What equipment? - Prime lenses

The bulk of my work is taken using prime lenses with bright maximum apertures. The kind of venues that suit these lenses include small dark venues, through to medium-sized ones.

These lenses afford me great exposure flexibility at the expense of convenience, it took me a long while to get used to changing lenses quickly enough so that I didn't miss important shots. Keeping an eye on the performers and trying to guess what they do - before they do it is also part of the fun. That way I can make sure I have the correct lens on the camera at the right time. I still get it wrong though... more times than I'd like.

The following lenses are what I own, and use on a regular basis:

Sigma 20mm f/1.8 EX DG

This is the widest lens I've seen anywhere with such a bright aperture, which makes this lens perfect for smaller, darker venues. The focusing ring has a built-in clutch mechanism, which prevents it from rotating when focusing. This makes the lens handle brilliantly in auto and manual focus. It would've been nice if engaging the focus ring would switch between AF and MF, but then you can't have everything. This lens is a rear-focusing design, which provides super quick AF... even for a wide-angle lens.
Optically, this lens is pretty dreadful wide open, everything looks as though it's been taken with a tacky 80's soft focus filter. Stop it down to f/2 and sharpness improves dramatically, and it's still twice as bright as an f/2.8 zoom.

Sigma 24mm f/1.8 EX DG
The design of this lens is exactly the same as my Sigma 20mm f/1.8. I leave the hood on this one so I can tell them apart easily by touch. This lens uses a standard helical-focusing design, which is quite slow when compared to the 20mm as there is a lot of glass to move around in there.
Optically, this lens is superb, only softening a little at f/1.8 and as sharp as my 50mm at f/2.8.
This and my Nikon 85mm f/1.8 are the lenses I tend to use the most of all. I've shot entire gigs with this lens alone, as the focal length on a DX sensor is very versatile.

Nikon AF 50mm f/1.4D
It's the fastest lens I own and it has produced the goods under some pretty horrific lighting. If you can justify the cost of this lens - get it!
If not the f/1.8 version will serve you well, although the f/1.4 is better at brighter apertures (I've owned both).
It's a compact, lightweight lens. So even if you primarily use zooms, it's worth stowing one of these somewhere in your kit bag just in case the lighting goes pear-shaped.

Nikon AF 85mm f/1.8
This and the Sigma 24mm f/1.8 are the lenses I use most out of all my kit.
It is stunning at f/2, which is twice as bright as an f/2.8 zoom wide open. Images at f/1.8 are a little soft, but not unacceptably so.
This lens is quite prone to flare in contra-light situations, and even worse with strong light from the side. This makes the supplied hood essential.
Out of focus areas are creamy smooth at apertures of f/2 and brighter. Stopping down more makes blurred highlights take on a distinctive shape, which can be distracting.
The rear-focusing design is provides super-quick AF performance. It's probably the fastest focusing lens I own, which is ideal.

Nikon AF 135mm f/2 DC

This lens cost me more than any other in my kit bag, but it is worth every penny.
Sharpness is good enough at f/2 to print large, so long as I'm careful with my focusing. At f/2.8 it is one among the sharpest lenses I own.
The built-in hood is a bit shallow to be truly useful, and many images I take with strong light from the side are obliterated by flare. Another annoying quirk is how easily the Defocus Control slider moves around in my bag. I keep meaning to duct-tape it fast, but haven't gotten round to it yet. I never use the Defocus feature as out of focus areas are plenty smooth enough without adjustment. I do notice a dramatic reduction in sharpness when the control is moved only a tiny bit at f/2, so I always double check it before shooting with it.
The lens is an internal-focusing design, which means AF is quick and accurate with no extension of the lens during operation.

I also own the following lenses, but they see the light of day much less often:

Tamron SP 90mm f/2.8 Macro
I've been considering slinging this lens on ebay for a while now as I barely use it, except to photograph things for ebay.
Something must be making me keep hold of it though, probably the fear of having no dedicated macro optic after yearning for one for so long before I bought it.
Optically, this lens' reputation is well deserved, although focusing is slow and clunky (which is to be expected with macro lenses... apparently).


Nikon AF 300mm f/4 ED
I picked up this lens for a silly bargain price because of a reasonably deep mark on the front element, which doesn't appear to effect image quality at all.
It is the older AF version, rather than the more refined, faster focusing AF-S version.
I use this lens for large stages at festivals and stadium gigs, and wouldn't be without it.
It's incredibly sharp at f/4, and just gets better as it's stopped down.
Focusing is a little on the slow side, but when paired with my D200 it's certainly quick enough for me.
My only major niggle with this lens is that the aperture blades are exposed from the rear of the lens. This means it's likely that crud of some description could lodge itself in the blades, which could spell the end of the lens. Here's hoping that doesn't happen any time soon!

• Back to - What equipment do you use to take your photos?
• What equipment? - Camera
• What equipment? - Introduction to lenses
• What equipment? - Zoom lenses
• What equipment? - Other stuff

What equipment? - Introduction to lenses.

If you are new to photography, learning a little about how different lenses effect exposure will serve you well - especially if you're about to fork out a large chunk of your hard earned cash on some swanky camera gear.

There are several different aspects of lens specification to consider and each will have a bearing on the conditions you can obtain good results in and the condition of your bank balance after purchase!

To start, I'll explain what to consider when looking for lenses for music photography (or any other demanding low-light situation)

Maximum aperture
The maximum aperture of a lens is denoted as a ratio to the focal length of the lens (e.g. 1:2.8 or f/2.8 - where 1 or f is the focal length, and 2.8 is the diameter of the aperture). Basically, the lower the second number, the brighter the lens. Brighter lenses allow shooting at higher shutter speeds in low light, and is one of the most important things to consider when choosing a lens for concert photography.

Unfortunately, the scale of brightness is not linear (so f/4 is not half as bright as f/2). Below I've provided a scale of f/numbers with each value to the left being twice as bright as the value immediately to the right.

f/1.4 - f/2 - f/2.8 - f/4 - f/5.6 - f/8 - f/11 - f/16 - f/22 - f/32

An article, which will help you to understand the science of apertures can be found here.

For concert photography, I would recommend lenses with an aperture of f/2.8 or brighter.

Zoom or prime?
Zoom lenses form the bread and butter of most photographer's camera gear. They allow the focal length of the lens to be varied continuously within a certain range. This is extremely useful for when space is tight, and for snap judgements on the composition of your images.

The Achilles heel of zoom lenses, is their relatively low light gathering ability when compared to many prime lenses. For any concert shooting I would strongly recommend lenses with an aperture of at least f/2.8, which is generally the brightest (and most expensive) available as a zoom.

For this reason alone I tend to shoot most of my work with fixed prime lenses as their light gathering ability affords me more flexibility with exposure, plus the ability to get acceptable images in even the darkest venues.

Typically, prime lenses between 35mm and 85mm have a maximum aperture of at least f/2, which is twice as bright as f/2.8, and in most cases they will produce sharper images than zooms at these bright apertures.

The downside with primes is that a full set can be expensive to build up from scratch, even if you buy all your lenses secondhand, also using nothing but fixed lenses will lead to hundreds more lens changes than with zooms. This will take its toll on the lens mount on your camera (mine had started to become brassy within one month of buying my D200).

Shooting with primes also takes much practice. If you can't pre-empt what to shoot next, and change lenses quick enough, you will miss shots left, right, and centre. The practice is worth it, and although I have a full set of zoom lenses, I still use the fixed lenses for the bulk of my work. My zooms only tend to see the light of day at larger stadium venues and music festivals, where flexibility is paramount.

Other gimmicks gizmos
Many lenses are now available that promise to rid your photos of camera shake, which can occur at longer shutter speeds. This is often referred to as VR (Vibration Reduction) or IS (Image Stabilizer). Unfortunately this will not help one bit, unless your lens is bright enough in the first place, as your subject will be blurred if they move anywhere (as musicians often do). Most of these lenses sport dim maximum apertures of f/5.6 or slower and are no use for all but the brightest gig lighting. On the other hand, certain exotic lenses (such as the Nikon AF-S 70-200mm f/2.8 IF-ED VR or Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM) include this feature and a bright aperture. This can be really useful... if you can afford it!

Anyway to summarise: brighter is better, zooms are more convenient and generally cheaper and primes will produce sharper images in lower light, but you will have to persevere to get the best out of them.

I personally own a lot more lenses than I could get by with and most people will be able to take great music pictures with the zoom lenses alone. Whatever suits me best may not be the best solution for you. At the end of the day, everyone is different!

• Back to - What equipment do you use to take your photos?
• What equipment? - Camera
• What equipment? - Prime lenses
• What equipment? - Zoom lenses
• What equipment? - Other stuff

What equipment? - Camera

Some would argue that the camera body is the most important part of any camera kit, after all it's the bit that makes the image, isn't it?

Modern digital SLR cameras are all so good nowadays, that they will all produce great images in the right hands, (Yes! that even includes Samsung SLRs) it's just a case of finding which one has the features you need (not want, unless you can afford them) at the right price. The most important aspect of choosing a camera is making sure you have the correct lenses for the job. The lenses form your image and provide the clarity, the camera is just a box designed to collect what the lens produces.

On that note, I'd better describe what I use and why it suits me so well.

The camera I use is a Nikon D200, and I think it's fantastic for the following reasons:

• Metering
  This is the most important feature to consider for me, as I often shoot in quite ridiculous lighting conditions. The Nikon D200 has three main metering options:
  Colour Matrix, which is unnervingly accurate with flash, and great for general 'happy snaps'.
  Spot-metering is next on the list. I use this extensively, as it provides the most consistent results under difficult lighting conditions. It is invaluable for concerts, especially as the spot-metering area can be set to follow whichever AF point you are using. This means if I want to meter off the singers face, I just need to focus on them and adjust the exposure accordingly. Not many other camera manufacturers include this level of metering across ALL their models.
  Centre-weighted is the remaining option. I barely ever use this, in fact I can't remember the last time I did use it.
  
  
• Robustness
  The Nikon D200 is hewn from a solid block of magnesium alloy with rubber gaskets sealing most weak points against the elements. My camera has been dropped, soaked with beer, used in torrential rain and even survived the most intense circle pits at the Damnation Festival in Manchester. If I were ever mugged on the way back from a concert late at night, I'd pity the poor desperate soul who'd get this camera slammed into their chops. That would hurt... believe me. The camera would be fine though.
  
  
• Speed
  The D200 shoots at up to five frames per second. Not only is this useful for capturing the decisive moment, I also use it to improve my chances of getting a sharp shot with long lenses in dim lighting conditions. If I fire a burst of three to four shots, the first will always be blurred (due to the movement of pressing the shutter release), after that I have a good chance of the second, third or fourth shots being sharp. Simple really.
  
  
• Controls
  The main difference between the D200 and models below, such as the Nikon D80 is with the way the controls are arranged. On a camera like a D80, advanced controls such as Dynamic Group AF, which I like to switch to and from regularly, are hidden away in the menu system. The D200 has a dedicated switch on the rear for quick access to this function.
  
  
• Image Quality
  The thing I like best about images produced by the D200 is the way it handles colour at high sensitivities (ISOs). Although other cameras are more than capable of turning out images that are sharper and with less noise, the colours often look flat by comparison to me. That's unless you're willing to spend enough time tweaking those images to get every last bit of tone and colour out of them (and I don't mean just hiking the saturation). I simply don't have time to be doing that.

Anyway, I think that sums up why my camera suits me rather well, doesn't it?

Other photographers will demand other things from their camera. If you are not me, you will probably do quite well to read some reviews, handle the cameras in a shop or even hire one for a day. I believe there is no such thing as a 'best' camera, only cameras that suit some individuals better than others.

If I were starting from scratch again, and had a limited budget, I would probably look towards the following cameras:

• Nikon D80
  Simply because it's the closest to what I have now in terms of operation, speed, robustness and image quality.
  
  
• Canon EOS 400D
  This camera lacks the metering options I love on my Nikon D200, but is more than capable of turning out great images in low light. It is cheaper than the Nikon D80 as well, which would leave more cash for good glass, which will improve the quality of your images more than pixels ever will.
  
  
• Pentax K100D
  The cheapest of the bunch by a country mile, but it's no slouch when it comes to performance. The body integral Shake Reduction system will also help in really dark venues. Six million pixels is plenty for most editorial images and for printing decent A3 images at home.
  
  
• Nikon D40
  This could be a great camera for concerts if it wasn't limited to AF-S lenses. This means that you cannot use most Nikon or third-party prime or zoom lenses and retain autofocus. To make this camera useful for concerts, you would probably have to buy a Nikon AF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 or a Nikon AF-S 28-70mm f/2.8 which are both twice as expensive as the camera!
  

• Back to - What equipment do you use to take your photos?
• What equipment? - Introduction to lenses
• What equipment? - Prime lenses
• What equipment? - Zoom lenses
• What equipment? - Other stuff

What equipment do you use to take your photos?

For some strange reason I get quite a few emails asking me what equipment I use to take my images , or that I would recommend for someone else to use.

Apart from finding this a little bizarre, (it's not like I'm a household name or anything) I also rarely have the time to compose a detailed reply to people's questions... so I decided to create this part of my blog where I can refer inquisitive types to.

I've split everything into a few different sections linked from this page, and hopefully everything relevant has been documented. Now when someone asks, I can say, "Looky here" and (hopefully) all questions will be answered.

I've also includfed what I think of each bit of equipment I use so that it's kind of like a mini-review. It'll be a far cry for some of the massively scientific pixel-peeping doodars that people on certain photo websites create, but it will be my opinion based on my experience using the equipment in the field.

A large emphasis will be placed on usability, rather than 'image-quality', this is because I feel strongly that it's pointless having the sharpest/fastest/megapixelly gear, if you can't coax it into doing what you want easily. If you can't get what you want, you may as well not bother.

Please feel free to browse the different sections below...

• What equipment? - Camera
• What equipment? - Introduction to lenses
• What equipment? - Prime lenses
• What equipment? - Zoom lenses
• What equipment? - Other stuff

Drowned in Sound - Staff Mixtapes Feature

As part of DrownedinSound's collection of feature articles to see out the end of 2006, all regular contributors to the site (writers and photographers) were asked to put together a brief 'Mixtape' made up of your favourite tracks released in 2006.

This was a little unnerving for me. I'm more than happy to take my pictures leaving those who feel they have valid opinions to express, the space to express them.

Anyway, here is my mixtape of tracks from 2006 from the article:

Red Sparowes
‘Like The Howling Glory Of The Darkest Winds, This Voice Was Thunderous And The Words Holy, Tangling Their Way Around Our Hearts And Clutching Our Innocent Awe’
(from Every Red Heart Shines Toward The Red Sun album; MySpace; review)

Mastodon
‘Colony Of Birchmen’
(from Blood Mountain album; website; review)

ISIS
‘Dulcinea’
(from In the Absence of Truth album; website; review)

Zyklon
‘Wrenched’
(from Disintegrate album; website; MySpace)

Zombi
‘Night Rhythms’
(from Surface To Air album; website)

Sunn O))) & Boris
‘Akuma No Kuma’
(from Altar album; Southern Lord website)

Satyricon
‘K.I.N.G.’
(from Now, Diabolical album; website; review)

Mogwai
‘Glasgow Mega Snake’
(from Mr Beast album; website; review)

Eternal Lord
‘Destiny’
(from Eternal Lord/Azriel Split EP; MySpace)

Enslaved
‘Heir to the Cosmic Seed’
(from Ruun album; website; MySpace)

Please take your time to check out each and every band on the list. They are excellent... trust me!

Guardian Guide - November 11th 2006

It's a bit belated, I know. I was incredibly chuffed when another photographer let me know that he'd seen one of my pictures printed in The Guardian Guide supplement.

The image in question, was one I had taken not long before of The Long Blondes in concert at Sheffield University, and was used to illustrate their unique fashion sense.

I've photographed The Long Blondes many, many, many times over the past year, so it was a relief when I found one of those images had finally been used!

Below is a scan of the page as it appeared in the supplement:

Music Mart - January 2007 edition

Indeed - this month's edition of Music Mart, the magazine for performing musicians, contains not one, but seven of my images - including the front cover image of The Klaxons!

Other images featured inside include a full page copy of another of my Klaxons images, plus images of The Noisettes, The Rumble Strips, Bromheads Jacket, Good Shoes and the Maccabees.

You can pick up a copy of this fine publication at branches of WHSmith nationwide.

Xfm's Xmas Session: Boy Kill Boy & The KBC

Photos I took of Xfm Manchester's Christmas Live Session gig featuring Boy Kill Boy and The KBC, have been published in the gallery section of the Xfm website.

The invite-only (well, you get given tickets if you ask nicely) gig held at Manchester's Life Cafe venue was the final of its kind this year. The aim of these live session events is to showcase bigger-than-unknown bands in 'intimate' surroundings.

As part of my arrangement for the evening, I was asked to photograph some faces from the crowd. If I took your picture that night, (either directly, or otherwise) please take a look at the Xfm gallery as you can claim some free CDs by sending them a picture of the front of your head along with a message saying which number the photo you appear in has been given.

Hopefully the bands won't cotton onto the amount of free gifts they could apparently claim.

2006 - Looking back on a busy year.

Indeed, it's been a busy year. So as the sun begins to set on 2006, I thought I'd have a look back over what I've done this past year, before starting afresh in 2007.

I began the year by setting some goals for myself - goals I didn't think I had a cat-in-hell's chance of achieving, but I managed a fair few of them.

Special highlights from this year include:

Festivals
One of my main goals this year was to get off my fat arse and shoot a festival, not some gathering of bands in the local boozer, but a proper festival with more than one stage and some kind of open-air element to it and tents... lots of them.

Monsters of Rock, which was held at The National Bowl in Milton Keynes gave me my first taste of this kind of event. Now although it was a privilege to shoot Alice Cooper, Deep Purple, Queensrÿche and a bunch of other aging rock stars, it didn't quite cut the mustard for me. I needed a proper festival with tents and more than one stage dammit!

My first 'proper' festival came later in the summer. Leicester's Summer Sundae was a real treat. A decent line-up, coupled with a great atmosphere (and the fact I was buzzing all weekend with excitement). What made me especially happy, was the fact I didn't make a complete and utter balls of it!

One week later, whilst still recovering from the excitement of Summer Sundae, freak occurrences meant I ended up shooting the final day of V2006 in Stafford. The Line-up at V was a little suspect on the whole and not really my cup of tea at all (Girls Aloud were on the bill... need I say more), but it was all more than worth it for the chance to shoot Radiohead, who were headlining. Fantastic!

Another week passed, and another festival beckoned - at short notice. This time the tent-count was much higher (the campsite looked like on of those UN refugee camps you see on the news in its entirety). I couldn't believe my luck when I received the news that I had a pass for Leeds Festival. I had no main stage access, but the fact I was there was all that mattered! In fact, the lack of main stagery was a blessing in disguise, as I'd never have shot as much in the weekend if I'd been trekking back and forth waiting to be escorted into the main stage pit. Highlights included: Maxïmo Park, ¡Forward, Russia!, Dresden Dolls, The Automatic, Adequate Seven and Send More Paramedics, who were all excellent to photograph.


Metal \m/
2006 has been the first year I've been able to get into gigs I want to for myself, (although still not easily). As I result, I've photographed more metal this year than I could shake a shitty stick at.

Damnation Festival held in Gilly's Rockworld in Manchester was fantastic! Send More Paramedics were on fine form (I even ended up contributing vocals whilst photographing at one point), it was just a shame the event ran late as I had to leave after one song of Akercocke to catch my train. They sounded awesome as well. :(

Motörhead have been on my list of 'bands I MUST shoot' ever since I first got into this band photography malarkey. Lemmy may be getting on a bit now, but that would never get in the way of what was a blistering performance.

Another band I managed to tick off my 'must shoot' list was Dragonforce. If you haven't seen this band live yet, then... erm... you're rubbish.

Other metal (or metallish) highlights of the year include ISIS, 1349, Zyklon and Enslaved.


Published stuff
This year I've managed to get more photos published here and there than ever before. Special thanks has to go to Redferns Music Picture Library for taking me on, Sandman Magazine for being so accommodating, Rockmidgets and Drowned in Sound.

Hopefully 2007 will turn out to be even busier, with more metal, more tents and a new 'must shoot' list to keep me going well into 2008!

Bloggitty blog blog bleurgh.

OK... well I thought I'd start one of these blog things. 2006 has been a fantastic year for my photography (even if it hasn't been for anything else!) so I thought I'd start sticking some stuff up here about my activities, because you're dead interested... right?

Whenever I can, I'll chuck some stuff about the actual nuts and bolts of my work up on here as well. That way you'll be able to read up on all the stuff I've taught myself, and ultimately make me look rubbish in the process by doing it better!

The picture on the right is me hiding behind one of my old cameras. I'm best viewed when I'm behind things.