1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Nick rocks the Bear - Nov 9

Discussion in 'On Tour' started by HarperPR, Oct 20, 2008.

  1. HarperPR

    HarperPR My destiny offers me up like a lamb

    She does a nice quote doesn't she, that Jane! (love your pic too, J).

    I liked You'll Never Walk Alone.:)

    Can't open yours right now, Trav, will look later. Did you get any of the Marlborough park benches?!:D
  2. scotpaulabear

    scotpaulabear Halfway up my own guitar, propping up another bar

    Woot! Lovin' the pics!
    But blimey Trav, that first gig pic is quite... :svengo:
    (you could warn a girl LOL)
  3. wessexy witch

    wessexy witch I've got a zappy little nappy

    The last picture of your lady and Nick is lovely.

  4. Travellerman

    Travellerman Aye lad, I knew you had it in you

    She's not my lady, just a friend....:D but she was impressed by the whole affair (especially Nick :wink:) so we may well be seeing her at a gig again one day.
  5. landells

    landells I've got a zappy little nappy

  6. Moth

    Moth I've got a zappy little nappy

    Superb as ever - what a talent & what a lovely bloke. What more can you want?

    My photos are at http://www.flickr.com/photos/71451816@N00/sets/72157608897043021/ A lot of them are a bit grainy coz I fiddled with the camera to try to avoid using the flash. Then when I gave up and used the flash, I forgot to reset it. Then near the end I thought to check & put it right!

    Sorry for the delay in posting them - been too busy being ill....

    Great to see/meet everyone!


  7. HarperPR

    HarperPR My destiny offers me up like a lamb

    And in some he's Nearly-Headless Nick too!:D

    But 014 I like; could be interesting...shows that sometimes a man needs to flash, haha! - but I am looking at on phone at the moment so will have to take another look on computer and see it enlarged.

    Are you charging the artist now then, Moth, from your comment on Flickr?! :wink:

    I am always DESPERATE for good photos, and certainly will be come Jan 1. Trouble is I get sent a lot that may be nice but are not suitable for print reproduction, and/or not suitable for online reproduction or take such an age to open that I give up! And if I do, then I'm damned sure no editor will bother.
  8. Moth

    Moth I've got a zappy little nappy

    I'm only here at this hour coz I can't sleep!

    Eh? Are you just looking at the thumbnails? :bored: Or don't you like compositions that don't show the whole head? Or are you just taking the Michael?! :wink:

    Number 14? It's ok I suppose, but like I said to you on Sunday, these pix were never gonna be that great because of the flash. The other problem with flash that I didn't mention on Sunday is that in such a small space it tends to light up the mess in the background too!

    Ha! Of course I'm not charging anyone, let alone the artist!!! Lol!! I only take 'em for fun!

    That bit of text's actually there because I've come across my photos (not of Nick!) on bootlegs on Ebay. As a result of your comment, I've just modified the wording!

    As a matter of interest, when you're talking about pics you've been sent, do you mean ones that you've asked for or just snaps that peeps have sent? I'd guess you'd specify the resolution etc if you were asking for them.

    Print reproduction's always gonna be tricky. I don't actually know what res they ask for, but I know it's high, certainly for large reproduction. The chances of anyone shooting at that high a resolution unless they have print in mind is pretty slim....

    Web reproduction shouldn't be such a problem surely? If you're looking at it online & it looks ok, it's gonna be ok as long as whoever uses it doesn't try to make it display larger than the original you've been looking at.

    Mostly if someone was using them as part of an article or whatever they'd make them smaller if anything. For example, like I say I only do it for fun, but many of mine would be ok online if you liked the pic & the copy you were looking at looked ok. A few of the 'bigger' ones might even be ok for print if they were being reproduced fairly small.

    On the taking ages to open thing, of course it's always gonna be dependent on the user's web connection, speed of the user's pooter etc. Obviously, the higher quality it is, the bigger the file, so the longer it'll take. So it's a balancing act isn't it? If you want high quality, you just have to be patient! Once you've got a high enough quality pic, if you're dealing with a halfway decent web-monkey when it's published online, they should know how to optimise pics for the web - making sure the quality's ok but they don't take too long to open.

    I'm not sure of the context you're mentioning editors in, but if I was sending them to an editor & didn'tknow what res they needed, I'd send a lo-res smaller file version & tell 'em what res I could provide if they want it.



    Last edited: Nov 12, 2008
  9. pete c

    pete c I've got a zappy little nappy

    What Moth said.


    For print, picture editors are usually happy with 300 dpi, Physical dimension should be about 10cm wide, if they want larger they will request it. And CMYK not RGB for print. Obviously if you supply as jpegs they will transmit faster and can be decompressed by the publication.

    web pics need to be 72 or 90 dpi only, and RGB or index colour mode.

    If you need any further help please shout.

    Pete x
  10. HarperPR

    HarperPR My destiny offers me up like a lamb

    I'M SHOUTING!:biggrin:

    You all know I'm as dense as when it comes to these kinda things.

    I would say, look at the images Nick has for download and follow same format as there for anything sent to me.

    Have a look too at some of the live shots used with reviews online and in print for style and composition. B/w is very on trend these days too.

    Moth, sorry, I didn't mean to rain on your artistic style!:blushing:
    014 - with the light from the left as well, it gives a nice effect. Are you able to move him slightly to the right, I wonder?
  11. HarperPR

    HarperPR My destiny offers me up like a lamb

    The green and blue ones from B Days are really nice - but I don't like the face he's pulling!:closedeyes: You see how difficult it is to get everthing right in a good shot!
  12. Travellerman

    Travellerman Aye lad, I knew you had it in you

    There are some nice photos in those albums :D. Moth, what camera was that?

    Personally I hate using the flash, but I knew I wouldn't get anything without it, so I waited until Nick at least had his eyes closed.
  13. Bob Jacobs

    Bob Jacobs Ride away in style

    Sorry - I've only just got around to reading this! I was on grandfatherly duties on Saturday: High School Musical 3! First time I've been to a cinema in 20 years ... :blushing:

    Glad it all went well.

  14. HarperPR

    HarperPR My destiny offers me up like a lamb

    Bob, the youngers might have liked The Bear better!:D Or were those the one(s) you took to the earlier FC gig? Wessexy and Landells's boy was there, although it did amuse me seeing the frowning look on his face whilst watching Nick at the start.:biggrin:
  15. wobbly bob

    wobbly bob I've got a zappy little nappy

    'additional information' to the right of the opened pics, mate!
  16. wobbly bob

    wobbly bob I've got a zappy little nappy

    frank carson?
  17. Travellerman

    Travellerman Aye lad, I knew you had it in you

    Got it, thanks. :D I wonder if my camera would even approach that, or is it really just me?
  18. wobbly bob

    wobbly bob I've got a zappy little nappy

    you can search on flickr by camera model (as long as someone else on there has used the same camera, of course).

    give it a go.

    when i was buying my last camera, that's what i did. i has a shortlist, and searched for pics by camera model and had a good look at the results other people had got using those cameras.
    good way to get an idea of what a particular camera is capable of.
    then, i suppose, if you can't get your pics up to that standard-it'll be you...

    all the best,
  19. Moth

    Moth I've got a zappy little nappy

    Hi - sorry for the delay. Somehow I got lucky with red-eye at Marlbro - dunno how!!!

    Most of the non-music ones were with the Nikon D70 I had with me at Marlbro. We have an 18-70 'standard' zoom lens (which I had at Marlbo) & an 80-300 (I think!). Most of the music ones were with a little fully auto point n shoot Nikon, with the exception of a few of the Nick gigs & one of the Pat Travers ones.

    The point n shoot is ok if the stage lights are good & of course nowadays anything but an SLR gets ignored at most gigs. (Except mainly Council-run theatres & Arts Centrey-type places it seems! :() Coz it's fully auto, I tend to leave the flash on to keep the shutter speed reasonably fast but put me finger over the flash if the light's good enough and/or if I'm not right at the front. That's partly to avoid the flash-blandness & to avoid lighting all the moisture & crap in the air between me & the stage, which often makes pix really hazy.

    Unfortunately, I've yet to get to use the SLR with decent stage lights! I could certainly do with a lens that opens up to a bigger aperture for low-light gigs, but as it's just for fun & I rarely get to use it at gigs it's just not worth the investment. I shoot in the highest res jpg the camera will do & keep meaning to try the 'RAW' format. Actually I'm kicking myself coz I should've done that at Marlbo but it didn't occur to me. As well as the quality thang, shooting as big as you can is good coz it allows scope for cropping.

    With both cameras I tend to tweak the contrast in photoshop for gigs (and sometimes do a bit more - tho I'm not very expert!!!).

    Funnily enough, with non-gig pix from the SLR I also tend to have to tweak the contrast to get a bit more vibrancy. I've read that that (at least) used to be the case with most digi-SLRs. The D70's getting on a bit tho & they may have improved digi-SLRs now in that respect.

    Sorry if that's too much detail, or if you wanna know any more, just ask. :D


    Last edited: Nov 21, 2008
  20. pd

    pd Slightly Desperate Staff Member

    I use an F2.8 70-200mm lens for my gig stuff when I can, with my Canon 400D. The 2.8 wasn't cheap but it was under half the price of the Canon L version; I went with Sigma who make a decent range of lenses for both Nikon and Canon. Buying from Hong Kong on the internet helped the price as well, though maybe it wouldn't be so good now with the exchange rate and all.

Share This Page