Sheffield Photographic Society? YaaY or Nay!

Is anybody here a member of the Sheffield Photographic Society?

I was interested in joining to get some more experience at photography and to meet up with people who have similar interests.

But one thing I really wanted to get more experience of is live band photography as music is my passion above all things, and they didn’t seem to cover anything like that.

any thoughts?

Not a member myself but, having looked at their stuff and been to a couple of events/exhibitions, they strike me as rather the traditional sort of 'Camera Club' set-up which you might find a bit conventional. Shooting live music performances is, in principle, no different from any mainly low light and high contrast subject where you can't reliably use flash: fast films (or high ISO settings), push processing (or underexpose a stop or two with digital and boost through post processing) etc etc.

Aesthetically however it's a different area, start with looking at the work of photographers you like and think about what it is about any specific picture that makes you think it's a good picture.

It's also an area of work that can be incredibly cliched and unoriginal and, a personal plea here, the world does definitely NOT need another Anton Corbijn.

Err Anton Corbijn rarely, if ever did concert photography.

The photography in the music press is very anoymous it seems these days and what the world does need is more individual photographers like Corbijn, who has an recognizable style - simply copying him BTW is not individual.

Nearly all the concert photos I've seen of late are taken using flash and lacking in any compositional thought whatsoever it seems. Very dull. But to digress, the current music scene is the most boring ever too, maybe there's a link? Everything either sounds like an old song, is an old song or is a cover of an old song it seems. Either that or the bands simply sound like someone form 20-25 years ago. The tribute act has taken over the music industry it seems.

... The tribute act has taken over the music industry it seems.

Nah, you're just turning into your Dad

Not me, it's the bands/acts of 'today' that are turning into their parents. Imagine if Sid Vicious had played in a skiffle band in the late 70s. Or the Rolling Stones had played Big Band Swing Music or the pioneers of House had ignored the Roland 303 and played Beatle's covers instead. Who would the acts of today copy then? People used to be inspired by the past, now they slavishly recreate it. Yawn, yawn. This century has seen an amazing lack of new ideas in fashion and music, the next new thing is simply an old thing rehashed or the old thing, as was.

Which forum was this again??

Going back to the original question. If you want to learn about live photography, simply going out and trying it is my recommendation. This works for me, when it comes to doing new areas of photography.

Err Anton Corbijn rarely, if ever did concert photography.

The photography in the music press is very anoymous it seems these days and what the world does need is more individual photographers like Corbijn, who has an recognizable style - simply copying him BTW is not individual.

Nearly all the concert photos I've seen of late are taken using flash and lacking in any compositional thought whatsoever it seems. Very dull. But to digress, the current music scene is the most boring ever too, maybe there's a link? Everything either sounds like an old song, is an old song or is a cover of an old song it seems. Either that or the bands simply sound like someone form 20-25 years ago. The tribute act has taken over the music industry it seems.

Errr, I know that Corbijn rarely did concert photography but I was using him as an example of a style of photography that I think is best avoided. It may be recognisable but it is also boring, banal, pretentious and pompous (no wonder he found his ideal subjects in U2).

Additionally, what I was suggesting was not that the original poster copy other people's styles (though some might find that a useful way to start) but that he/she should look at pictures they find they like and analyse what makes them work as images. What other way is there to develop your style?

I'm tempted to agree about modern rock but surely it's possible to take interesting shots of even the most dispiriting of contemporary acts. The problem is, as I also noted, that rock photography itself has become cliched through relying on a small range of visual tropes.

A recent anniversary reminds me that one of the best exemplars of how to do this type of photography, even after 50 years, is Al Wertheimer's photos of Elvis in 56 and 57. Even now the power of these images remains undimmed, even enhanced by the passage of time. Undoubtedly the quality of these derived in part from AW's feel for the pure excitement that Elvis brought with him when he first emerged from Sun Studios but they're also a very good example of how to apply technique which comes long before style on the road to success.

PS I forgot to add that agree wholeheartedly that composition is the key to any successful image and that's what you need to work on first and foremost. And going out and doing it is the only way you're ever going to get better. Plus working on the images afterwards and figuring out how they could have been done better.

Also to recommend another aged fuddy-duddy: Val Wilmer.

Errr, I know that Corbijn rarely did concert photography but I was using him as an example of a style of photography that I think is best avoided. It may be recognisable but it is also boring, banal, pretentious and pompous (no wonder he found his ideal subjects in U2).

I'm tempted to agree about modern rock but surely it's possible to take interesting shots of even the most dispiriting of contemporary acts. The problem is, as I also noted, that rock photography itself has become cliched through relying on a small range of visual tropes.

I didn't say it wasn't possible to get good shots of boring musicians. But it's much harder to get iconic images when they dress, as well as sound just like so many bands that went before. Fashion is a large part of music and that's as uninspired as 'current' music is.

Music/fashion used to revolutionary and exciting, now a duff vote on Pop Idol is about as outrageous as it gets.

A recent anniversary reminds me that one of the best exemplars of how to do this type of photography, even after 50 years, is Al Wertheimer's photos of Elvis in 56 and 57. Even now the power of these images remains undimmed, even enhanced by the passage of time. Undoubtedly the quality of these derived in part from AW's feel for the pure excitement that Elvis brought with him when he first emerged from Sun Studios but they're also a very good example of how to apply technique which comes long before style on the road to success.

Actually in many ways AW's pics aren't that much different compositionally from some of Corbijn's work.

In case anyone wonders what these pictures are like

http://www.imaginginfo.com/web/online/Online-Exclusives/Elvis-Lives-in-Wertheimers-Photos/49$2189

Some Corbijn pics - I can't find much of the stuff of his I like online!? His own website is very spartan/underwhelming/rubbish.

http://www.richardgoodallgallery.com/corbijn_gallery.html

http://www.lipanjepuntin.com/desc.php?id_autore=30

I upset the photographer Andy Earl a short while back, when I asked if his Johnny Cash images were inspired by AC's work. He has also done some nice work too, but like AC, his website doesn't show much of it.

http://www.andyearl.com/exhibitions/johnny.html Johnny Cash images

PS I forgot to add that agree wholeheartedly that composition is the key to any successful image and that's what you need to work on first and foremost. And going out and doing it is the only way you're ever going to get better. Plus working on the images afterwards and figuring out how they could have been done better.

Also to recommend another aged fuddy-duddy: Val Wilmer.

Judging by this first selection that Google found

http://www.musicpictures.com/propxt/main/search_string~phoid:349::/ltext~Pictures%20by%20Val%20Wilmer/ppno~1

if they weren't famous people in those pics no-one would give they a second glance. Dull and uninteresting.

We agree on the basics at least.

 

 

Judging by this first selection that Google found

http://www.musicpictures.com/propxt/main/search_string~phoid:349::/ltext~Pictures%20by%20Val%20Wilmer/ppno~1

 

if they weren't famous people in those pics no-one would give they a second glance. Dull and uninteresting.

A good example of why not to rely solely on Google. They are in the main dull because they're photographs mainly of dull pop musicians. It's her photos of blues and jazz musicians (many of whom were not at all famous) you need to look at. I'm surprised you don't know them. Though the one of Dusty in the NPG is pretty good too.

We probably need to separate this into two separate threads, how to take live music photos and the merits or otherwise of Corbijn, Wertheimer, Wilmer etc.

"It's only boring/banal... if you don't like it. If you do like it, he may well be a great/inspiring photographer."

 

I don't like it BECAUSE I find it boring and pretentious. YMMV.

 

"And Corbijn's work is actually quite different from those current cliches. "

 

For me he's a) one of a line of vanity photographers (e.g. Karsh, Testino, Liebowitz, all those guys who photograph City business types) who operates all too often by stroking the egos of his subjects to glamourise them and b) I find his work dominated by repetitive use of a restricted range of technical tropes. Again YMMV.

 

As for Wertheimer:

 

"They are nice pictures, but others may simply think they are 'boring, banal, pretentious and pompous'. The major part of their interest comes from the subject and not the photography. Some are 'snaps' which happen to feature someone famous. "

 

"Nice"? God help us. And even if some of them are just 'snaps' some of them are great photographs which transcend their subject (surely the major part of what makes such images valuable). If Elvis had gone back to being a truck driver after Heartbreak Hotel they'd still be great images. People who want to check for themselves can check out the collection available from Amazon for £6 with the intro by Tony Parsons. There's also an extended collection of high quality prints called 'Elvis at 21' now available. Wertheimer never felt the need to e.g. over-dramatise an image by photographing him close up with a wide angle lens.

 

"Actually in many ways AW's pics aren't that much different compositionally from some of Corbijn's work."

 

Which makes me wonder if you've actually looked at his work at any length or in any detail or just a few things on the Internet.

The Clash, Andrew Loog Oldham, The Beatles, The Kinks, Jerry Lee Lewis...Dull!!

Anything but I'd say. As an aside, Penny Smith's photo of the Clash in concert used on the London Calling album was voted the best image in rock recently.

Bland and uninspired images of famous and anything but dull people.

Val's way before my time and I didn't know AW's name before today, though I've seen the Elvis pics before.