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 :hihi:

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??:confused:

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).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'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. And Corbijn's work is actually quite different from those current cliches. :P
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.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. A bit like Amanda De Cadenet's book 'Rare Birds'. http://www.powerhousebooks.com/titlesf05/insiderarebirds.html
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!?:confused: 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. We agree on the basics at least. :D

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. :D


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.


[QUOTE=jezzyjj;2561750]"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. :P "

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.

I don't like it BECAUSE I find it boring and pretentious. YMMV. Being absolute about something completely subjective is a waste of time. It's not to your taste and therefore it's boring. Whereas if it was to your taste, you wouldn't mind lots of it. You are simply post rationalising your subjectivity. Exactly the same thing applies to music. Music one doen't like, gets descibed as boring, even though it may actually be less repetitive than what you prefer. Yet to someone who likes the music you don't, that music is anything but boring. For instance I like some dance music [e.g. House] and dislike other types [e.g.Trance/Hardcore]. Trance seems more boring to me than House, even though it is no more musically repetitive than House is. Maybe you don't like Lith printing, hence you dislike AC's work as he favours lith.


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.A photographer who takes flattering pics of his subjects, how dare he/she make them look good!!! Besides, personal taste aside - AC's work is not what I would describe as flattering. Harsh and unforgiving maybe.
Taking flattering pics is a real skill BTW and not something I'd so casually dismiss. My personal pet hate are photographers who take crap and unflattering pictures, as that takes no talent whatsoever. Yet magazines are prepared to pay far more for them, than good photos these days. I'm talking papparazzi shots here BTW.

As for Wertheimer:
"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.Maybe he didn't have one. Extreme Wide angles were much harder to come by then, if even available. Photographer's had a very restricted focal range compared to today. Two of the lens I currently use were simply not even available say 10-15 years ago. And some of his pics are still just snaps. Just because they are of someone famous does not make them great photos in themselves. I guess you don't like Platon's work then. He uses W/As for portraits. As does Steve Pyke. Or mine either, as I rarely shoot with anything longer than a 70mm. Personally I don't like to have to shout at my subjects when photographing them.
I just did a extended series of portraits in Sweden using just my 24-70mm. It made the project more challenging and creative, by limiting the toolset [and also the environs+lighting]. Very different to how I normally shoot.

"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.Those pics in the link above are indeed very similar in composition to some of AC's work. I don't need to see all of someone's oeuvre to decide whether some specific examples of their work is similar to some of someone ele's work. And there are [ironically] strong similarities between the two photographers in some of their work. The main differences are more in printing styles.

Being absolute about something completely subjective is a waste of time. It's not to your taste and therefore it's boring. Whereas if it was to your taste, you wouldn't mind lots of it. You are simply post rationalising your subjectivity. Exactly the same thing applies to music. Music one doen't like, gets descibed as boring, even though it may actually be less repetitive than what you prefer. Yet to someone who likes the music you don't, that music is anything but boring. For instance I like some dance music [e.g. House] and dislike other types [e.g.Trance/Hardcore]. Trance seems more boring to me than House, even though it is no more musically repetitive than House is. Maybe you don't like Lith printing, hence you dislike AC's work as he favours lith."

No. Your point of view is the same old simple relativism that says that all opinions are simply matters of taste. So no discussion of any aesthetic matters of criticism then? You can't say anything is good or bad only whether or not you like it? There are no good or bad photos or music (or whatever) only things you like or do not like? All attempts to give reasons why one does or does not like things (or thinks them good or bad) are only post rationalisations of a gut feeling? OK if that's what you believe you are entitled to that opinion but it means that you can then say nothing interesting about any work of art, just whether or not you like it. Not without contradicting yourself that is. There's a major difference between saying everyone is entitled to an opinion and saying that things are only a matter of opinion.

And I don't object to lith printing per se, what I dislike is when it becomes a habit, a reflex, the 'this is a boring picture but lets make it look interesting and important by really boosting up the contrast' habit. I can't think of any great photographer in the past who did that. Corbijn does. It's a trope. If he abandoned his tropes he might be a better photographer. In my opinion, of course. Oh yeah, and stopped taking pictures of Bono as well.


"A photographer who takes flattering pics of his subjects, how dare he/she make them look good!!! Besides, personal taste aside - AC's work is not what I would describe as flattering. Harsh and unforgiving maybe.
Taking flattering pics is a real skill BTW and not something I'd so casually dismiss. My personal pet hate are photographers who take crap and unflattering pictures, as that takes no talent whatsoever. Yet magazines are prepared to pay far more for them, than good photos these days. I'm talking papparazzi shots here BTW."

I'm no fan of the art-school, Martin Parr, type of '"let's make these people look really ugly and stupid" school - one of the faults of the recent exhibition at the Tate is that this stuff is way over-represented - still less the stuff that gets into Heat or similar magazines these days. Me, I'm nostalgic for the days of Picture Post. But the vanity photographers (and I listed several) are just the obverse of this coin and neither group have, in my opinion, anything much interesting to say in the way of aesthetically valuable work. One doesn't want to make people look either ugly or beautiful as a principle, you want to capture them as they are. But then I'm just a dinosaur fuddy duddy Cartier Bresson, Bert Hardy and Kertesz fan.

It may be technically well done but was it worth doing? I don't have that worry with them but I do with Corbijn and a host of others (including David Bailey).

"Those pics in the link above are indeed very similar in composition to some of AC's work. I don't need to see all of someone's oeuvre to decide whether some specific examples of their work is similar to some of someone ele's work. And there are [ironically] strong similarities between the two photographers in some of their work. The main differences are more in printing styles.

I think one of the things may be that Wertheimer actually invented some of the cliches, in the same way that Elvis invented many of the cliches of the white rocker but for them then they were original not cliches. For Corbijn they are cliches. You may not need to see the whole of AW's work to venture an opinion on him but it would help if you were more familiar than you evidently are. And so some of his and some of Corbijn's stuff use similar compositions? So what?

A quick post before I respond.
You need to be able to quote properly otherwise your posts don't make a lot of sense. It looks like I'm arguing with myself in post above or you are talking to yourself, like in a previous post. Also it makes quoting you a lot harder.
A [/quote] is placed at end of text quoted and a at the beginning of said text. I wrote it that way around as other wise it would end up being quoted like example below.
[quote] for example
Go advanced in your replies for more formating info, smilies etc.

And so some of his and some of Corbijn's stuff use similar compositions? So what?You like AW you dislike AC. Yet printing styles aside, some of their work is very similar. Yet you seem to hate AC in spite of liking essentially very similar work. And yes AC may well have been influenced by AW, but then again, he may not have been. Regardless, he brought his own originality to the mix as well. Whether you like it or not is not so relevent. And the fact that he stuck to a particular style will be seen by some as a strength, though by yourself it is a weakness. I prefer more variety myself. Though he's actually more varied [stylisticaly] in his output than Henri CB who you like.
If you have a mix of styles in your portfolio, you may be criticised for lacking focus, if you stick to a strong style, you may be criticised for lacking breadth. Either way you get slated by someone.


And I don't object to lith printing per se, what I dislike is when it becomes a habit, a reflex, the 'this is a boring picture but lets make it look interesting and important by really boosting up the contrast' habit. I can't think of any great photographer in the past who did that. Corbijn does. It's a trope. If he abandoned his tropes he might be a better photographer. In my opinion, of course. You are sort of contradicting yourself there. If someone tends to always do high contrast images, then they are not making it contrasty simply to then make a boring picture interesting, they may be doing it as it's their style and that's what they like. AW's pics probably would have been quite anodyne if not in B+W and I could have have said, "what I dislike is when it becomes a habit, a reflex the 'this is a boring picture but lets make it look interesting and important by making it B+W' habit."As for great photographers and high contrast - Bill Brandt would be on that list. Though possibly a bit arty for your tastes. There's Edward Weston, Dorothy Lange, David Bailey and Andre Kertesz [who you like], he also did some prety contrasty images in his time too.


No. Your point of view is the same old simple relativism that says that all opinions are simply matters of taste. Not all. Just those pertaining to [fundamental/hardwired] taste. A subtle but huge difference. Some people like blue some like green others like yellow. I don't like yellow, but to start rationalising why I prefer dark green to light yellow is pointless as it is purely a matter of taste. The same applies to music/art/photography..etc but as the subjects being judged are more complex than a single colour, so people start to try and rationalise the 'why' of liking. When ultimately, the like/dislike reason is as fundamental as one's colour preference. But you wouldn't mock someone's favourite colour as you would their choice of music say. How they combine colours is however another matter. And the reason why one person likes something may be exactly why another dislikes it.
The technical execution of a piece of art may be opined about more absolutely, but even then a blurry image may be better than a sharp one or indeed vice versa, depending upon subject and intention of the photographer. Personally I loathe the 'video' look of digital photography. So for me that can spoil the image from a technical standpoint. But that is because that look/feel does not appeal to my inherent taste.


So no discussion of any aesthetic matters of criticism then? You can't say anything is good or bad only whether or not you like it? The only accurate [or mature] thing one can say is whether you, as an individual, like something.

There are no good or bad photos or music (or whatever) only things you like or do not like? All attempts to give reasons why one does or does not like things (or thinks them good or bad) are only post rationalisations of a gut feeling?Of course there are good/bad images, but first you have to judge what the goal of the image is. A snapshot that captures a family moment may be a fantastic image for those involved, but probably meaningless/very boring to everyone else. A picture of Elvis with his mates will be of interest to a slightly larger audience than the average snapshot, but Elvis didn't really mean a lot to me. For me, he was a fat guy who played Vegas as his career faded and ate himself to death. So I'm not really that interested, I'm completely underwhelmed by celebrity anyway. I am aware of his importance, but that was way before my time, so he has less impact on me. A good picture is one that appeals to a lot of people, not just those who have a vested interest in the subject.


OK if that's what you believe you are entitled to that opinion but it means that you can then say nothing interesting about any work of art, just whether or not you like it. Not without contradicting yourself that is.
No, I can say I do or don't like some art and why I do or don't like it. Which is all one can say really. I can also venture a guess as to why others may or may not like it.
I like a huge variety of music, but certain types of composition will always work with me. Minor chords, especially counterplayed with a fast rhythm are a big weakness of mine. The opposite of music that Boy Bands typically make. So unsurprisingly they don't appeal to me. There is nothing wrong with their music as it sells/appeals to a significant amount of the population. But it's not so interesting to me.


There's a major difference between saying everyone is entitled to an opinion and saying that things are only a matter of opinion.People are entitled to opinions about art, but thinking your opinion is more relevent to someone else, over that other person's opinion, is at best deluded. Excluding having some knowledge that someone else does not have regarding the work of art, as that can alter one's appreciation. For example, Doisneau's Baiser de l'Hotel de Ville loses it's a lot of it's allure when you know it was staged.


Me, I'm nostalgic for the days of Picture Post. But the vanity photographers (and I listed several) are just the obverse of this coin and neither group have, in my opinion, anything much interesting to say in the way of aesthetically valuable work. In your very biased and very individual opinion. I would say otherwise and I can appreciate what you call the 'vanity' photographers as much as the Picture Post/Life etc photographers.


One doesn't want to make people look either ugly or beautiful as a principle, you want to capture them as they are. But then I'm just a dinosaur fuddy duddy Cartier Bresson, Bert Hardy and Kertesz fan. You don't want to, therefore others shouldn't! That a very proscriptive attitude. All photography is manipulation/editing/distorting of the truth. B+W is the biggest lie of all. We see in colour not monochrome, so all Henri CB's work is non naturalistic. It's just routinely accepted that B+W is more honest, which is patent nonsense if one actually considers the issue for more than a second. Also, the reason film looks nicer than video is it's less truthful in it's reproduction. Film is not like reality and that's why it can look so nice.


Nice to have a chat about photography rather than cameras BTW. And made more interesting for you having a different viewpoint to mine. A long post but lots of interesting points to address.

So it looks like I was away for a hole day and you all had a massive “debate” and didn’t invite me.

I do actually have experience of taking photos and Iv read a lot of books about low level light photography but I don’t want to just take live photos and go “oh that a quite good live photo” I want people to go “F**K ME that is awesome how did you do that”?

Well I would understand if people think that the Sheffield music scene is now filled with monkey rip offs and pretensions indie ******** but if anyone wants to meet up and compare photos or go see some local bands or come down and take some photos of my band feel free to drop a post or send a PM.

Thanks chaps for the wealth of knowledge you have given me.

If you will go offline....;)

The best way to get good at anything is to go out there and do it. The way to become brilliant [assuming talent being there in first place] is to do it a lot. And then do some more.

I wasn't talking about the Sheffield Music scene being dull, it was the music/fashion industry in general being regurgative.
At least the Monkeys don't sound like a tribute/covers band.

Doing live photography is a lot harder these days as there is the moronic three song rule with name acts. And then you have cretins like Robbie Williams and Dolly Parton [or more likely their managers]who want approval/copyright of your images. This pathetic attitude meant there were no photos of them performing in magazines/newspapers - a fantastic publicity trick!

Going back to the origianl quaestion in this thread. I am a member of the sheffield Photographic Society and I thouroughly recommend joining. I had my reservations at first but everyone there are reaaly nice and your photograhy will definately improve.

hhtp://www.adrianrichardson.com