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."
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.
And what do you propose calling...
give it up. The terms are set. Buy a dictionary.
It isn’t always the bands’ call. The venues want a cut sometimes too.
The House Of Blues for example has photographers under contract. On rare occasion they will permit cameras. But they try to control the use of images from their chain of venues.
And not really the same thing, but in the 1960s, a lot of bands played at the Whiskey A Go Go. Quite a few paid the club to be able to release “Live at the Whiskey A Go Go” albums on whatever label each band was under contract to.
If it isn’t a civic owned venue, ultimately the venue can say “no cameras”. The band probably gets some clearance.
And in the end, do it and let them decide if they want to pursue it.
It is very unlikely that any pro got into the show for free just so he could hear the band.
There isn’t any magic card that gets the press in wherever they want to go.
Press credentials that get a photographer into the show are issued by the bands. If you want credentials to shoot a performance, most bands will require proof that you are shooting for a specific publication before they will issue credentials.
In most cases, the credentials specify photos taken can only be used for that publication and generally cannot be resold or republished in the future. Many bands try to get photographers to sign draconian contracts signing over the rights to all images taken at the show before they will allow the photographers to enter the shooting location.
Good recommendations but, just in case someone is looking, I believe you mean the Panasonic Lumix FZ-28 and FZ-35. There is also the Panasonic Lumix DMC-ZS3 which is smaller and has a 12x zoom.
For even less money and in an even smaller package there is the 10X Fuji FinePix F70EXR. It has some problems but there is nothing I've found better in low light at that price or double that price (the Lumix LX3 is sweet but the 2.5X zoom limits it and the price is getting close to entry level DSLR). Dynamic range of Fuji beats Panny too. I get washed out skies and blown highlights if I've not careful with the FZ28 and, especially, with an FX500.
bump
“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.”
You don’t seem to understand, so let me try to explain it simply. Names are dreamed up to distinguish things from eachother. One does not distinguish things by what they have in common. If all cameras involve pointing and shooting, and they do, it’s couterproductive to name any particular type of camera after said qualities.
“That’s ALL there is, no other steps. All the other cameras there other stuff BESIDES point and shoot.”
Yes, duh, I know that. The point is, calling them “point-and-shoot” doesn’t say that, no matter how much people pretend it does. And it’s just that, the pretending, that annoys me. It’s lazy. There are a million better ways to say it, and make it clear.
“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, people aren’t explaining it to me, they’re being unresponsive. I don’t need to hear about focus and apertures. I know there are more steps involved the more complicated a camera is. I said so from the beginning. All this is beside the point. The term “point and shoot” does not express everything you’ve been saying. It simply doesn’t.
“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.”
And that’s one of the things I hate about the world as it is. Silly little expressions which express nothing. People playing at speaking, toying with code words that they think are clever but are in fact pretty haphazard and shallow.
Wow - U2 - groovy!
“give it up. The terms are set. Buy a dictionary.”
Point-and-shoot is not in the dictionary. It’s one of those little buzz-phrases that hipsters love and which die out in short order. I am perfectly free to loathe it, as you no doubt loathe other fadish phrases.
If you look closely, all three of your lists have steps involving pointing and shooting. I rest my case.
As for the difference between auto-focus and “point-and-shoot” cameras, I could care less. I only suggested calling them auto-focus, too, because everyone suddenly started talking about the all-important step of focus. Call it auto- anything. Because that’s its most important attribute, correct, that it does everything it can on its own.
I do understand, this name isn’t distinguishing by what the cameras have in common. It’s listing all of the steps.
Sorry but at this point you’re the guy pretending. Everybody else on the thread, and seemingly on the planet, seems to understand that when you are handed a point-and-shoot camera all you need to do to take a picture is point-and-shoot just like the name says. It’s a very descriptive name, that’s highly logical.
It’s been explained to you a dozen times. You DO need to hear about focus and aperture because those are what separate point-and-shoot from other cameras. The other steps ARE the point, the other steps are what clearly delineate them FROM point-and-shoot, those other cameras are NOT point-and-shoot because if you just point them and shoot them you get a crappy out of focus improperly lit picture.
This is not a silly little expression that expresses nothing. Quite the opposite. Calling the cameras point-and-shoot not only clearly distinguishes them from other cameras, it provides directions. There’s no code words or playing at being clever here, it’s actually one of the most intuitive and generally useful product designations out there.
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.