Music industry bows to point-and-shoot cameras

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)

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.

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)

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."

[alstatr]

I went to see U2 in Chicago and I brought along my point-n-shoot and an HD camcorder. I took some pictures and a some video of my favorite songs. It was shaky, so I don't think U2 has anything to worry about.

[jonathan_bennion]

Since video is next, why haven't concert promoters allowed fans to stream their POV into a channel that could be used for live editing and display on stadium screens?

Then monetize the proprietary edited product before parts of it are uploaded to youtube, either for fans leaving the same show, or fans watching in realtime.. possibly watching from cellphone themselves?

[davidrmchenry]

Check out "I F*ching Shot That" a movie the Beastie Boys put together after giving select members of the audience camcorders. In U2's last tour they had their own cameras around the arena that were mixed to give the background effects on their screen. It's only a matter of time.

[solitare_pax]

Considering the newest compact "point-and-shoot" cameras have optics and capacities that blow away some of the "professional" SLR cameras of five years ago, I have to wonder why so many people cling to the belief that you need an SLR to take "PRO" shots. After all, it is the person behind the camera that makes the difference between a good shot and a poor shot.

Either way, performers should not ban cameras - they might be 'pirating' a show, but they are also providing free PR.

[filipiak]

Mere pixel count does not account for good photos, that's why.

Sensor size and type, quality of optics, image stabilization, framing, zoom...

Point and shoot cameras still can't compare to a digital SLR. Granted, they're getting better, but DSLR's aren't standing still either.

[ashhenderson]

Concert photography is one of the few areas of professional photography where top of the line gear is NEEDED, not just desired. For one of these concerts you need a professional quality camera with high ISO capabilities, and top of the line glass - constant f2.8 zooms. None of which are cheap.

Any gear that's less, and you won't get the images your editor needs.

Ash Henderson
ashhenderson.com

[ewsachse]

There is no way a P&S camera can match a professional DSLR or even a consumer grade DSLR. Pixel count is not the only measure of a good camera. The heart (or eye) of the camera is a lens. The P&S camera has a lens the size of the fingernail on your pinky, while the DSLR would have a larger size lens made with higher quality glass.

Those two sample photos are shrunk down, which makes it hard to see the difference in quality, but if you look closely the P&S picture is heavily pixelated, and it is oversaturated in red. Plus the angle of the picture from the crowd is terrible. The person who took the picture should have at least cropped out the hands of other people at the botton of the photo.

[farker1]

Are you serious? You don't see a huge difference in image quality or vantage point in those two pictures?

[Voice_of_Sanity]

Agreed. There's a significant difference between those two images. Still, I understand what he meant. That first image is pretty good considering it was taken with a point-and-shoot in low light conditions. With some post-processing it could be even better.

[aj37viggen]

The P&S picture is surprisingly decent, but no photo editor would consider it "professional quality." Then again, Terdiman's photo is several cuts below what an editor would expect from a professional concert photographer -- the lighting is flat, the action is uninteresting, etc. It looks like an out-take.

This highlights the problem entertainment acts will face going forward in trying to allow fan pix while still screening out photos that might compete with the ones they sell. It's hard to find a non-insulting way to phrase a policy that amounts to "You're allowed to take all the photos you want, as long as they're not too good."

Maybe the answer for concert-photography enthusiasts is to skip the mega-arena events entirely and stick to shooting local artists who still see themselves AS artists, rather than as multimedia conglomerates bent on monetizing every aspect of their gilded existence.

[ashhenderson]

Thoroughly agree. The P&S image is "good enough" to show you were there, but no editor would accept either of those images.

ashhenderson.com

[dbx166]

As this debate is becoming more public, it's hard for me to imagine that no where in any of the articles I have read, the topic of "courtesy" is never broached.
It's all about the artists "giving up" or allowing " the point a shoot" varieties.

But what about the fans?
I am tired of going to shows of all sizes where I am seated behind a camera toting fool, camera overhead, and watching an entire show through their armpits.
And generally speaking, a polite tap on the shoulder has no effect other than to get you a sweet "f*&k off!"
Security won't intercede and you have just spent a fortune to sit behind someone taking blurry, color, mosaic, undecipherable, postage stamp sized "proof" that they were at the show for their Facebook page.

And am I the only one noticing the companion piece to all this:
The sprinting up the aisle with camera toting friend in tow to snap your pic as close to the stage as possible with the act in the background before you are turned back by security?
There is something awfully pathetic about these people who need this "trophy" to prop up their social status . . .

Perry/Chicago
The Best Radio You Have Never Heard
http://www.bestradioyouhaveneverheard.com/podcasts

[PCsRfun]

I've got to agree. It's rather frustrating to spend the cash on a show and having to try to look around people's cellphones being held up in the air. And really, the quality of the images/video (especially the video) these people were getting with their phones isn't really worth the effort.

[HotSeattle]

I emphatically agree with this sentiment. It boggles me that the lack of courtesy has come to the point where people don't think twice about holding up a distractingly bright display over their heads during an entire performance.

Sometimes, etiquette takes a few years to catch up to technology and I hope that that is the case here. I think sports is a notable example where there is a fairly well-established etiquette in place with regard to obstructing the view of your fellow fans. Doing anything to block the view of the field during a play or an at-bat is strictly verboten.

[gggg sssss]

just start coughing and complain loudly about having the swine flu

[lamaze]

Give a pro one of the latest point and shoots and an amateur like me a DSLR, with the fastest lens, I'm still sure he might just snap a better shot than me. Just like digital music, these guys need to get with the times.

[TexasTWylite]

Robert Fripp (King Crimson guitarist and more) has lot to say about the ethics of fan photography at concerts. He's walked off stage in response to a flashbulb. His beef against this is multi-layered. Live performance is hard enough without flashes that can mess with your vision. Also, there's the distraction to other concert goers who actually want to listen to and watch the performance. Finally, the photographers themselves are missing out on the substance of the concert by being preoccupied with taking pictures. He has the same basic issues with "tapers" (a la the Jam Band scene).
Nine Inch Nails' policy is at the other extreme: an interesting way to turn an annoyance into part of the event and broader music community. I can't say either extreme is correct for all situations. It's really up to the artists and their fans to work this out.

[Devhux]

There is absolutely no need to have the flash fire on fans' cameras though. You're lucky if the flash will light up 6 feet in front of you.

It could very well easily be a distraction to the band as well.

[gggg sssss]

of course, looking into 15000 watts of lights makes the imapct of the flash SO un-nerving LOL

[queticomn]

The Grateful Dead now "the dead" have allowed this for years. During many tours by the Dead you could even plug into the bands sound board an record the show free. Nothing new here, other bands are now just discovering how much this kind of freedom can help sell their stuff it seems.

[Bill_I]

Agreed. They even let you put up a pair of microphones to make your own live recording. I heard one, it sounded pretty good.

[disco-legend-zeke]

Even in tiny venues (in my case the Las Vegas PussyCat Dolls,) management has given up trying to stop still photography. They do, however stop ppl from taking video, my guess being because the sound track they are using is copyrighted.

[noobtube]

What a dumb article.... both images are trash and makes me think that cnet is using free amatuer photogs instead of hiring real professionals themselves. If you are going to compare amatuer vs. professional use a real professional's photo next time.

[pro_music_photog]

Yeah, I was going to say the same thing

[philpalm1]

Cameras is only the small problem compared to recording equiptment. Most sound recorders are harder to spot since the mike can be very small and unobtrusive.

Good story segued into the artist vs audience enthusiasm. Will big stars start to get shy? I doubt it. Hopefully the stars don't become egomanics.

[dizzysyd]

I've always been one of "those people" taking a million photos at a show, but I don't use flash. I got awesome results with a point & shoot, then upgraded to a "starter" SLR. I used to smuggle a camera in to different shows all the time. I don't like how a venue considers any detachable lens to be a professional grade camera. I just have a Rebel, and if they saw my full-size images, they'd realize they have nothing to worry about. You have to use high ISO to shoot in low light, so it's not like I can sell my shots for use on a billboard. Concert photography is pretty much my passion these days. I always hate it when the venue tries to shut someone down for taking pics. Granted, the majority of them will probably suck, but you never know who is out there in the crowd, getting inspired.

[hacksider]

Point and shoot is good, but on iphone? Well, all I can say is I love its touch screen (but the camera, specially with the lightings in the concert...) but its not worth taking a shot on a dim level.

[PandaSage1221]

Most of the concerts I go to (which isn't many, but a few, and are different artists at different venues) allow pictures (not sure if they give any limitations on the type of camera) but say you will be escorted out if you are taking videos. I've never seen that happen tho.

Also (this is kind of unrelated, but interesting, I think), The last couple of concerts I've been to (Demi Lovato and Miley Cyrus.. admittedly for the younger crowds) let fans in the audience send text messages that get displayed on the screens before and in between acts. And you usually hear random screams across the audience when someone's message goes up. It's kinda cute. Anyone seen any acts with older audiences do that?

[BobtheTog]

The issue I have with all of this is that a professional photographer in the pit get told not to use flash yet the people about 12inches behind them are flashing away like mad and it is never commented on or stopped.

I would never use flash in a dark concert venue, but it's just a tad hypocritical!

Bob

p.s. I'm glad other people agreed that the pro shot was rubbish. It's blurry and out of focus and I've seen better shots with an iPhone.

[markdoiron]

The problem with flash is that you lose the background--it tends to turn black. Better to be able to shoot the picture with ambient light. The professional photographer will know this and won't want to use flash most of the time. Still, there are times when an exposure compensated flash could help brighten up some dark foreground features, especially when there's strong back-lighting. The bottom line is that the professional will still get better pictures even if his gear is restricted: Because he has faster lenses and a faster camera, he knows what the gear he can use will do, and he is skilled at composing a nice image.

--mark d.

[KazMiller]

I saw David Cook and his Band at the House of Blues in Cleveland, was able to take my Nikon DLSR camera in without any problems at all ...... resulting in some really great shots. I am by no means a professional photographer, despite the camera I choose to use.

Cook also encourages videoing of the concerts, and the subsequent upload to Youtube. There's an area on his official website to upload fan concert photos, making the fans feel a part of the whole experience.

For the likes of established bands like U2, it doesn't matter so much, but for newer acts trying to make it in the industry, the photos and videos on youtube are excellent free advertising and a great way to get new fans see the artist live. They also serve to give the fans something to follow while the artist is on the road during a tour, especially those in other countries or not able to go to shows themselves.

[ywkhgqo]

If artists don't want pictures taken, its sheer arrogance. I go to a lot of different shows of bands and take a lot of pictures of them. When I get a good shot of how intense the show is, people ask me about the band. A simple picture of the band just gave them some publicity. People like kanye (a true trashball and classless act imo) feel like they're to good for people to take pictures of them, even when they charge $500 for a ticket. Get over yourself

I don't wanna hear this crap that "live performances are hard enough without the flashing". Are you kidding me? most artists know their music so horrifically well they can play it with their eyes closed.

[radioswade]

I guess that sells a lot better than anything else when it comes to this team." this is a direct quote from someone who has made his living through music for 40 years, so i'll believe him before i listen to you. for people like Robert Fripp, who has minimal lighting and none of the video and light set-ups that bands like U2 use, flash can be a distraction. i find it distracting when i'm in the audience.
for performers like Fripp the music is the reason for the performance, not the spectacle. like going to a classical performance, only the loudest most aggressive classical performance ever! besides for bands like U2 half the music is prerecorded (they admit this) and bands like NIN the majority of the sound is prerecorded.
(having said that, i have seen NIN when their sequencers went out - the continued to play the full set, the best performance i have ever seen by them [7 times attending their shows] but the songs were not the even remotely close to that which is on the albums - not that the live arrangements are close either - but unless you knew the lyrics, they sounded like a garage band covering NIN. once again, about the music and not the spectacle.)

[kevinskrause]

@radioswade

I have to disagree; having attended 30 NIN shows, I can honestly say that NIN album to live is a seamless transition. Every strum, drum hit, and synth beat is near perfect while each lyric is delivered with the same power and passion that has made Trent Reznor (and his supporting acts) one of the greatest, if not the greatest, artists (bands) of our generation. While many of the discernibly ?industrial? sounds are pre-recorded, the track combination is constructed and looped during the performance; most evident during the LITS tour with Echoplex and the Ghost tracks, and with Me, I?m Not featuring Atticus Ross during Wave Goodbye. I understand you comment ?music vs. spectacle?, but having been to 7 shows, I?m surprised you neglected to acknowledge their ability to deliver both with precise attention to detail. If Trent does decide to make a comeback, I encourage all of you take in a show; I doubt you?ll be disappointed in what you see and hear. And don?t forget to bring a camera?.

[MajorasWrath]

I guess it's down to how out of touch some in the music business is nowadays. Thier old business models are dying, and they are clutching in desperation for dear life. Not everyones out to steal copyright, like the NIN commentator says, people just want to share the experience with family & friends. That alone is advertising money cannot buy.

Third Day, a christian band once noticed a fan videoing thier gig, you know what they did? Gave the fan something memorable. The took the camera onstage and got some excellent footage of onstage goings on with all of the band member. Class.

[smileyfreak1981]

Third Day concerts are great to go to for that very reason. There have been several instances where Mac (the lead singer) has taken a fan's camera on stage and took video or stills. They openly encourage fans to take photos and videos, and even openly support a fan-run blog with concert photos.

That kind of stuff earns fan loyalty.

[Skratcher]

May the Lord have Mercy on us all

[Been_there_Saw_it_before]

The Lord does have mercy on all of us. You just need to accept it.