SlipLive

http://www.southcoasttoday.com/apps/pbc ... -1/ARCHIVE


there were more pictures in the actual paper, his photography is pretty freaking awesome.

thats a sweet story. too bad his sites not up yet.

The Slip helped JD out big-time. That online story photo is really technically not that great -- it's usually impressive getting shots from behind the drummer, but the lighting on BAM is oversaturated (should have used spot metering). For some photographers, it would take ten years to get into a festival the size of Bonnaroo (the largest one in the US). I'm impressed to see such young talent make their way "to the top", but I hope when his site is back up, we can check out his true talent. I don't see that from the article's photo (and I don't see any others).

any jackass with a camera can take pictures of a band, its not a talent, everything is right in front of you, if you have eyes and a brain you can take photos, its really all in youre expensive equipment anywho, who gives a fuck?

Any dickweed with a keyboard can pretend he knows something about anything. Any jerkstain with a guitar can make noise. Any nut with a gun can kill people. What is talent? Why do you pretend to care, Mr. Potty Mouth?

any jackass with a camera can take pictures of a band

perhaps, in the broadest generalization possible. but that says nothing of whether the resulting photo is *good*. to take a good photo that is aesthetically pleasing, clarity, good framing/composition, color/light/shadows, etc (and all the other criteria that apply to really good photography)... it *does* take talent, in addition to knowledge of your equipment and "developing" processes (whether film or digital). or, an excellent eye for composition in the very least...

not sure why the need for such negativity?
this is the photography forum, after all...

but i agree with phrazz, the photo in the article really does nothing for me. i look forward to seeing his other work in order to make a better judgement of his photography...

regardless, that is very exciting to have gotten such an opportunity. pretty cool...

i agree with the comments about the photo the paper chose to put up on the website, it really does no justice. hopefully he gets that site up and running soon. the photograph a little ways down on meowskers myspace page is also his work.

Phrazz wrote:Any dickweed with a keyboard can pretend he knows something about anything. Any jerkstain with a guitar can make noise. Any nut with a gun can kill people. What is talent? Why do you pretend to care, Mr. Potty Mouth?

Ive got my own opinions on what some would call art, its a great area of interest to me, I spend great deals of time looking at art. I didnt like the pictures much either. Perhaps my views on photography in general are extremely different, but I really dont think it takes much to take great pictures in the concert setting. Taking great original pictures is extremely difficult. In the concert setting youre subject is already chosen for you. Now you can teach any "jerkstain" with a camera about lighting and composition and Id be willing to bet that person could take some great photos of a band. I apologize to any photographers ive offended, ive seen some great moments captured by some of you here and that is something i appreciate, perhaps the frustrated artist in me secretly hates you all for having it easy

You may have the band as a general subject matter but there is also the venue, the crowd, the lighting (natural, artificial), the timing of the photograph and so much else. Anyone can take pictures of a band, I've done it but I think some folks do it much more masterfully and I don't believe it's just what equipment they have. Sure more and better equipment can give you more options but it's really the pictures you take.

We were just watching a movie the other night "Born into Brothels" about this lady who teaches photography to the kids of prostitutes in India. They are taking pix with very mediocre 35mm cameras but the kids manage to get some excellent shots.

I guess I just don't agree that the concert setting somehow makes it easier to take great pictures simply because the subject is chosen. Say I chose the subject of flowers, or boats or even a specific vase of flowers or a certain boat in a harbor. Is it then easier to take great photos of those chosen items? Doesn't make much sense to me.

harrymcq wrote:You may have the band as a general subject matter but there is also the venue, the crowd, the lighting (natural, artificial), the timing of the photograph and so much else. Anyone can take pictures of a band, I've done it but I think some folks do it much more masterfully and I don't believe it's just what equipment they have. Sure more and better equipment can give you more options but it's really the pictures you take.

We were just watching a movie the other night "Born into Brothels" about this lady who teaches photography to the kids of prostitutes in India. They are taking pix with very mediocre 35mm cameras but the kids manage to get some excellent shots.

I guess I just don't agree that the concert setting somehow makes it easier to take great pictures simply because the subject is chosen. Say I chose the subject of flowers, or boats or even a specific vase of flowers or a certain boat in a harbor. Is it then easier to take great photos of those chosen items? Doesn't make much sense to me.

that film is interesting, I do recall seeing some interesting photos taken, but I love mediocre 35mm cameras and any kind of film in general. I hope it sticks around for as long as Im around.

I throw the term great around loosely as we all have different feelings about what makes something great. I argue with photographers all the time about this but basically I feel its somewhat boring, and I feel this way about a lot of the photography I see. Its hard to call something great in my opinion, capturing moments as they happen is hard. I suppose you could even call that a talent.

I say its easier in the concert setting because yes the subject is right in front of you, all these elements of a good photograph could be right in front of you waiting for you to capture. You could say the same for everyday life and its probably true. I do think its easier than say coming up with something original out of you're own head to convey in a picture. Im probably thinking too much of this, its just photos of a band.

Sure a vase of flowers or boats in a bay would be easier but they'd also be boring. Concert photography is what it is, you can only do so much. It at times seems like news photography to me, like Im being shown what I missed or couldnt see. Which is nice but im not gonna get excited about it the same way I would if I see some crazy original idea actually conveyed in a picture by the likes of Joel Peter Witkin. But im sure some of you would feel the same way.

Someones gotta be the asshole.

Now . Tell me it's all about just being in the right place at the right time with the best gear money can buy, and I'll sell you an old 35mm that's collecting dust on my shelf. There's a whole world of difference between live pro shots and still art photography. Stills are where you can control largely any aspect of lighting, except in restrictive environments (museums, landscapes, etc). You cannot simply control stage lighting and in many cases will incur the wrath of the house engineer (especially if he's gotta do lights, too, or they don't have a light guy, in which case they'll be embarrassed). Now try to shoot with poor stage lighting and good luck with any kind of gear. Though the gear definitely helps more in photography than perhaps any other kind of art (sculpture? I dunno).

Talking about what makes something "great" is definitely in the eye of the beholder, particularly here. This gets into the subject of aesthetics. So we all come from different backgrounds, and a true "artist" (in the sense of "fine art" like painting) is definitely going to have a different viewpoint, largely coming from a dramatically different world or plane of existence. I frankly don't find live performance photography boring -- unless the subject is boring or the shooter is unskilled. I even see amateur shots I find intringuing due to the timing or effect -- even a blurry shot can be artistically appealing, though technically not so savvy. They try to separate technique from content on various photo rating sites. Also not so easily done. Same with art -- I might not think a painting is interesting, but others tell me its worth millions. I like Paul Klee, does that put me into a particular genre? Would I say he's greater than Picasso? I wouldn't dare, but maybe I enjoy his work more from my own personal perspective.

Joel Peter Witkin -- he's pretty radical -- almost a Dali-esque impression I get when perusing his works. But I haven't studied him deeply and perhaps you have much more familiarity with his work. We cannot compare a photo that it takes days to setup with live shots that can only be captured in milliseconds...the setup there takes years of training and you don't see it in the final product. The lighting and stage design are not largely under control in live photography. Basically speaking, concert photography is often placed under "low light" categories. This means a restrictive challenge to lenses and aperture that are not as extreme in stills (portraits, modelling, etc). Everyone seems to love Ansel Adams, who is one of the reigning chiefs of landscape B&Ws. But noone can detract from the massive popularity and success of someone like Annie Leibovitz -- who was also in the "right places at the right times" with her photo documentaries of basically every major famous musician (and other influential people, actors, heads-of-state, etc) from the late 60s to our current decade. Surely this vast work of art is more than just snapping some stage pix? Definitely few of the Rolling Stone album shots are live...most of these are heavily engineered in the studio (and in the lab afterwards) for optimum effect (to publish to millions biweekly).

When taking any kind of picture, the journalistic considerations are more critical depending on where the photo gets published. This publication process is also tied into the art, even though as purists we want to pretend the two are not linked (this may interfere with true artistic objectivity, but I also don't feel these terms are made to fit together). Any art is a subject of the artist, so to become truly objective may be more for journalistic photos (art) versus creative photos (art) or photos that are just snapshots (is it art if we don't call it art?). Then we get into photojournalism and the artistic merits of being shot at while trying to shoot someone without using bullets. That's the biggest challenge of all. Try to take a shot at someone getting shot when the next bullet has your name on it. That's a completely different artistic "perspective", but I can definitely appreciate it knowing the circumstances around the snapshot itself!!! Is journalism good art? I certainly hope so! But with slightly different criteria than "fine art" (perhaps, this too can be debated).

The whole notion of photos as art is very complicated to some people, and various arguments can border on the obscene. To others, certain photos are definitely considered obscene as are certain words in various languages. Obscenity itself should be a protected form of speech, but if I take a photo of a pile of dung, is that better are than a carefully contrived pile of dung balls that are meticulously arranged over several days in the scorching Arizona sun? See, the description itself defies objectivity -- I'm telling you how I set up the photo because I feel that is important for the artistic appreciation by an uninformed observer. We can also see from titles that the photographer/artist may carefully choose captions to suit, to illustrate, to make the viewer think about the photo more than if they just put "photo of John Lennon wearing no clothes" as the caption.

We definitely all feel differently about what makes great art, but I don't think we can just toss out all concert photography into the "real easy and not so interesting" category without looking at the MASSIVE readership as well as IMMENSE pleasure that people get by looking at photos from their favorite music icons. If I had a dollar for every contact I made from people who said "man, I really dig your photos, can I see more???" then I'd be a very rich man. As it seems to be, people expect photos for free -- they are ubiquitous -- and this is more of a testament of lack of restriction than it is to the quality of the art. Certainly Annie got paid well for the covers of Rolling Stone, but how many great concert photographers as well as art photographers never are published or are never known by the masses. Does this qualify as lesser art? I don't think so...but some would judge popularity as a metric by which we can determine a particular work's success.

Now when we talk about success, we can look at Van Gogh and all the other starving artists who were more largely discovered after their death. Art in general does not generate huge revenue -- unless the artist is lucky or have great means and time and assistance to market their work. As even with music, some of the greatest bands are largely undiscovered -- by the masses -- but this is not to say their art won't be lasting and won't be discovered for its greatness sometime down the road (after the artists are dead and gone?).

So I have to disagree with "elements of a good photograph" because lighting and timing are not always right, and sometimes impossible with a large portion of concert photography (especially smaller venues that cannot afford pro lighting). Flashes just look like crap with live shots, and they bug the hell out of the performers -- largely they are just a crutch to make up for substandard lighting.

One aspect of aesthetics that my philosophy professor shared was that art is sometimes making the common look unique and the unique to look common (this is a paraphrase, maybe the original was Socrates or something).

There are many aesthetic aspects to photography, which is why it is considered by many to be art. Some [url=http://www.everydaymagic.com/glossary.htm]techniquesare shared and used which can make a big difference in the final product, regardless of the source or type of photography. Now the geometric arrangement of objects is yet another technique, as is different post processing, materials, chemical and other processing, etc. In that technique glossary, the discussion of what is an icon doesn't really talk about music icons like rock stars, but these are very much relevant to the discussion of live music photography because the background is very much part of the image. People want to know these things and they add to the value of the art (rather than detract from them).

Definitely concert shooting is restrictive, but to overcome these chains is what makes great concert photographers who they are. Part of being great in the photo world is being published versus raw innate talent or pure technical skill. There are great photographers who never see any kind of publication because they just don't market well or don't even try. Perhaps another aspect is there are so many concert photographers, the publishers have plenty of good material to choose from. The ease of being able to take a shot in the first place means taking a hundred and picking out the best 3 might achieve success whereas in the pre-digital age you really had to know your film to have a quality photo. However, it would appear that digital is catching up and some would say has mostly caught up. There are still purists who insist on film (chemical process) but for those who have ultra-high-res capabilities and still print chemically (indeed, what is a digital printer?), they will do OK. To make money with photography is also a measure of success, though some would say that money "cheapens" art. You still have to pay the rent, and I know plenty of talented photographer's who make the majority of their money off weddings and portrait work (and less through concert shots, though some make plenty if they work for a large magazine, just a selected lucky few).

In summary, you may look at concert photography as boring and not very challenging, but photographers may see the same in your paintings. To simply dismiss these with flippant comments like "any jackass with a camera can take pictures of a band, its not talent" is merely inviting a conflict. Now of course this has led to some defense of this position, which is also much more "interesting" than the initial blanket assessment...on all sides...and maybe we can all learn from each other in the long run.

In the meantime, I would not admonish so much those who try and provide others with visual enjoyment for such little money, but I will try to criticize constructively in ways that may help the photographers and viewers alike. Is this a formidable challenge for aesthetics, or is this more of a personal life endeavor (or perhaps both?)? However, I'd suggest that making the suggesting and responding is definitely an indication of interest, even if you insist you don't care (with an epithet that is not worthy of repetition).

Now if the argument is photography vs fine art, I think we know what the status quo says about that. Or do we?

well said, what can I really say to that but reel backwards like a true asshole and acknowledge the original statement was harsh and not very true, but look at what a conversation it has raised!(although totally off topic from the article) Youre short essay has touched some of the many issues involved when discussing any form of art work. I was not trying to compare this young mans photograph to a work of art by an established artist, merely trying to give an example of the two sides. Youve explained some of the technical sides to concert photography to which I was partially unaware. I appreciate the technical processes in making something as they are often very crucial to the outcome of the piece. Where we both agree is probably in perspective leaving each pair of eyes to decide what they appreciate more. Theres only so much lighting and composition can do for me and I feel this away about most fine art. I prefer the studio set up, something that was designed to make me think, like a Jeff Wall. However I see some of youre points clearly and Ive seen that moment captured before and can certainly appreciate capturing it for I know its not easy.

who ever you are wise man, I appreciate not being as vulgar as I in the first post and sharing some knowledge.

care to share some of youre photographs kind sir, seriously, thinking of all that you must have a grip on capturing said moments. Also while Ive got you, since Im not really familiar with concert photography, who are some of youre favorite photographers, concert photographers that I could check out, maybe even some journalist types a la the weegee.

that has to be phrazz?

i know of no other in these forums with such eloquence...

As well as typing stamina and knowledge of photography!