Skip to comments.Music industry bows to point-and-shoot cameras
Posted on 11/10/2009 12:49:57 PM PST by a fool in paradise
At last month's huge U2 show at the Rose Bowl in Pasadena, Calif., how could you tell the difference between the professional photographers and your average amateurs?
Answer: the professionals were the ones whisked away after Bono and friends finished their third song, and the amateurs were still there, happily shooting to their heart's content.
Nearly every person at any show these days is going to have some form of camera with them, be it a point-and-shoot, an iPhone or some other camera phone, and it seems that there is almost no way to imagine keeping all those devices out.
That new reality is forcing an increasing number of bands to come to grips with the fact that they can't really control the images from their shows, and that, for the most part, they're better off letting fans cram Facebook and Flickr with such pictures anyway.
"It's an acknowledgment of the way technology is changing, and how much digital cameras have become a part of our lives," Rob Sheridan, the creative director for Nine Inch Nails, told CNET News. "Now that everyone has video and still cameras in their phones, and pocket digital cameras take HD video and great quality pictures, not only is it impossible to keep cameras out of shows, but it's fighting an increasingly uphill battle against what is now a cultural norm: people freely documenting their lives and the things they do to share it with friends and family."
In fact, the only people who may emerge frustrated from this new paradigm are the professionals. For those shooting with credentials, the phrase is "three songs and you're gone," said Bob Carey, the president of the National Press Photographers Association, meaning that pros are generally allowed to shoot from a designated "pit" near the stage during a band's first three songs, and then they have to leave.
Last month, I was one of those sporting a photo pass at the 96,000-fan U2 Rose Bowl show. And even as I was clicking away during those first three songs, I was acutely aware that there were hundreds of people even closer to the stage than I was, toting cameras capable of taking some pretty great pictures. Indeed, a quick Flickr search confirmed just that.
Little dynamos Many of those fans--and thousands more throughout the Rose Bowl that night--were shooting with nothing more than a camera phone. And no one worries about the dissemination of images taken with devices like that. But some people were shooting with cameras like Canon's new PowerShot G11, a little 12.5-ounce, 10-megapixel dynamo much more than capable of producing professional images.
So, while the professionals are being ushered out after those three songs, how is it that the fans are able to keep shooting?
The answer is camera policies in effect at concerts, which are almost always defined by the bands themselves. And conversations with people throughout the music industry make it clear that while there are no standard policies, and that the rules run the gamut from "anything goes" to "no pictures, please," artists today are increasingly tolerant, even encouraging, of fans taking all the pictures they want.
Look, for example, at the Nine Inch Nails Web site, which spells out the band's open camera policy, "inviting fans to capture the events with anything from a cell phone to a hi-def video camera." The reason is clear: "The results have been overwhelming, filling our own galleries with thousands of images and videos from every show, and inspiring a number of ambitious fan-sourced video projects within the NIN community. Some of those projects are starting to surface now, and we couldn't be happier with the way the fans have organized themselves and created some truly impressive work."
Further, Sheridan told CNET News, even the proliferation of pictures of the band's shows taken by fans hasn't hurt its commercial interests.
"Despite the fact that our fans take thousands and thousands of their own photos at each NIN show with whatever camera they'd like, we still sell prints of live photos taken by me through a Web site called frcphotos.com," said Sheridan. "This is presumably the type of thing that other acts would be trying to 'protect' by limiting photography at shows, but we've found that fans are still eager to purchase reasonably-priced professional prints, often taken at angles or distances that only someone working for the band would have access to."
Some artists are clearly concerned about fans' rights to take pictures, and go so far as to issue reminders when there are restrictions. For example, the indie rock due, Tegan and Sara, have sent tweets saying things like, "Hollywood Bowl restricts cameras that are deemed professional. This usually means cameras with a removable lens. So keep that in mind!!!"
And, of course, other rock stars are not at all behind the notion of fans taking pictures. Among those are said to be Prince, Kanye West, Bjork, and others. At shows by those artists, security is known to assiduously stop people from taking pictures of any kind, even with camera phones, though one wonders just how effective such policies can be.
Less anti-camera attitudes But clearly, anti-camera attitudes are becoming less and less prevalent these days.
"It's something that artists have come to realize they have no control over," said Abe Baruck, a manager who works with big-name acts like Journey, Clint Black, and Peter Wolf. It's "more a realization that this is just the way people enjoy entertainment. They want to capture something for their own nostalgia (and it) just doesn't go anywhere other than for their own use."
That thinking is likely what is behind the restrictions on specific kinds of camera equipment at some shows, like U2's, and on professionals.
Even though millions of amateur photographers now own digital SLRs, there is still a mindset in the entertainment industry that anyone toting one at a concert is a professional and therefore should be limited in where and how they shoot.
That's why some bands, like U2, make a point of allowing fans to take pictures, so long as they stick to lower-end equipment. "Since 2001, U2 has openly allowed fans to bring cameras to their shows," reads the FAQ on the site U2tours.com. "Your camera, however, must be a point-and-shoot camera; DSLRs are not allowed."
"It's just a very simple calling card saying, 'I'm a professional media person,'" Philip Blaine, a producer with Coachella promoter Goldenvoice, said of photographers with digital SLRs, "'and I know how to utilize this media in a professional manner.'"
And while it's generally bands that are setting camera policies, some venues have also asserted control over what fans can and can't bring.
One example is the Hollywood Bowl, in Los Angeles. As evidenced by the tweet from Tegan and Sara, that venue imposes restrictions around certain kinds of equipment. A Hollywood Bowl spokeswoman said that that venue won't let ticket-holders bring in professional-grade equipment.
Professional sports seem to largely work the same way. According to NFL spokesperson Brian McCarthy, football fans are allowed to bring in any kind of still camera--though lenses are restricted to less than six inches long, for security reasons--they want. That policy is standard across the entire NFL, McCarthy added, and prohibits fans from bringing in any kind of camcorder.
The same basic policy applies to other sports, too. According to Nick Ohayre, a spokesperson for the NBA's Golden State Warriors, fans are free to carry and use cameras at basketball games, so long as they don't use flash and don't bring large, professional equipment.
But over time, as the technology improves, it may become more common and force sports leagues and entertainers to pay more attention to what's happening with imagery taken by the thousands of small devices fans bring with them to events, especially as the quality of pictures from those devices is often good enough for professional publication and licensing.
Some even think that band representatives need to do a better job of keeping up with what's possible in technology.
"I don't think they're aware of some of (what's possible) with new devices," said Carey of the National Press Photographers Association. "I don't think they've figured out the nuances of what point-and-shoots can do with photos and video."
But the increasing permissive attitude toward letting fans shoot whatever photos they please may simply come down to the realities of what it would take to do a serious search of every one of the thousands of people who go through an event's gates.
In the old days, said New York freelancer Lia Bulaong, if she wanted to sneak a camera into a show, she would hide its battery in her bra and then convince security she had brought her powerless camera into the show in order not to risk it being stolen from her car.
But in the last two or three years, she said, such subterfuge is pointless.
"No-camera policies just became extra ridiculous because pretty much everyone has a camera in their phone," Bulaong said. "Venues can't turn away camera phones and will never the capacity to check them in like they do coats and bags."
Plus, she pointed out, more and more, the bands want to incorporate the fans' phones into their shows.
"The one thing you will see at every concert now, regardless of the artist, is the moment when everyone has their camera phone out and the venue is awash in tiny lit up screens."
This photo of U2 lead singer Bono, shot during U2's Rose Bowl show on October 25, by amateur photographer Bruce Heavin, was taken with a Canon PowerShot G11, and is representative of the high-quality pictures that ticket-holders can easily take these days at concerts and other events with point-and-shoot cameras. Note the people in the picture snapping their own images of Bono.
(Credit: Flickr user Bruce Heavin)
Shot with a press credential from the photo pit and with a digital SLR, this CNET photo is not all that distinguishable from the photo (seen above) by amateur Bruce Heavin, which he took with a Canon PowerShot G11, a point-and-shoot camera.
(Credit: Daniel Terdiman/CNET)
I remember four or five years ago everyone was searched at most concerts and you had to take your cameras back to your car. When I was at the U2 concert a few weeks ago, pretty much everyone had a camera, and a lot of folks even had video cameras and no one cared.
[collapses, wisps of smoke puffing out his ears]
Rock and roll PING
I had pretty decent seats side-stage (comped from the casino where the concert was), but decided against any photographs. Didn't see the need.
The lower picture clearly looks more professional to me... I have no doubt the little point and click the fan used has all the technical specs to take a great pic, but I don’t think anyone looking at those 2 pics and had to pick which one the professional took, would pick the top photo.
It’s also about “controlling” the image.
Wasn’t always like that. And if you are “good enough”, the artists (maybe not their management but the performers) can be appreciative (as long as it isn’t intrusive).
Youtube videos often look like crap and sound like mud though. The cameras have too much shake and don’t give a “good” impression what a performance was like.
All of which are out of control, ego maniac jerks.
I don’t see what the band hopes to gain by all this hoop-la.
This is a public venue, people paid upwards of $100+ to be there. This is a public performance, and without a flash that disturbs others, I see no reason why John Q. Public can, or should be prohibited from taking as many photo’s as he can.
This makes the fans happy. Happy fans make for good publicity and more CD sales, this in turn means more concerts and more money for the band and their promoters.
Hack off the fan base, and your band dies.
Hello, Dixie Chicks and Metallica (I’m talking to you)
How many of those professionals just used their press credentials to get into the show for free while the fans actually paid for their seats?
Technology already exists to “jam” digital communications...expect that to be used to stop the workings of such devices.
It’s come down to an unwritten rule (often, sometimes actually written) that cameras without removable lenses are permitted. We got here because EVERYTHING is a camera now (phones especially). But unlike a film camera, digital cameras have those bright back panels that can be disracting to the audience members in back.
Alternatively, I’ve seen several performers who know the cameras are out there and that venues have gone smokeless so lighters aren’t “allowed” and will have the “light show” from the crowd done with cellphone cameras now.
I think that the top composition, with the cellphones in the crowd, was selected because (A) it showed audience members taking shots and (B) it showed how close some of them are to the performance.
In the online comments, some critics said that the top image would not be selected by an editor. Yet it WAS selected to illustrate this article.
If you’re upfront at an event even the analog high-end point-n-shoot cameras could give you “professional” looking images, if you know what you’re doing. Those point-n-shoot Contax and Leicas, among others, weren’t cheap for nothing! Their optics were superb. I still want one of them. My wallet? Not so much (:
Metallica? You mean the one that continues to set sales records and sells out nearly every night no matter where they are playing?
That dying band?
And speaking of Metallica and cameras. I have seen them 24 times live and brought a camera into nearly every show. Kirk Hammett, on multiple occasions would notice me pointing a camera at him, stare me in the eyes, hold a pose, see the flash, nod his head, and move on.
I hear it is being used to block cellphone transmissions of the show.
This 12MPx image stabilized 26X Zoom does not have a removable lens...
I thought Lars had pretty much single-handedly sunk the band.
I’m glad to hear that Kirk was really cool about the camera; that’s the kind of actions that make you, me and others want to shell out the $100/ticket and fight traffic to attend a concert.
Where did that phrase ever come from, point-and-shoot? What camera doesn’t point and shoot?
Going back at least 10 years, some professional sports facilities had a prohibition on any camera lens that was deemed “professional” (I think if it went beyond 80mm).
You point the camera and shoot. Everything else is “covered”.
- Light setting (aperature)
- shutter speed
- “film speed”
Basically it means no manual focusing. Older cameras are point-focus-shoot, the modern age of digital you can just push the button and it’ll probably wind up in focus.
“You point the camera and shoot. Everything else is ‘covered’”
Yes, well, once everything is “covered” by professional photographers with “real” cameras, they proceed to point and shoot. It is the inevitable end of all photography. Unless you don’t bother to point, and I’m sure there’s been an Accidental Photography movement at some point in the age of Modern Art.
Anyway, the point is, “point-and-shoot” is bad nomenclature. Better to call it automatic photography, disposable photography, or perhaps something like fast-food photopgraphy.
Not really. The old style was get all your presets, point, focus, shoot. The new style has no presets and auto-focuses, so the only 2 steps left are point and shoot.
“Basically it means no manual focusing. Older cameras are point-focus-shoot, the modern age of digital you can just push the button and itll probably wind up in focus.”
But once they manually focus, the big boys proceed to point and click, do they not? Yes, they do. I understand the point is to highlight how previously disposable, now multi-use, camera operators only have to point and shoot.
However, that’s not what the lazy, dare I say stupid, appelation “point-and-shoot” technically signifies. How about we call it autofocus photography? Or, more to the point, Easy-peasy photography?
You can set your focal range so that the entire picture foreground, background, and central subject are all in focus. Or when the “non-essential” details go out of focus (by choice).
The more control the photographer has in making the image, the more he is directly responsible for it.
You can set up an autoshooting webcam in the back of the venue and grab frames out of thousands of unattended shots and come up with some interesting images. But the human input was strictly “editor” at that point.
No. You point first, then you focus, then you shoot, and IF your object stays relatively stationary so your focus is still good you can keep shooting, but if they move you need to re-focus.
We used to call to call it auto-focus. But even auto-focus cameras needed to have the various presets (speed, apperature, etc) done, the modern age of digital doesn’t have that. It’s point and shoot.
“The new style has no presets and auto-focuses, so the only 2 steps left are point and shoot.”
Exactly. Both types of cameras necessarily involve pointing and shooting. Hence, pretending you can distinguish the latter by its pointing and shooting quality is silly. If there were some way to highlight the fact that you ONLY point and shoot (while there are actually other things involved, zooming for instance, but nevermind), I could live with it.
As it is, they’ve for some reason managed to choose the two things fancy and disposable/clockradio-type cameras have in common. Namely, their pointing and shooting qualities.
There you go, talking all about “focus”. So I ask, why not rename so-called “point and shoot” photography autofocus photography, since that seems to be the sticking point?
But with the new cameras those are the ONLY steps, where as with the old ones there’s steps before and after point. You can distinguish, point and shoot cameras the ONLY steps you need to take to have a nice in focus picture are the pointing and the shooting, non-point and shoot cameras take extra steps.
Because to change the focal length (HOW MUCH of the image is in focus at once) you either have to change lenses or change the aperature (how much light is coming in) AND the corresponding shutter speed.
are you a professional photographer or avid amateur with a chip on his shoulder about us uneducated masses being able to take decent photos with simple equipment at low prices?
>>Its also about controlling the image.<<
Yep. You’ll notice in the amateur example Bono has a bit of a gut.
It’s only a sticking point for you. Even my 100% technically non-inclined mother-in-law gets that point and shoot cameras require no actions besides pointing and shooting which clearly distinguishes them from non-point and shoot cameras which require additional steps including but by no means limited to focusing. There is actually a clear and rather obvious difference between auto-focus cameras and point and shoot.
“No. You point first, then you focus, then you shoot, and IF your object stays relatively stationary so your focus is still good you can keep shooting, but if they move you need to re-focus.”
You can add all the extra steps you want, but here’s what I’m pulling out of your post: fancy camera operators shoot after they point. That is, they point and shoot. Therefore, they, too, use point-and-shoot cameras. You add in this extra step, namely focusing, which for the purposes of the discussion I could care less about. Why? Because it hardly matters that people used to have to focus their cameras. It doesn’t change the fact that people still have to point and shoot, just like they did in the past.
You focus on focusing, so why not make that the focal point of what so-called “point and shoot” cameras should be called? As you say, easier cameras used to be called auto-focus. Why did that stop? Apparently, from your version of events, because they became more automatic. Which, forgive me, seems like more of a reason to call them automatic than previous auto-focus cameras.
And if you are using "fill flash", you will get photos that don't look flash or wash out when you shoot a picture indoors.
And outdoors, you can remove the shadows...
The automatic settings for the flash aren't going to do this.
The same elements are in the photos, but they don’t yield the same images. And depending on what you are trying to accomplish, different settings are needed.
Uh, most people get a clear and accurate picture of what you mean when you say “point and shoot”. You have a camera in your hand and see something you want to take a picture of. You point the camera at that thing. You hit the “shutter” button.
It is pretty clear.
My buddy buys and sells a lot of Leica rangefinder cameras from the last five decades. Some might call them point and shoot, but they are not even close, even though they are not SLRs.
“which clearly distinguishes them from non-point and shoot cameras which require additional steps”
Ah, but they aren’t non-point and shoot, are they? Even with extra steps, the common steps are still there. You still have to point and shoot. This is not about whether laymen can understand what you’re talking about. Heck, everyone knows the phrase is supposed to mean that you ONLY have to point and shoot (even thought that’s not literally what’s being said). However, I’m not interested in what’s understood. I’m interested in the logic of it. In the actual meaning of words.
Those extra steps are the difference in camera type. Here let’s make an easy list.
Steps involved in taking a picture with and old fashioned all manual camera:
1 - set presets (speed, aperture etc)
2 - point
3 - focus
4 - shoot
Steps for auto-focus camera:
1 - set presets
2 - point
3 - shoot
Steps for point-and-shoot camera
1 - point
2 - shoot
And that’s also why the auto-focus name got dropped. Auto-focus and point-and-shoot are actually two different types of cameras with two different sets of steps to take a picture.
Morrisseey has a gguutt these days too.
One would think a band would encourage fans to take pictures. Some of the coolest pics you see of yourself are often the live performance shots that you didn’t even know someone took.
No they are non-point and shoot cameras. It’s not about the common steps, it’s about the fact that point and shoot is the entire list of all steps necessary to take a picture with point and shoot. That’s ALL there is, no other steps. All the other cameras there other stuff BESIDES point and shoot.
The logic of is quite simple. And has been explained to you enough times that you’re starting to look like a person arguing just to be arguing. No other camera can take a quality picture with the user ONLY pointing and shooting, thus why we call point and shoot cameras point and shoot.
Okay, if focus isn’t the sticking point, then something else is. Find it, and involve it in the name. I suggested Automatic photography a while back, that could pretty much cover everything that’s different. Although, of course, it wouldn’t be sufficient to distinguish disposable cameras from every other camera that is in some way automatic.
Call a point-and-shoot an instamatic then. Because you have limited your ability to craft the image for ease of use.
There are multiple things to control and they work together or against each other (aperature f-stop, shutter speed, film speed ISO) and whether you use a flash or not.
The image being in focus is not a factor. That is just plain user error.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.