|
|
 Aside from the "pit", or "buffer", mentioned in the So, You Want to Shoot Concerts? - Primer piece, there are, in some instances, multiple shooting locations, especially for large concerts. The credential to the left says "FOH", which means "Front of House", so, from that vantage point, you can actually photograph what's going on on stage. The credential below is just for working in the press tent, but you wouldn't know that until you got to the venue, and were stuck in a press tent for the entire show/festival, waiting for the artists - at their own whim - to come back and take a few questions, ususally from the FWC's, who got a credential, but will never see the stage. (Continued after the Jump)
 For this performance, FOH meant 100' away, not in the buffer/pit. Meaning, if you didn't have a 400mm lens, you didn't get anything. Sometimes, you're required to shoot only from the sound board area, sometimes, the show is also being videotaped for a later broadcast, and so you'll get no room in the pit/buffer, and only be allowed to shoot from the sides.
Whatever the circumstance, you'll need to be prepared. Make sure you, or your assigning editor asks - especially for large events - if there are multiple locations to shoot from, and what the distance is from the postion your credential allows you to be in, so you can bring the right equipment. Better yet, bring the long lens and teleconverters, so you're prepared for whatever happens. One of the nice things is that, if everyone is in the pit, you can ask to be back at the soundboard, which will give you much more of a straight-on shot, and far fewer of the "up the nose" images.
So, You Want to Shoot Concerts? - Primer
So, You Want to Shoot Concerts? - Multiple Shooting Positions
So, You Want to Shoot Concerts? - VIP Credentials
So, You Want to Shoot Concerts? - All Access Credentials
So, You Want to Shoot Concerts? - Getting Started, The Right Way
Please post your comments by clicking the link below. If you've got questions, please pose them in our Photo Business Forum Flickr Group Discussion Threads.
 If you have a VIP credential (like the one at right), you're not a photographer, you don't have photo privledges, and more than likely, if you try to take pictures with just it on, those people with the big yellow "Event Staff" polo shirts will yank your camera away, unless, of course, you also are dating one of the band members. (Continued after the Jump)
Typically, if you have a VIP credential, it allows you into a room, tent, or other cordoned off area backstage - usually before the show for a meet-and-greet with the artist.
 For bigger events, if you have a credential like above, or a wristband like on the left, you'll end up being able to get to the catered area backstage, meaning you won't starve.
If you are given a VIP pass, make sure that it has written on it "Photo", or that you also have an accompanying photo pass. Also, if you can get food and water, don't forget to bring sustenance out to your working colleagues that didn't bring water like they should have. A VIP pass will also let you roam around more, to where the fans are, and this pass, from these vantage points, can often give you images that those in the pit, or at the sound board, can't get, so you have the opportunity to make something different.
So, You Want to Shoot Concerts? - Primer
So, You Want to Shoot Concerts? - Multiple Shooting Positions
So, You Want to Shoot Concerts? - VIP Credentials
So, You Want to Shoot Concerts? - All Access Credentials
So, You Want to Shoot Concerts? - Getting Started, The Right Way
Please post your comments by clicking the link below. If you've got questions, please pose them in our Photo Business Forum Flickr Group Discussion Threads.
 If you have an ALL ACCESS credential, you're in luck. Clearly, you know the band really well, you're working for whomever is bank-rolling the concert, you're the offical tour photographer, or the tour manager is your best friend. Either way, All Access isn't always "ALL ACCESS." Further, if you're only working at one of the concert tour stops, you'll not likely get one of these passes, because you don't really really need one. They're almost always given to the people that only really really need to have this level of access. (Continued after the Jump)
 There are times when all access means "everywhere except the stage", or "everywhere except in the band's dressing room", or some variation thereof. A wristband is one of the ways that "non-performers" can get onto, or on the sides of the stage to make images. In addition to your All Access, or Production, pass, the wristband (just like the VIP wristband in that article) gets you to where you need. If you need to be on stage, then you'll likely also need a "Performer" or an "Artist" credential.
However, in some instances, people have been so aggressive in trying to get an All Access pass, that a few promoters have taken to granting one level higher than All Access, and that pass is an "Infinity" pass. Even then, though, Infinity does not mean on stage, that still requires a wristband!
So, You Want to Shoot Concerts? - Primer
So, You Want to Shoot Concerts? - Multiple Shooting Positions
So, You Want to Shoot Concerts? - VIP Credentials
So, You Want to Shoot Concerts? - All Access Credentials
So, You Want to Shoot Concerts? - Getting Started, The Right Way
Please post your comments by clicking the link below. If you've got questions, please pose them in our Photo Business Forum Flickr Group Discussion Threads.
 the first thing to do is, don't sign those contracts that limit what you can do with your images. Doing so will mean that you can't put them on your website to show you can shoot concerts, Don't trade the rights to your photos to be given to the artist for a press pass. This'll just make it that much harder for you to earn money when you do finally get into a rhythm of covering shows, because the bands will not only be of the mindset that photographers will do it, but in addition, others coming up behind you will think that that's the way to get a foot in the door. It's not. So, how do you make images like the one above? (Continued after the Jump)
That image was made just a few months ago, of the very very popular artist Mya. She was singing at an outdoor no-ticket venue, where photography was allowed.
There are countless places where you can hone your skills without selling your soul. And yes, when you take pictures and sign away all (or even some) of your rights to your creative works, you are, to one degree or another, selling your soul. Don't do it.
 Summer festivals are chock full of GREAT artists at state fairs, outdoor performance theaters at amusement parks, beach concert series, and so forth. Local radio stations often sponsor local concerts in outdoor areas. In LA, there's Jimmy Kimmel's Pontiac Garage, in NYC, there's the NBC Outdoor Concert Series, and so forth. Go, make pictures, and practice. Take great pictures - ones that you own, and can offer to publications, or demonstate your capabilities on your website so concert-oriented publications will hire you. Further, there are a number of venues and artists where taking pictures is perfectly ok. One touring now is the hip-hop oriented Screamfest, (above left), where 50-cent was performing. For this image, I was wandering amongst the seats (i.e. not in the buffer), so this is an image that any ticketed attendee could have made. There are, of course many other concerts where you can do this.
This image below was made of Hillary Duff at another outdoor ticketless-cameras-ok event that she was performing at. Here, while it looks like I am in the buffer, I'm not.
How do you get up close/up front? Buy the tickets first, if it's a ticketed venue that allows photography. If it's a festival, go alone (and not with a spouse/boyfriend/girlfriend) because there's almost always a single seat open near the front as others take their seats in pairs. This also works for ticketed photography-ok performances - often a single seat will be available very close to the stage, and since you're there to work (or, practicing working), having your significant other there is going to be a distraction to the work at hand, if you're taking this seriously.
Further, get tickets to shows you may not normally go to, since you'll need to know how to work a variety of performance styles and genres.
If there are no seats, get there early, or cautiously make your way to the front.
Once you have a collection of images that show you know what you're doing, and they're attractively shown on your website, then begin making the pitch to concert-oriented publications/outlets.
Oh, and one last thing - if you think that your $300 flash can light the stage better than a $10k-$1M lighting truss, operated by a skilled technician who took all day to get the light perfect on stage, then stop taking pictures and revisit lighting 101. Aside from the fact that your flash is a distraction to the artist, your photos will look like snapshots. Let the lighting guy do his thing, and then wait for just the right blend of main and fill, along with artist expressions to give you just the right image, but hurry, you've got about 20 seconds left before you get the hook.
P.S. - The lighting's tungsten indoors, but you're shooting raw, so it doesn't matter, right?
So, You Want to Shoot Concerts? - Primer
So, You Want to Shoot Concerts? - Multiple Shooting Positions
So, You Want to Shoot Concerts? - VIP Credentials
So, You Want to Shoot Concerts? - All Access Credentials
So, You Want to Shoot Concerts? - Getting Started, The Right Way
Please post your comments by clicking the link below. If you've got questions, please pose them in our Photo Business Forum Flickr Group Discussion Threads.
 So, it appears Google (GOOG) is expanding their Google Image Search into the "photo search" game beyond their images.google.com mechanism, which returns results from the entire internet, all proprietarily owned by the respective websites that display them in the first place (or those that the website has obtained them from). Enter Picassa's "community photos" search. Now, instead of just searching for images in your own gallery, you can search everyone's galleries. You don't even have to be signed in to do it, just click here. For example, searching flowers returns 350,486 images tagged with that. A search for "white house" returns 15,914. In fact, an attractive image of the White House can be seen here, or here's the link to just start the download immediately. And what is Google charging for this service, pray tell? (Continued after the Jump)
Right, you guessed it, free.
Picassa's page reads:You can now discover and explore an amazing array of photos taken by the Picasa Web Albums community. Just select "Community Photos" in the search box, enter your search term, and enjoy! When you're thinking about uploading photos, the text reads:Don't worry - we never include your photos without your ok. Your unlisted albums never appear in Picasa Web Albums public search results. And if you'd prefer not to have your public albums appear in Picasa Web Albums public search results, just uncheck the public search option on the Settings page.
Have fun exploring all the photos in the Picasa Web Albums community!  However, the default setting is for "public" on your images, and "download" and "allow prints" as well. How would you disable print for your photos? The language is pretty specific "Deselect the box marked 'allow visitors to order prints of my photos.'" When I uploaded an image, it was defaulted to be in a "public" album, and it was also defaulted to allow prints. In order words, I have to actually choose to preclude people from being able to order prints. Further, note the language above "just uncheck the public search option", meaning, again, it's defaulted to let the public search/view/download.
 Same thing goes for permission to download. It starts off "You can change your Content Control Settings in Picassa Web Albums to prevent visitors from downloading your albums." It goes on to say "deselect the checkbox labeled 'enable people viewing my albums to download them.'" However, here's the rub, further down "Please also remember that this is a photo-sharing service; in general, we recommend that you don't post any photos on Picasa Web Albums that you prefer not to share with anyone." Oh, really? In other words, don't clog our servers with your own personal photos or photo archives. Only post photos that you want to give away for free to the 'community'?
"Oh Mr. Peabody?"
"Yes, Sherman?"
"Mr. Peabody, let's hit the wayback machine for a brief history lesson:"
Wikpedia says about iStockphoto - The company was founded by Bruce Livingstone in May, 2000. Originally iStockphoto was a free stock imagery website. Over the course of time it transitioned into its current micropayment model. The website was originally supported by CEO Livingstone's web development firm, Evolvs Media, but began charging money in 2001.
Here's a slightly more insightful interview with Mr. L from Design Mentor Training:"...After deciding he was not going to make it in the traditional stock photography business, Bruce created a free Web site to share his images with a network of designer and photographer friends, and iStockphoto was born. Initially a trading site, iStockphoto introduced the micropayment model in 2000, where buyers purchase credits in blocks starting at $10 each." So, free web site....share...images...network of...friends? Sound familiar? Maybe Mr. L should revisit the part above about "not going to make it in the traditional stock photography business..." part.
So, what about size? Well, it's up to the uploader. This search yields an image of celebrity Petra Nemcova at an America's Cup event arrivals area. It's a 300dpi file at 3.5" x 5.3". Want to see the full-sized file? Picasa will serve it up to you free by clicking here. Interestingly, the Google/Picasa page lists "74810330" as one of the image tags. Go to Getty (GYI), and seach the same number, and ten images are returned, all from that same event. Here's the photo at Getty with the watermark. Is Getty seeding images there, giving them away for free? That same sequence # 74810330 again searched on Picasa yields three images from the same arrivals event, one from a JimmyJones23 (and that's Jimmy's ONLY image he's posted) is identical to the Bekendheden image that I was first referring to, and Bekendheden also has a third image that's full length, also identical to one on Getty. It could well be that Bekendheden's got unauthorized images in his public Picasa folder, but they're decent resolution files, without any watermarks, which means he paid to download the ones we're discussing here.
This search for "Getty Images", yields over 9,000 images with that in the caption. Is it possible that there's over 9,000 copyright infringements on Picasa? Well, yes. Is it likely? Who knows. A number of the images on Picasa are from celebrity events and NBA games, and many (but not all) of the NBA images have the NBA logo on them. Meaning, possibly, that Getty shot them, and delivered them to the NBA as per their contract, and then fans downloaded the images for personal use, and have them in their personal/public Picasa folders. Somehow, that's probably within the rules of the NBA use, and Picasa's TOS. Or, maybe, it's Getty's doing. The metadata/keywords for this image from the arrivals area at the Golden Globes from last year, on Picasa look remarkably the same as those here. Why? Well, because they're the same image, and they appear on BOTH sites. Again, Getty - you pay; Picasa - it's free. Then, a search for that photographer's name, Frazier Harrison yields 124 images on Picasa, and only a handful are watermarked. Again - free from Picasa, pay to Getty. What I find interesting, is that few, if any, of those that have posted images on Picasa from Getty have also posted their own personal photos, which is what many other Picasa users typically do. It's as if these Picasa logins/galleries are actually all Getty shell accounts. Next to none of them have headshots of themselves either, it's the anonymous default shilouette graphic.
 Ok, so, file not large enough? As I noted, it's up to the uploader. Photographer Mike Baird, who's caption of the photo to the left reads, in part "This Snowy Egret was shot at 1/4000th second, f 7.1, ISO 800 at 400mm...", which is a 300dpi file at 8" x 5.3". To download the full-rez file, click here.
So, what rights do you have to use Picasa? According to Google's Picasa Terms of Service:Your Rights
Google claims no ownership or control over any Content submitted, posted or displayed by you on or through Picasa Web Albums. You or a third party licensor, as appropriate, retain all patent, trademark and copyright to any Content you submit, post or display on or through Picasa Web Albums and you are responsible for protecting those rights, as appropriate. By submitting, posting or displaying Content on or through Picasa Web Albums, you grant Google a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free license to reproduce, adapt, distribute and publish such Content through Picasa Web Albums, including RSS or other content feeds offered through Picasa Web Albums, and other Google services. In addition, by submitting, posting or displaying Content which is intended to be available to the general public, you grant Google a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free license to reproduce, adapt, distribute and publish such Content for the purpose of displaying, distributing and promoting Google services. Google will discontinue this licensed use within a commercially reasonable period after such Content is removed from Picasa Web Albums. Google reserves the right to refuse to accept, post, display or transmit any Content in its sole discretion. Here's the most important sentence there:"by submitting, posting or displaying Content which is intended to be available to the general public, you grant Google a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free license to reproduce, adapt, distribute and publish such Content for the purpose of displaying, distributing and promoting Google services." Thus, since your content is "available to the general public", and further, you've granted Google the right to "distribute" your work, "royalty-free", all recipients of the images recieve a royalty-free license to use them.
How is this the same, or different, from Flickr? The Flickr Community Guidelines reads:Don’t use Flickr for commercial purposes.
Flickr is for personal use only. If we find you selling products, services, or yourself through your photostream, we will terminate your account. But that refers to running some form of business on Flickr. Nowhere does it say "if we find you obtaining images for commercial use...". This admonition is only for "selling." Further, many of the images on Flickr only require photo credit, under the Creative Commons licensing model, meaning that, which the exception of the "non-commercial" preclusion, you can pretty much publish the image as-is without any payment to the copyright holder. Google has not integrated any Creative Commons restrictions to it's files.
So, how does all this work? Well, the nice Picasa graphic below explains a lot:
The image below is returned, among the results. It's a 300dpi file that's 5.3" x 3.6", and, when open, is 5MB, which is about the size of the file from the camera that produced it - a "Canon EOS DIGITAL REBEL XT", but perhaps it's cropped just a bit:
 .
 Here, to the left, you see the "more info" box, where you can choose "order prints". In the print dialog box, you then specify Shutterfly or Photoworks, and then the image is transfered to their site for printing. (this particular community member has turned off "download photos" for the photo above, this dialog box is adjacent to other images).
 Here, below and to the right, you now see that the photo I've chosen has been added to my cart/order. I may now view my order, or keep browsing for other photographs that I'd like to have a print of.
Below, on the image that I uploaded, you'll see the "Download Photo" option, just above the "Album" and "order prints" choices, which allows you to download the original file size, without any downsampling. For this image, I've uploaded a very small image. As I mentioned above, it's a default choice to have your photos available for downloading by anyone and everyone, you must deselect the option if you don't want people to download your images.
So, how did that photo get there? It's extremely simple. I just downloaded the free (of course) Picasa Web Albums Uploader, and drag and drop the photos I wanted to upload to Picasa, and, note, the default choice for your album, as I noted above, is "Public Album".
I can easily see a point in the future where Google will add a column to the side of the search results where the images appear, displaying Google Ads.
 Google has also added (and this is within the last few days, as far as I can tell) a new "drop down menu" to their images.google.com search, as shown to the left. This "search by size" capability is something that Flickr does not currently have. In addition, it would be most easy to add other choices, like "From Picasa", but for now, choosing "Large images", gives you, well, large images.
So, when exactly did this service become "new"? How long do they refer to what they're doing as either "new", or "Just Added"? Certainly, I've seen little to no public discourse or reporting on this. Yet, burried in a Google Groups discussion list for those working on coding/programming is this thread - Feature Launch:- New features include:
- Community search
- Retrieving a user's recently uploaded photos
- Retrieving comments recently added to photos owned by a user
- Searching a user's photos
- Filtering by tag
- Uploading non-jpeg photos (bmp, png, gif now supported)
- Downloading an original photo
It's been functional in the Data API since the end of July.
I've got a number of questions in to the Google folks looking for clarification, and I'll update this post where necessary or helpful.
And yes, free beats $1 from iStockphoto.
Please post your comments by clicking the link below. If you've got questions, please pose them in our Photo Business Forum Flickr Group Discussion Threads.
 So, Monday 9/17 I'm off to Atlanta, speaking to the ASMP Atlanta/Southeast Chapter, and, because of serendipity, Photoshelter has asked me to be a part of their Town Hall in Atlanta, which is happening earlier in the day. For details on the Photoshelter program, which includes rountable discussions, and so forth, click here, For details on where and exactly when the ASMP program is (that evening), click here. (Continued after the Jump)
From the ASMP program description:How do you operate a successful freelance photography business (even if you’re a staffer)? How do you determine your rates, handle supposedly “no-change” contracts, late-paying clients, and debates over rate increases. Simply put, the business of photography is just plain time-consuming and oftentimes daunting. How can you negotiate better? How do the needs of editorial and commercial clients diverge and intersect? During this presentation, John will address these topics and more as you learn to handle your business better and more efficiently. We will discuss considerations when developing rates and resources, designing a business model that accounts for everything from taxes to business expenses, plus several techniques for negotiating with clients. Yep, that about covers it. So, come on by, and check out the Photoshelter program (or, perhaps you can make it to another city, so check it out there!), and then trek on with us to the ASMP chapter meeting, for an indepth discussion about contracts, and so forth.
 I'm excited about the roundtable discussions at the Town Hall, because we will be engaging in a dialog with photo buyers in the region, and not only will we listen to what they have to say, but they will also have an opportunity to hear our perspective. My perspective (and reading material prior to the discussion) is summed up by the book that just arrived from Amazon with my Nip/Tuck - The Complete Fourth Season DVD, a book that will no doubt reinforce how I am working with my clients now, and hopefully help me to better understand them - You Can't Win a Fight with Your Client: & 49 Other Rules for Providing Great Service
Please post your comments by clicking the link below. If you've got questions, please pose them in our Photo Business Forum Flickr Group Discussion Threads.
 There is an exceptional article on Spec, titled "I Wish I Had Written This", and I highly encourage you to Read The Article."Spec" work, as outlined on Wikipedia. And check this out about spec as well. ASMP, APA, EP, PPA, and the Stock Artists Alliance published a Joint Statement (available here) that was widely distributed at PhotoPlus Expo a few years back, as it regarded one organization that built it's entire business model around spec-assignments, which they termed Custom Stock™ (and trademarked the phrase, I might add). In case you're not so inclined, here are some excerpts: (Continued after the Jump)
To those who are looking for someone to do work for free…please wake up and join the real world...More people are finding themselves in need of some form of illustrative service...But what they’re NOT doing, unfortunately, is realizing how rare someone with these particular talents can be...In this country, there are almost twice as many neurosurgeons as there are professional illustrators. There are eleven times as many certified mechanics. There are SEVENTY times as many people in the IT field. So, given that they are less rare, and therefore less in demand, would it make sense to ask your mechanic to work on your car for free? Would you look him in the eye, with a straight face, and tell him that his compensation would be the ability to have his work shown to others as you drive down the street?...would you think it is okay to live out the same, delusional, ridiculous fantasy when seeking someone whose abilities are even less in supply than these folks?...It is not a “great opportunity” for an artist to have his work seen on your {whatever}, It IS a “great opportunity” for YOU to have their work there....It is not clever to seek a “student” or “beginner” in an attempt to get work for free. It’s ignorant and insulting. They may be “students”, but that does not mean they don’t deserve to be paid for their hard work....The chance to have their name on something that is going to be seen by other people, whether it’s one or one million, is NOT a valid enticement. Neither is the right to add that work to their “portfolio”. They get to do those things ANYWAY, after being paid as they should. It’s not compensation. It’s their right, and it’s a given....Stop thinking that you’re giving them some great chance to work. Once they skip over your silly ad, as they should, the next ad is usually for someone who lives in the real world, and as such, will pay them....Students DO need “experience”. But they do NOT need to get it by giving their work away...Some will ask you to “submit work for consideration”. They may even be posing as some sort of “contest”. These are almost always scams. They will take the work submitted by many artists seeking to win the “contest”, or be “chosen” for the gig...The only people who win, here, are the underhanded folks who run these ads. This is speculative, or “spec”, work. It’s risky at best, and a complete scam at worst. I urge you to avoid it, completely...So to artists/designers/illustrators looking for work, do everyone a favor, ESPECIALLY yourselves, and avoid people who do not intend to pay you.
Please post your comments by clicking the link below. If you've got questions, please pose them in our Photo Business Forum Flickr Group Discussion Threads.
|
|
2 ... 2 ...
