Framing a musician...

[megan]

Hello. I haven't been over to critique in a while, but after reading P-J's recent editorial, and me being utterly undecided about some recent shots, I thought I'd post a couple here and get some objective input. I'm not going to explain the shots at all - I'm interested in knowing if:

--you like one over the other, both, or neither
--the good, the bad, the ugly
--ultimately, if one, both, neither are keepers or take-it-or-leave it
--why

I can't judge at this point because I can't see past what I was trying to do. Technicals: I was shooting at 3200 with an Olympus E3, using the monochrome function. I don't like using a flash in small venues because it makes people mad and disturbs everyone else's experience, annoys the musicians, and this time there were two other photogs shooting, one with a flash. Plus, I like the drama of the stage lights - the flash can reveal ugly stuff like gross dropped ceilings. Ok... enough explaining.

I promise to stick around and help out myself!

Thanks, PR.

[armando_m]

Interesting !

I like #1 better, everything sharp, except the hand of the guitar player
not sure about the musician leaning one way and the "frame" leaning slightly the other way
maybe can be cropped vertical and eliminate a good portion of the dark space to the right

#2 not my fav ... the mike is across the face of the musician and he looks overexposed, the "frame" is now visible but to close to the musiciad and blurry

[NKP68]

Of the two I pick #1. I like the off angle you chose, drew my attention right away. The frame is very dark and therefore I wasn't distracted by the silhoueted figures. The musician has a interesting expression which seems to be looking at the camera and a nice action blurr of his right hand. It all works for me. B&W was a good choice for this image.
#2 is the antithesis of #1. IMO
Ed

[llewpics]

I like #1. The angle works to add some "vibrancy, movement and fun" to the photo. The shadows frame the subject well. In the other one, the face is too close to the subject, drawing too much attention to itself.

[draymorton]

#1 is the winner for me strictly because of the performer. He's a little closer to being properly exposed and the mic isn't blocking his face. I also feel that his gaze indicates a connection between artist and audience.

Plus, I really just like the moment you caught.

However, I prefer the foreground subjects in #2 simply because we can see them. That said, I prefer their distance from the performer in #1. They're way too close to him in #2.

A combination of the guitarist/singer and composition in #1 and the listeners in #2 would be awesome, but as they are, #1 is definitely my choice for the reasons stated above.

Very imaginative framing in either case. Really gives us the context.

[gahspidy]

Hey Megan, nice to see you drop by

I agree with dray in that I like the capture of the performer in #1 but prefer the people in the foreground of #2.

I have to say that all in all I find #2 more interesting. It feels more like I'm there and I can feel the energy from the people walking past. . .and just getting a glimpse of the performer through the people appeals to me and seems more interesting in this context.
#1 looks like a very static image. tightly framed by unknown dark masses on both sides, and the moment of the musician seems static as well. although we get a clear view of his face and its sharp, etc., I'm just not feeling it.

the way these two shots came out, neither one will be just about the performer, so I think overall the energy and mood from #2 works best.

[OldClicker]

#1 for me. The foreground people a pure silhouette (on my monitor) and the performer's face is more visible. I think a slightly faster shutter speed would give a better (less) blur to the hand. I am, however, almost never a fan of the 45 deg tilted image and that holds true here. – Terry

[megan]

Excellent critiques and information. Thanks, everyone - I was too close to what I was trying to do to let myself see what I actually did. I appreciate all your responses!

[PhilF]

check out Herman Leonard (one of my fav photographers).. He's work is a good source of inspiration for this type of photography

[GB1]

Hmm. Here's what I think Megan, w/o reading the other posts.

The top one is technically better, but both have people in the foreground, which can add an element of action to the scene, but in this case they may be too obstructional to the subject (s), esp on the bottom shot.

They're a bit soft and I know that it's tough to get a fast enough SS with shooting indoors like this; I don't have an answer beyond getting a really fast ISO camera w/ low grain. I see that a flash was used (must have been off camera, but I still see a lot of blur on his hand and guitar.

Not sure on the tilt of the top one.

I want to see more of that sign behind him that's cut off, and the other musician.

Both may be better if viewed larger, and if you really want to save them, I would seriously consider cropping out some of those fellows in the foreground, which sorta annoy the viewer (me, anyhow..).

Anyway, I'm not sure how to get great indoor band shots. I'm sure there's a science to it, like action shooting, and I'm betting it's a little harder than it would seem. Maybe if you were 6'3"?

G

[jetrim]

I like the "sneak a peek" quality of #1 but think I'd crop this in portrait format rather than landscape. I also agree with Gary about the feeling of actually being in the crowded bar that #2 gives us, but I'd knock the exposure back closer to that of #1. They are both worth keeping and work together well as a pair.