I enjoyed reading your comments, there were a lot of good suggestions in general, which other people may also find helpful.
I'll reply to a few underneath.
In the mean time I emailed the young one back and explained I had more but those shown were those I deemed worthy, and to let me know if he had a more specific wish or request — at least I'll get an idea of what he was really aiming for when he asked the first time around. All in all I am satisfied of the job and I think he's happy too despite that question.
Originally posted by seventhdr I think there is a thought that because one is shooting digital that there "will" be a substantial number of photos taken.
What "non-photographers" don't realise is the number of off, or not quite there, photos which are taken to get too the one good shot. It's part of our job as photographers to "edit" the number of photos down to those that are the best.
You only have to see some proof sheets of photos to see how many were taken to get to the ONE shot.
I think you should go back to him and let him know that yes, there were many more photos taken, but that what you have presented to him are the "best" photos. All the other photos are in one way or other inferior to the presented photos. And if he asks if he can have those photos, I'd politely decline, and I would say that you only want your best work show, and that is second quality photos were shown to other people they would get a sub-standard appreciation of your work.
Regards
Chris
That's some sensible advice and it's indeed what I ended up doing.
Originally posted by clackers If somebody expected one keeper for every ten minutes you were shooting, you'd be able to do that.
But perhaps the issue was more coverage. Did the drummer miss out on his tight closeup? Was an UWA of the audience not there? No shot of the band just before they hit the stage? etc etc.
For this reason, wedding photographers often have a shot list beforehand they show the client and modify according to taste.
This helps avoid the challenging email you received.
I know this was partly a favour not a full cash gig but that is the curse of us amateur photographers - we are expected to have the gear, skills and attitude of a professional but not be paid like one!
I've been doing concerts for a while and I should have the basics down. In this specific case I had full front stage access as well as on stage up to the side of the drum kit (which was located stage right) and the mezzanine where the soundboard was, so I pretty much had it all covered. The venue wasn't even remotely sold out, though… I had a cool shot from above, but seeing the crowd far and spare isn't exactly flattering (unless I resort to cloning people in). Same for the crowd shot from the stage, people were standing a good 4 meters back, leaving a big empty gap right in front of it. I did cheat at some point and went
into the crowd to snap a few with heads all around and that kind of gives the impression there were enough people, but that's about it. (As a side note, too bad, because the music was actually quite good, and he's a very skilled guitarist).
Originally posted by btnapa It is hard to read people when it comes to art. They are probably just interested in seeing more. Something that you may have not liked might be their favorite shot. That may include out of focus or blurred or less than perfect shots. Artist are artists! My guess is that they are not seeing something that they think represents them perfectly. If it were me, I would have made an online gallery of all the images and let them select their 12 or 18 or whatever deliverable you agreed on. I have had other photographers help me edit my work after I did the initial editing. A lot of times stuff that I threw out was among their favorites! Go figure.
I used to be a techno-nazi but I've learned to appreciate less technically perfect shots which may have other meaningful qualities, therefore when editing I generally include a handful of those — if there are any — as well. It really depends on the kind of show it was, if there was a lot of energy, stunts, etc. sometimes a blurred shot conveys more meaning than a static one, sometimes not, there's no one-size-fits-all.
I sorta agree on having a second pair of eyes for editing but I'd rather it be other professionals I trust. Subjects rarely have trained eyes other than for how they appear themselves. I wouldn't publish a picture they didn't like even though it's a great shot, but I wouldn't publish a crappy picture only because they liked themselves in it either. That is to say, I'd be wary of showing a client
all the pictures before I trim them down myself.
Originally posted by pathdoc For a small gig like this, so long as I got...
1) At least one good shot of every member of the band as an individual
2) At least one good shot of the entire band
3) At least one good shot of the band including some of the crowd
4) At least one good shot of the crowd...
...I would, as a band member, consider myself well-served.
@kenspo may be able to give advice on the sorts of portfolios he delivers, seeing as he does this sort of thing for a living.
See the second quote above. Given the specificities of the concert/venue combo, I did my best to complete a similar checklist.
I'll look up kenspo's work, thanks for the suggestion.
Originally posted by shardulm This is indeed a coverage problem. I have shot several cultural and religious events and coverage is of prime importance (at times more than how good the picture are). Shooting an event with no prior knowledge is definitely be a challenge and can very well cause coverage problems. here are the things that help
- Try to obtain prior knowledge of the key moments in the event. Go to a rehearsal if you are unaware of the nature of the event. Remaining completely oblivious to the content of the event is a recipe for failure.
- Knowing the content prepares you for the key moments in the event and you are unlikely to miss them.
- Great pics with no key moments in them aren't necessarily keep worthy (I use them as filler and break the monotony in the album at times). But all pictures with key moments captured are keep worthy from an event perspective even if they aren't great shots. If it is a terrible shot I would eliminate it. But if it is acceptable with post processing and is a key moment in the grand scheme of things then It is a keeper.
- Clients do think that more pictures is better than less pictures (for events especially)
- Noise, softness, etc aren't the things most people care to notice. As long as the picture captures them in the act (drummer in a head bang moment with a motion blurr for ex.) they are good or excellent for them.
- Don't skimp on taking pictures in an event. Remember quantity and coverage wins.
I'm all for preparation. If I don't know the band already, whenever I get the chance I try to attend another concert or at least look up videos/teasers online to get a feel for it. Same for the venue if I've never shot there before. For the rest, good points, see previous replies for answers about how I tackled them.