Mr. Gaboni, these artful applications show that you have a future in album artwork design. I certainly don't mind the alteration of the original -- indeed, these are unique pieces of their own and your own original creations. Very cool technique and excellent results.
Mr. Scottography: they let Canadians back in the States? Ahhh...just kidding. I might end up there someday myself. I will wear my "Canada kicks ass" T-shirt at the next show and see if I get any introductions.
Katie: thanks for pointing out these rarities. Some day I hope to be able to add captions and keywords to photos. FlickR is pretty good with these things and some of the newer gallery apps can help...it's only a matter of time. In retrospect, I see Marc smile often, but it's usually fleeting...maybe since he's got lots to think about with such complex phrasing and interleaved melodies and counterposition. I wonder if there's a difference in a smile from a happy moment on stage, versus a smile from something they see in the crowd? I need a two-way camera to pick up these moments...or one of those fish-eye lenses and being in the right spot.
One of my regrets with this show was not switching lenses around to get some close-ups, but at a certain point in the evening, I had to realize I was probably the most dangerous thing to my equipment.
When I got back to the party, there was only hard liquor left--which turned a fairly drunk photographer into a co-captain of the international liver olympics committee. [I only have an alcohol problem when it runs out.
]
I've been slowly shopping around to upgrade lenses (will probably buy one directly from Ian as he now works at the #1 NYC photo retailer) but I have to decide to to fixed or high-quality zoom/wide. The 16-35 2.8 L is pretty nice, but that costs more than my camera body. At a certain point I'm going to upgrade to the 5D, but it's still nosebleed pricey right now and I think it'll go down hundreds by the end of the year. I need to get a high-quality zoom also for the outdoor shots...from what I've been reading on PBase and Photo.Net, it seems the 70-200mm 2.8L IS is the way to go, but at a grand and a half, that's another big investment which would take a wedding or two to pay off (or when I get that check from Jan Wenner ;-}).
These Southpaw pix were mostly taken with my trusty Sigma 20mm 1.8, which is a fine lens for the money. I've also been using the 50mm Canon 1.4 prime for indoor non-flash museum shots, but this lens is also good for dimly lit bar/music photos (though the focal length multiplier of the cheaper dSLRs is limiting, which is why I need a full-format very soon). To any other aspiring photographers out there...definitely invest in the lowest-F lenses you can. The difference from 2.0 to 4.0 is substantial when trying to take low-light shots in smoky bars. Film is more forgiving than digital, especially at high ISOs (but has higher post-production costs).
