the eyes still under "night club" conditions I think that is important in telling the story.</p>

 

[greg_peterson3]

<p>I shot in Jazz clubs back in the days of High Speed Ektachrome. My go-to lens was an 85mm f1.4 Nikkor. A 135mm f2 and a 180mm f2.8, along with a 50mm f1.4 rounded out my kit. </p>

<p>None of these were auto-focus, "thru the lens" metering was primitive, and zoom lenses 40 years ago were total crap.</p>

<p>ISO 200 (They called it "ASA" back then) was about as high as you could go without getting far too much contrast. </p>

<p>Count your digital blessings!</p><div></div>

[Spearhead]

<blockquote>

<p> A big 2.8 zoom will make people feel like you're shoving a bazooka in their face. </p>

</blockquote>

<p>I shoot in clubs two to four times a week and have never had that reaction. I shoot with Canon, but it's the same thing, I use a 24-70 zoom. I also usually have a flash on the camera, whether or not I'm using it, and a connected battery pack. Nobody ever reacts like I'm shoving anything in their face.</p>

<p>Given that most clubs are very tight, I don't see how using anything longer than a 50 on a crop body is going to get you anywhere. I've been doing this for a long time and have a good feel for it, and have only used longer lenses shooting from balconies.</p>

<p>I wrote an article for photo.net on this topic, Eric Arnold contributed to it. You can find it <a href="../learn/club-photography/photographing-bands-musicians/">here</a>.</p>

<p>Worrying about absolute sharpness in club shooting is pointless. This includes shots that sell, people want atmosphere more than absolute sharpness. The only people who care about that in shots like these live on web forums. Always check their posted pics to see what is going on there.</p>

<p>This is a shot from a few months ago...</p>

<p><img src="http://spirer.com/barbaryjan2011/content/images/large/_57P9952_Edit.jpg" alt="" width="874" height="656" /></p>

[nathansanborn]

<p>Cynthia,<br>

As you don't have this need very often, but are still looking for the highest quality available, you should consider renting a lens. That may make a lens far out of your budget available the few times you need it.</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p><em>Given that most clubs are very tight, I don't see how using anything longer than a 50 on a crop body is going to get you anywhere.</em></p>

<p>I don't understand such generalizations. I've shot in clubs where anything from 24mm to 200mm could easily be used without going to the balcony. And from the balcony and from the sides, 300mm (on FX) would find its uses. I shot a lot of close-ups of the lead singer from directly below and had to use a 180mm. If I had had something longer, I could have gotten a more frontal view similar to the majority of the clubbers. Anyway, I have found the 85mm and 135mm get the most use, with the 200/2 being difficult to move with the club being tightly packed with people. Using the very large lenses practically requires that you have space allotted for you and your equipment where no one unauthorized can get. This is stuff that happens at large events, not typically at clubs where the customer's interests come way before any photography. I have shot singers using the 200/2 in theatres and restaurants but generally prefer the handling as well as the perspective of the 85/1.4 and 135/2. However this is far from saying that "won't get you anywhere". Clubs vary, as do styles and preferences for types of shots.</p>

<p><em>people want atmosphere more than absolute sharpness.</em></p>

<p>There is no reason why a shot cannot be atmospheric and yet pin-sharp at the same time, unless you have problems with technique or inadequate equipment. Not all shots need to be that way, of course; it depends on the type of image. If the musicians really wanted soft images, they'd do their studio promo shots that way too, fuzzy. Funny how they don't.</p>

[joseph_smith3]

<p>Hi Cynthia, I second the recommendation for renting a lens. Many of my photo friends have done this for special one time needs or before they buy an expensive new lens. Here is one vendor they have used: <a href="http://www.borrowlens.com">www.borrowlens.com</a><br>

Joe Smith</p>

[joseph_smith3]

<p>The correct link is <a href="http://www.borrowlenses.com">www.borrowlenses.com</a></p>

<p>Joe Smith</p>

[Spearhead]

<blockquote>

<p>I've shot in clubs where anything from 24mm to 200mm could easily be used without going to the balcony.</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br />I've never seen a club where shooting with a long lens wouldn't get a lot of heads in the way. I've been doing this professionally, and know a lot of the other shooters doing it professionally, and I've never met one that uses a long lens. Why don't you post a few so we can see what you are doing.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>There is no reason why a shot cannot be atmospheric and yet pin-sharp at the same time, unless you have problems with technique or inadequate equipment.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Then you aren't shooting in many clubs. Try shooting at ISO 3200, 1/4 sec wide open in a club that won't allow flash and then let me know how you got "pin-sharp." Once again, show us some photos or it's just yakkety-yak. Eric and I both shoot in these conditions, as does anyone that actually shoots clubs regularly, rather than talk about it, and there is no way to avoid it.</p>

[alex_zepeda]

<p>Joe: I'd stay as far away from borrowlenses.com as possible. Given how close their 'hq' is to me, I decided to try to rent the Sigma 30 from them before buying it. I gave them three chances, but they cocked it up each time. Despite their web site showing that the lens was in stock, each time the reservation came up whoever I'd talk to would conveniently forget that I had mentioned to a real, live person that I specifically wanted a Sigma 30. Finally they agreed to courier the lens to a local shop. When that reservation came due, they told me they were sending some other lens instead because they still didn't have a Sigma 30. If you want something, anything to fondle and you don't care what try borrowlenses.com. If you want an organized company lensrentals.com seems to be the way to go.</p>

[alex_zepeda]

<p>Jeff: I agree completely. Ultimate sharpness ain't gonna happen. A lot of things /won't/ happen in a club environment, and in the end it's all about making the best of a really tough environment.</p>

<p>Which is all why I tend towards more contrasty black and white images. It gives a bit of forgiveness in terms of blur, the noise is less distracting, and the awful high ISO color shift is not noticeable. With the D200 I'm limited to ISO 1600 before it gets really bad, and even at ƒ/1.4 that often won't give me more than 1/30th in which to take a shot. Matrix metering is utterly useless at that point because 1/30th is a few stops below what the camera thinks is appropriate and my hands are too jittery to get a decent shot at 1/4th.</p>

<p>Steven: There's a line between tact and being rude. You've crossed it with your unnecessarily condescending posts. Grow up.</p>

<p>Cynthia: If you're comfortable with primes I think you'll do just fine with your choice. If your subjects aren't going to move around huge distances you'll be perfectly fine. I just can't imagine shooting concert stuff with anything slower than ƒ/2.</p>

<p><a href=" title="Pineapple Princess @ the Eagle for Hulaween 2010" src="http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1054/5130717718_20fcd68249_z.jpg" alt="Pineapple Princess @ the Eagle for Hulaween 2010" /></a></p>

<p>D200 • ISO 1000 • Cosina Voigtlander 58/1.4 • ƒ/2.0 • 1/125th</p>

<p>I'd /love/ to see someone recreate this shot with a BlackBerry.</p>

[Spearhead]

<p>Alex - terrific - who is that?</p>

[alex_zepeda]

<p>That last one was Pineapple Princess (ukelele punk) for the Halloween show last year at the (soon to close) Eagle in San Francisco. The woman in question is a friend of a friend whose name I forget, but the second part of the trio has been in a few notable local bands including the Meat Sluts and an all-female Mentors tribute band.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<blockquote>

<p>I find myself in dark, dank clubs often enough that I'd not want to deal with anything than an ƒ/1.4 lens. An ƒ/2.8 zoom just wouldn't be practical for me. If I had a camera with a usable ISO 3200-6400 I might be singing a different tune.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>this is exactly the reason i got a D3s. it was a learning experience, to say the least, to do this type of stuff with a d80 and 28-75 for a year. one thing i want to say is that these shooting conditions are difficult. they are challenging, even using flash, and moreso with available-light. even with the right lenses and the right camera, it ain't easy.</p>

<p>Alex, i'm always impressed by your 58/1.4 shots. you make a good argument for manual focus. i'd imagine it would be more difficult with an animated act that moves around a bit.</p>

<p>Jeff, that looks like my friend Lisa B. was that at the Wrazz Room or Yoshi's SF, perchance?</p>

<p>Greg, i'm completely jealous of your Miles shot. i was one year old when that was taken.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Clubs vary, as do styles and preferences for types of shots.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>that's why a good lens selection is important. after doing this for a while, you start to recognize what works in what venue and what doesn't. i've not used anything longer than the 70-200, and even with that, you have to watch out for people's heads.</p>

<p> </p><div></div>

[eric_arnold]

<blockquote>

<p>I just can't imagine shooting concert stuff with anything slower than ƒ/2.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>that's largely because of the d200's shortcomings in the high-ISO department, which forces you into shooting with fast primes. which is ok, because you have to develop a sense of composition. with a d90/d300, though, you gain about a stop, and with a d7000 another 1/2 to full stop, with a d700 another 1/2 to full stop, and with a D3s you gain about 3-4 stops over a d200.</p>

<div></div>

[Spearhead]

<blockquote>

<p>Jeff, that looks like my friend Lisa B. was that at the Wrazz Room or Yoshi's SF, perchance?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>She's a dancer, goes by the name Mynx D'Meanor. It was at The Impala in North Beach, formerly Black Cat.</p>

[Spearhead]

<blockquote>

<p>That last one was Pineapple Princess (ukelele punk) for the Halloween show last year at the (soon to close) Eagle in San Francisco.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You, me, and Eric are going to run into one another at some point. I shot at The Eagle about ten days ago, Greg Dale, Eric McFadden and Bone Cootes each had sets. </p>

[Spearhead]

<p>Here's McFadden and an un-named singer. Hard not to recognize The Eagle.</p>

<p><img src="http://spirer.com/prenatal/content/images/large/_57P5183.jpg" alt="" width="841" height="561" /></p>

[alex_zepeda]

<p>Eric: Sure, you get a few stops, which will help a great deal, but it's still a dark environment. Especially at the shorter lengths, I like a faster lens for aesthetic reasons (separation from background). In any case, I don't do photography for money (at least not at this point) so the thought of me upgrading to a pro body is, for now, out of the question.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>well, alex, i like your shots and do find them aesthetically-pleasing, so obviously that's working for you. i think there's a progression involved and its better to build your technique up and your body of work, than to jump right in with 10k in gear and have no idea what you're doing. down the line, you may find folks willing to pay you -- i've had overseas inquiries based on published shots -- so just keep on doing what you're doing. i think eventually you will want to get something more capable than a d200, but there is something to be said for learning how to eke out every bit of performance out of a camera like that before going to the next level. if along the way, you develop an original style, so much the better. :)</p>

<p>i could talk/post shots on this topic all day...</p><div></div>

[rodeo_joe1]

<p>I have an ageing Vivitar Series 1 70-210mm f/2.8 (AKA a Sigma AF Apo), which I find ideal for this sort of work - that's using a D700. On FF I would find the 28-75mm range too limiting, and for audience or crowd shots I would have to cheat and bring along my MF AiS 28mm f/2 or 35mm f/2 as well, but since they weigh next to nothing compared to the monster Vivitar, I don't see that as an issue.</p>

<p>If I was pushed to choose just one focal length and on a tight budget, then I'd go for the Samyang 85mm f/1.4. Can't be beat for the money.</p>

[john_narsuitus]

<p>When I shoot nightclubs, concerts, or theatre with 35mm film, here are the lenses I normally use (each lens on a separate body):<br>

35mm f/1.4<br>

85mm f/1.8 (or f/1.4 if I had one)<br>

180mm f/2.8</p>

<p>When I shoot nightclubs, concerts, or theatre with digital, here are the lenses I normally carry with two DX bodies:<br>

14-24mm f/2.8 (wide-angle)<br>

20-35mm f/2.8 (normal to wide-angle)<br>

35-70mm f/2.8 (normal to telephoto)<br>

80-200mm f/2.8 (telephoto)<br>

50mm f/1.4 and/or 35mm f/1.4 (low-light option)</p><div></div>

[andrew_andrews1]

<p>The live <a href="http://www.andrew-mason.com/music.html">band photography</a> on my site were all shot with a Sigma 28mm f1.8, a Tamron 17-50mm, Nikon 85mm f1.8, or Nikon 50mm f1.8 all at around max aperture, ISO 1600, shutter speed of of around 1/80 sec, and a lowly D300<br>

So, any lens with a reasonable max aperture will do!</p>

[goldenrichard]

<p>Hi Cynthia,<br>

I shoot concert photography and previously used a D300 (which has now become a backup) but now shoot with a D700. I generally carry the 24-70mm with me at all times for nightclub shoots and also regularly bring a 70-200mm VRII. I do own a 50mm f/1.4 and there are occasions where it's absolutely required, but I'm committed to not disrupting shows and being able to zoom between dancers, people hugging the stage, etc. is crucial (that's the reason for having the 70-200mm even in tight quarters). High-impact shots are often difficult to get with the 50mm, because in a crowded room you really can't "zoom with your feet" unless you want to trip all over everyone.<br>

You can check out some examples of very high ISO situations on my website @ <a href="http://www.highisomusic.com/">http://www.highisomusic.com</a>. Note that in many cases the D700 saves the day by allowing me to really push things to the extreme--I could do that to a smaller degree with the D300 (older work there is with a D300). If you go with the D7000, you should be somewhere in between.<br>

Ditto +3 on the no flash unless it's a critical situation and you've cleared it with the band. It's a mood wrecker and very distracting for the musicians.<br>

Good luck and enjoy the music and the experience--it's challenging stuff, but amazingly fun to pull off.<br>

Best,<br>

--Golden</p>

 

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>Jeff, I haven't encountered a situation in night clubs where I'd have to shoot a main performer at f/1.4, 1/4s, ISO 3200. I wouldn't be able to see anything in lighting that dim so I doubt very much the realism of such a scenario. More typical is, in my experience, that the lead singer is lit by 1/200s, f/2.8, ISO 3200 give or take 2 stops. That's at the clubs I've shot in, such as Apollo in Helsinki.</p>