tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14606873876141376182024-03-05T09:41:43.461-07:00Marc SabatellaMy Thoughts on Jazz, Photography, Art, and Whatever ElseMarc Sabatellahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00280931807746316434noreply@blogger.comBlogger25125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1460687387614137618.post-20494075868510381202011-11-12T08:20:00.026-07:002011-11-13T19:29:01.309-07:00More Experiences with MuseScoreAs related in a couple of previous articles, I have become something of an evangelist for MuseScore, the free and open source music notation software that is positioned to completely replace Finale for me. Version 1.0 had shown tremendous promise, and I described my impressions very favorably in <a href="http://marcsabatella.blogspot.com/2011/02/musescore-10-milestone-in-free-music.html">my initial article on MuseScore</a>. Based on this, I was motivated to work with the developers in implementing some significant improvements for the 1.1 release, as described in <a href="http://marcsabatella.blogspot.com/2011/07/musescore-11-released-lot-of.html">a followup article</a> and also in a <a href="http://musescore.org/en/node/11723">tutorial</a> I put together.<br /><br />With the 1.1 release, I felt confident enough in MuseScore to undertake the task of going through my existing charts and re-creating them with MuseScore. My "book" consists of more than fifty original compositions that had previously been scored in lead sheet form with Finale. Over the course of the past few months, I have been replacing these with MuseScore versions. I finished just this weekend, and as I have been taking advantage of the score sharing site <a href="musescore.com">musescore.com</a> to post these charts online, I can post a link to the full set for your perusal and enjoyment:<br /><br /><a href="http://musescore.com/marcsabatella/sets/leadsheets">http://musescore.com/marcsabatella/sets/leadsheets</a><br /><br />In honor of the occasion, I would like to share a little about my experience with this project.<br /><br />The compositions involved range from simple blues heads to multi-page scores of some complexity, incorporating both lead sheet and grand staff (piano) notation as well as some non-traditional notation styles, plus the use of background figures, irregular and multiple meters, and other elements that had pushed the capabilities of Finale when I created them originally.<br /><br />I am pleased to report that MuseScore did not disappoint. The simple scores were simple to create - easier and faster than with Finale - and the complex scores never required me to compromise my musical intent for the sake of notatability on account of any limitations in MuseScore. And the results were always beautiful. Kudos to the developers of MuseScore for creating such a powerful and eminently usable application!<br /><br />As an example of one of the more complex lead sheets I created, check out the first page of <span style="font-style:italic;">Down</span> (click the image below to see it larger, or click <a href="http://musescore.com/marcsabatella/down">here</a> to view the full chart on musescore.com):<br /><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjiM3W9CC17CJ-EfIpj1AwsGLTo2I_rDr_B2UTz8ih9Re0ff0T4xUsq-42NRXOr_kdiT0ScyAPlVJJRV2ULjbfjj6tM5yUT2nfcoVxO7cLsgXKuI2QizkDcszv8EGygp4B9ob5l3feB7tg/s1600/Down.png"><img style="float:left; margin:0 10px 10px 0;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 247px; height: 320px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjiM3W9CC17CJ-EfIpj1AwsGLTo2I_rDr_B2UTz8ih9Re0ff0T4xUsq-42NRXOr_kdiT0ScyAPlVJJRV2ULjbfjj6tM5yUT2nfcoVxO7cLsgXKuI2QizkDcszv8EGygp4B9ob5l3feB7tg/s320/Down.png" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5674619028313849266" /></a><br /><br />This arrangement demonstrates the basics of melody, chords, and lyrics, but also shows off more advanced features like switching between single and double staves, notation of accompaniment rhythms using slash notation, time signature changes, etc. All of this is easily accomplished in MuseScore. Although it might not be obvious, this score also presented a number of layout challenges in order to fit it on two pages while keeping it at a readable size. This is one of several compositions for which the MuseScore version is actually a significant improvement over the earlier Finale version.<br /><br />I have worked on and off for a major publisher over the past few years, producing and editing charts for what has become perhaps the most popular legal fakebook series in the jazz world. I have thus become something of an expert on the preparation of lead sheets for professional publication, above and beyond my own personal experiences as a composer and as a gigging musician. I know what is required in order to produce a good lead sheet, and I can honestly say that MuseScore is the ideal tool for creating charts like those in <span style="font-style:italic;">The Real Book</span> - to name a popular fakebook series that may or may not have been the one that I worked on :-).<br /><br />I teach at two universities where both Finale and Sibelius are in use, and I often work with students struggling to learn these programs and to produce decent jazz charts with them. This year I started having my students use MuseScore, and I am amazed at how quickly they have been able to produce charts that look far better than those their predecessors created in Finale or Sibelius. Note this isn't to say that Finale and Sibelius are not capable of producing results just as good, or that this process cannot be made easier through extensive customization. But many people don't make the effort to improve on the defaults, and the lead sheet defaults in MuseScore are definitely much better.<br /><br />During the last few months I also produced several arrangements for larger ensembles (eg, octet and big band). Again I found MuseScore to be the equal of Finale or Sibelius for the most part, although I am looking forward to the "linked parts" feature that will be coming in MuseScore 2.0. I hope to write an article on creating larger scale arrangements will MuseScore sometime in the near future.<br /><br />Speaking of which, I will be giving a couple of hands-on workshops with MuseScore at the upcoming <a href="http://www.jazzednet.org/">JEN</a> (Jazz Education Network) / <a href="http://www.ti-me.org/">TI:ME</a> (Technology Institute for Music Educators) conference in January. The sessions will cover lead sheets and arrangements. I hope to see some of you in Louisville for this event!<br /><br />Anyhow, for anyone out there are still wondering if MuseScore is suitable for serious use (particularly in jazz): as someone who has been using it seriously for several months now, I can say most emphatically that it is!Marc Sabatellahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00280931807746316434noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1460687387614137618.post-40099478133437069952011-07-26T22:15:00.007-06:002011-07-27T13:21:34.139-06:00MuseScore 1.1 released, lots of improvements for jazzIn an <a href="http://marcsabatella.blogspot.com/2011/02/musescore-10-milestone-in-free-music.html">earlier article</a>, I wrote at length about <a href="http://musescore.org/">MuseScore</a>, the free and open source notation software. The short version for those who missed it: I said that MuseScore can do almost everything that Finale and Sibelius can do, and I predicted that, despite a few minor limitations, it would completely replace Finale for me.<br /><br />Since then, I have become more personally involved in the MuseScore project. I haven't done any actual programming - at least, not on the core application itself. But I have contributed some plugins, templates, and other configuration files, I have worked on one of the fonts, and I have helped with the documentation. So I no longer qualify as a completely unbiased observer.<br /><br />With that said, today, MuseScore 1.1 is released. While it is mostly a bug fix release, we have managed to make some significant improvements with respect to creating jazz charts.<br /><br />Two of the areas I had mentioned in my previous article where MuseScore needed improvement were in entering chord symbols in places where there are no notes and in creating slash notation. Both of these have been addressed in version 1.1. In addition, the new Jazz Lead Sheet template creates great looking charts right out of the box. An enhanced version of the MuseJazz font allows you to get a handwritten look for titles and other text markings as well as chord symbols. You can also select from a wider variety of chord symbol styles, and it is easier to customize these styles further. <br /><br />I had written a tutorial on creating lead sheets in MuseScore 1.0, and I have now completely rewritten it for version 1.1. The new tutorial is in two parts: <a href="http://musescore.org/en/node/11723">The Basics</a> and <a href="http://musescore.org/en/node/11726">Advanced Topics</a>. If you hadn't already checked out MuseScore before, or if you had looked but had not gotten very far with it, now would be a good time:<br /><br /><a href="http://musescore.org/">http://musescore.org/</a><br /><br />Here, for example, is the lead sheet I created for the advanced tutorial:<br /><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://musescore.org/sites/musescore.org/files/pinwheel-0.png"><img style="float:left; margin:0 10px 10px 0;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 600px;" src="http://musescore.org/sites/musescore.org/files/pinwheel-0.png" border="0" alt="" /></a><br /><br />There are more exciting things to come in the MuseScore world over the next few months, and I plan to be sharing those with you soon!Marc Sabatellahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00280931807746316434noreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1460687387614137618.post-20022892245796194162011-02-05T20:13:00.029-07:002011-02-07T11:42:42.231-07:00MuseScore 1.0 - A Milestone in Free Music Notation SoftwareI'm a big fan of free / open source software. I'm not opposed to commercial software; I'm just frugal. I do a lot of writing, but OpenOffice.org (and its recent incarnation LibreOffice) is more than good enough to render Microsoft Word and other Office applications unnecessary for me. I also use free / open source programs for audio editing (Audacity), for desktop publishing (Scribus), for Web site development (KompoZer), and a host of other tasks.<br /><br />As a professional composer and music educator who often produces his own teaching materials, though, I hadn't found a free / open source application for music scoring and typesetting sophisticated enough to replace Finale for me. Power users of the other major commercial application - Sibelius - would probably tell you the same thing. If you wanted to produce printed music beyond the simplest of examples, you resigned yourself to spending a few hundred dollars on Finale or Sibelius, and another hundred or so every couple of years for upgrades.<br /><br />Until now.<br /><br /><a href="http://musescore.org/">MuseScore</a> has been around in some form for almost a decade already, beginning life as the notation engine of the sequencer MusE. I had seen references to it over the years when searching for free / open source alternatives to Finale, which I tended to do whenever I got ready to shell out another Benjamin for the latest Finale upgrade. But MuseScore had always seemed too obscure and too limited in the past to warrant serious consideration.<br /><br />Over the last couple of years, however, it has really come into its own. I checked it out again a few months ago on the recommendation of one of my students, and was blown away by how far it come since I last looked. I began using MuseScore (version 0.9.6.3) right away and it was able to handle everything I asked it to. While it cannot do <span style="font-weight:bold;">everything</span> that Finale or Sibelius can, it comes surprisingly close, and the development team is proving to be committed to improving it further and has been doing so at an amazing pace. Oh, and by the way, MuseScore runs on Windows, Mac, and Linux, and has been translated into over two dozen different language, so it is not just for English speaking PC users like myself.<br /><br />You may have already encountered MuseScore by now - it's popularity has really soared in recent months. Still, the fact that the version number started with a "0" suggested to most people that the project was still experimental. With today's release of version 1.0, the MuseScore team announces to the world that the product is ready for "real" use, and I wholeheartedly concur.<br /><br />In addition to the leadsheets and other smaller projects I had been 0.9.6.3 for, I have recently begun using a pre-release version of 1.0 for a relatively large project: taking an orchestra score I wrote a few years ago and adapting it for a jazz octet. I am happy to say that I am finding it at least as capable as Finale in almost all respects, and generally easier to learn and use as well. And of the few time-saving features I miss from Finale, some turn out to be already on the plate and implemented for the <span style="font-weight:bold;">next</span> major release.<br /><br />But there is no need to wait for that next release before using MuseScore. The list of features already in version 1.0 reads like a checklist of things most composers would be hoping for in a Finale/Sibelius replacement: unlimited number of staves; up to four independent voices per staff; MIDI playback and import/export; MusicXML import/export; lyrics; chord symbols; cross staff beaming; slash, drum, and other alternate notation styles; professional spacing and positioning algorithms with manual overrides; incorporation of graphic elements; output to PDF and various graphic formats; output to various audio formats, and much more.<br /><br />I am no expert in the finer nuances of music typesetting, but MuseScore uses fonts from the GNU LilyPond project, which is often considered the gold standard for typesetting (too bad the latter is not a particularly useful tool when it comes to the actual process of composing). To my eyes, at least, printed scores produced with MuseScore look as good or better than those from Finale or Sibelius. And it is often easier to get great looking results in MuseScore - it is noticeably smarter about collisions between notes in different voices than either Finale or Sibelius is, so less manual positioning of notes may be needed when notating complex music.<br /><br />I should also note that as with most major open source projects, there is an active and helpful user community, and the developers actually participate in the forums. Unlike the case with most commercial applications, you really get the feeling that bug reports and feature requests from ordinary users are seen and taken seriously. That's why I feel confident predicting that most of the minor limitations I may mention here will be taken care of in the very near future.<br /><br />To give you an idea of what can be done in MuseScore 1.0, here is a screen shot showing what I've been up to in my orchestra-to-octet reduction. You can click on the image to see it full size:<br /><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiFEnb3v6jb5n68P_HyNHbfheUDB-ygDY7wpsK9KIgJXzJOrfxerIxHeIc_tZt56QyBpZIIZICG6whttw6AozkruznCXedgZZlH_ZHEbVjOV7KxENFC9QJDZQv_xeLwKIKXozPRhJSm1i0/s1600/screen_shot.png"><img style="float:left; margin:0 10px 10px 0;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 320px; height: 200px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiFEnb3v6jb5n68P_HyNHbfheUDB-ygDY7wpsK9KIgJXzJOrfxerIxHeIc_tZt56QyBpZIIZICG6whttw6AozkruznCXedgZZlH_ZHEbVjOV7KxENFC9QJDZQv_xeLwKIKXozPRhJSm1i0/s320/screen_shot.png" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5570431749170989538" /></a><br /><br />As you may notice, I have two documents open at once here. The top window pane displays my octet arrangement, the bottom the full orchestra score. I had initially created the orchestra score in Finale, but after exporting it to MusicXML format from within Finale, it loaded into MuseScore with virtually all markings intact - instrument names and transpositions, slurs, dynamics, etc. Using MuseScore, I can actually copy and paste passages from the Finale-created orchestra version directly into my octet version if I wish. I am re-entering the music manually, though, as I wish to gain more familiarity with the process.<br /><br />Overall, note entry is very straightforward in MuseScore, as are the tools for copying and replacing and other tasks. Simple things like selecting a range of notes and hitting a cursor key to transpose them up or down step by step are like a revelation to me compared to Finale. FWIW, basic note entry in MuseScore is much more like Sibelius than like Finale. I think most unbiased users would probably say is a good thing, although it took me a little while to get used to the difference. Sibelius users should be able to make the adjustment more quickly.<br /><br />I love that MuseScore allows you to customize keyboard shortcuts for most commands, and within a short time I had developed an efficient note entry workflow that feels very natural to me. I have to say that making this octet adaptation from the orchestra score is probably going as fast in MuseScore as it would have in Finale, despite the original being in Finale format and my having years of experience with Finale but only weeks with MuseScore. Incredible!<br /><br />Note that while MuseScore supports MIDI input, it is step-time entry only - no transcription of real-time performance. This doesn't bother me; I never found real-time transcription to be a particularly useful in feature in Finale, because it took longer to correct the transcription and make it readable than to simply enter the music myself. You can always record to MIDI in a separate program and then import the MIDI file - this does work in MuseScore. I normally do all my note entry from the computer keyboard in Finale, and that is how I am using MuseScore.<br /><br />When it comes to MIDI playback, MuseScore can handle both my octet and orchestra scores without difficulty, but current versions of Finale and Sibelius are definitely ahead of MuseScore in terms of realism. Things like playback of articulations (especially slurs) and dynamics make a big difference. If you are trying to produce "studio quality" recordings via MIDI directly from your scores, that is one area where MuseScore falls short. But for simply checking your work, it is fine.<br /><br />The other major area where MuseScore 1.0 does not measure up to Finale or Sibelius right now is in the generation of individual parts. Linked parts are coming in the next major version, but meanwhile parts must be generated manually, and MuseScore does not provide independent formatting settings (eg, page orientation, staff sizes, margins) for parts versus score. So one can expect this final aspect of a project to take somewhat longer with MuseScore than with current versions of Finale or Sibelius. On the other hand, MuseScore is not particularly worse in this regard than Finale was just a few years ago, and actually, I'd say the generated parts are perhaps closer to being usable right out of the box in MuseScore.<br /><br />So overall, despite a few limitations, I am very impressed with the facilities MuseScore provides for dealing with larger scale projects. As the above screen shot and discussion suggests, MuseScore has the tools one would need to create anything from a jazz octet arrangement to a full orchestra score, and I am comforted to know linked parts are on the way. But the simplicity of the MuseScore interface also makes it ideally suited for the smaller scale projects a working musician might undertake more regularly.<br /><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEio7eGbsuNxyCGdawQuw4drp0iUUGo9Wms8pQuRgub1Z4cZ0Icf43fZMxBrzIMOYkzL19YmbhsgxtlUdUA5r2AmLOx2dw_XOHPGZsWhoM22099xU_dq1pXVKslQRGpNlu9XDZLtaUIreCw/s1600/rising.png"><img style="float:right; margin:0 10px 10px 0;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 320px; height: 200px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEio7eGbsuNxyCGdawQuw4drp0iUUGo9Wms8pQuRgub1Z4cZ0Icf43fZMxBrzIMOYkzL19YmbhsgxtlUdUA5r2AmLOx2dw_XOHPGZsWhoM22099xU_dq1pXVKslQRGpNlu9XDZLtaUIreCw/s320/rising.png" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5570448155452627682" /></a><br /><br />As a jazz composer, I create a lot of leadsheets, and MuseScore handles these well. Just as I did with Finale, I spent a fair amount of time up front customizing the appearance of chord symbols. The default leadsheet template, which uses the MuseJazz font that comes with MuseScore, does a good job right out of the box. But I elected to configure my own leadsheet template in MuseScore to use the Jazz font that came with Finale instead, as I still find that to be my favorite for chord symbols despite trying quite a few alternatives. My customized MuseScore leadsheet template allows me to get results almost exactly like what I get from my customized Finale template, and the actual process of creating leadsheets is much easier in MuseScore than in Finale for all but the most expert Finale users. The simplicity of the MuseScore interface is a real benefit here.<br /><br />One thing I do miss from Finale is that I had configured my leadsheet template such that I could easily enter chords in mid-measure whether there was a note there or not. Current versions of Finale, I understand, finally make this easier right out of the box, but my template using hidden rests on layer 2 works fine for me in older versions. I couldn't find an entirely satisfactory way of setting up a MuseScore template to allow me to enter mid-measure chords as easily as my Finale template did (hidden rests in voice 2 unfortunately affect stem directions in voice 1), so in that respect it's more like using Finale versions from a couple of years ago and positioning chords or entering hidden rests and flipping stems manually where necessary.<br /><br />Also, working with slash or rhythmic notation is a little more awkward in MuseScore than in Finale - although no more so than in any but the most recent version of Sibelius. Basically, you create normal notes then change their heads to slashes, and optionally hide their slashes and mute their playback. You also have to get the vertical positioning correct when using this notation in transposing parts. Not a big deal, but not as straightforward as Finale's "Staff Styles" (or, presumably, whatever Sibelius has finally done in its latest version).<br /><br />There are only a few other small areas where I find MuseScore 1.0 a bit more cumbersome than I would like. While there are keyboard shortcuts for most functions, and many can also be activated with a click or double click, a few operations (eg, adding key signatures) can only be achieved by dragging and dropping, which I find inefficient. And while the program does a great job of automatically positioning most elements, and most default behaviors make sense, manual intervention is still sometimes required at times when it seems it should not be (eg, for multiple repeat endings).<br /><br />But aside from these few minor complaints, MuseScore is very powerful and easy to use overall; certainly easier to learn and use than Finale and almost as powerful. And of course, were I just coming to Finale from MuseScore, I would doubtless find plenty of things to quibble about in Finale - there are just <span style="font-weight:bold;">different</span> things that are easier or harder between the two programs. In fact, my list of complaints looks no more significant to me than a list of differences between Finale and Sibelius, or between one version of one of these programs and the next. Really, the capabilities of all three programs are more similar than different.<br /><br />But considering that I am comparing version 1.0 of a free / open source application against a $600 package that has been maturing since the 1980's (Finale) and an equally expensive if not quite as venerable challenger (Sibelius), I think it is truly remarkable that the differences come down to such minor details. Even if one of those differences turns out to be a deal breaker for you right now, I project that within a year or so at the rate the developers are working, there may be no reason at all why MuseScore could not completely replace Finale or Sibelius for almost all purposes.<br /><br />But again, even this 1.0 release should satisfy the needs of most users. I have already been recommending MuseScore to my own students looking for music notation software, and now I can recommend it for educational institutions and professionals as well. There are many things one can spend the better part of a thousand dollars on; music scoring software no longer need be one of them.<br /><br />So if you're in market for notation software, MuseScore should be on the short list of contenders, and considering that it is free, there is a good chance that it will end up at the top of that list for you. I urge you to check out MuseScore even if you're happy with your current scoring package but are open to other options that may turn out to provide advantages in the long run. I for one believe I have bought my last Finale upgrade.Marc Sabatellahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00280931807746316434noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1460687387614137618.post-63627212107992842972010-10-08T12:27:00.004-06:002010-10-08T13:02:10.873-06:00Concert Photography Workshop in November!Next month my wife Wendy Fopeano and I will be teaching a concert photography workshop at Denver's premiere jazz club, Dazzle! The workshop is sponsored by The Gift of Jazz. For more information and to register, see:<br /><br /><a href="http://www.giftofjazz.org/index.php?s=27">Jazz Concert Photography Workshop</a><br /><br />The workshop will take place on two consecutive Saturday mornings - November 13 and 20 - with an evening session on Tuesday, November 16 photographing a live band in performance.<br /><br />Some of the topics Wendy and I expect to cover include selection of equipment, technique and the unique demands of concert photography, composition, etiquette, capturing the spirit of the performance, processing, and organization. We are extremely excited by this, and hope to see the class fill up quickly!<br /><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://marcsabatella.zenfolio.com/img/s8/v10/p708083758-3.jpg"><img style="float:left; margin:0 10px 10px 0;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 301px; height: 450px;" src="http://marcsabatella.zenfolio.com/img/s8/v10/p708083758-3.jpg" border="0" alt="" /></a>Marc Sabatellahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00280931807746316434noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1460687387614137618.post-73667584773180246892010-04-06T21:34:00.008-06:002010-04-07T13:45:43.573-06:00Announcing The Marc Sabatella Octet!On Saturday, May 15, I will be premiering a new jazz ensemble, the Marc Sabatella Octet, at Dazzle (930 Lincoln, Denver). There will be shows at 7 and 9 PM, with a $12 cover ($8 for students at the 9 PM show). The band will feature Brad Goode (trumpet), Josh Quinlan (alto), Peter Sommer (tenor), Tom Ball (trombone), Bill Kopper (guitar), myself (piano), Drew Morell (bass), and Mike Marlier (drums). Additionally, several of the pieces will feature vocalist Wendy Fopeano. This an extremely special performance for me, and I'd like to take a few minutes to write about it.<br /><br /><img src="http://marcsabatella.zenfolio.com/img/v8/p158300375-2.jpg" /><br /><br />The music for this show has been in the works for a long time. One could say it began with my composition Mystic Reverie, written in the late 1990's as a tribute to the larger scale works of Charles Mingus. It combines fully composed chorale-like passages with sections for spirited improvisation. Although it has been performed occasionally in quartets and other smaller ensembles, I have always had in mind a larger setting for this, with Mingus' and David Murray's octets specifically serving as inspiration. Another composition from that same time period, “Venable”, is freer in structure but also episodic in nature, and I have always intended this to be played by a larger ensemble as well.<br /><br />But the real motivator for putting together a regular working octet came when I went back to school in 2005 to get my Master's degree in composition from the Lamont School of Music at DU. While studying with Dave Hanson, Eric Gunnison, and Lynn Baker, I had the opportunity to regularly work with and write for ensembles of seven to nine musicians as well as big bands. Mystic Reverie and Venable were among the existing compositions I was able to arrange for ensembles at DU, and several brand new compositions were created as well. I also studied classical counterpoint and orchestration with Bill Hill and Chris Malloy, and I wrote pieces that were performed by classical chamber groups and the Lamont Symphony Orchestra.<br /><br />Most of the music I wrote during this period was performed once for a school concert or student recital and never heard again. After graduating from DU in 2007, I hoped to find another opportunity to present this music. At the time, though, I had a steady quartet gig at Denver's famed El Chapultepec, and I was also writing music for this group. While some of the music written for larger ensembles at DU made the transition to the quartet repertoire, most did not.<br /><br />After the El Chapultepec run ended, I turned my attention to forming a new ensemble of my own to perform the larger-scale music that I had been working on for the last decade. Although I had arranged music for ensembles of varying instrumentation at DU, I wanted to standardize on one configuration for this project. I settled on an octet consisting of trumpet, trombone, two saxophones (who double on other woodwinds), guitar, piano, bass, and drums. By using the guitar as one of the “front line” instruments, I am able to write five-part textures similar to those used in big band writing, and by including the guitar in the rhythm section, I can be freed from the piano when necessary to conduct – plus it gives me the possibility for different textures in the rhythm section. I also wished to feature vocals on some arrangements, since I had written more several songs for which I or my wife, jazz singer Wendy Fopeano, had written lyrics.<br /><br />Very few of my existing arrangements from my days at DU exactly matched the instrumentation I chose for my new octet, so I had to spend some time reworking those charts. Big band arrangements in particular provided a real challenge, as I wished to preserve both the saxophone “soli” sections and the brass-dominated “shout” choruses, as well as the contrapuntal sections. This is difficult to achieve with only two saxophones and two brass instead of five and eight. Some of this music ends up being unusually demanding to play as result. The charts originally written for seven to nine pieces were more straightforward to arrange for the new octet, but I managed to work in a number of new passages and improvements suggested by my experiences with the original arrangements at DU.<br /><br />In addition to the charts that began life as larger ensemble pieces at DU, some of the pieces originally written for the quartet at El Chapultepec have also been arranged for this octet, and a few pieces were newly conceived especially for this project.<br /><br /><img src="http://marcsabatella.zenfolio.com/img/v1/p1008716317-11.jpg" /> <img src="http://marcsabatella.zenfolio.com/img/v5/p478208810-11.jpg" /> <img src="http://marcsabatella.zenfolio.com/img/v7/p175418981-11.jpg" /><br /><br />So after a long journey, the music is finally ready for its debut at Dazzle. Of course, any composition is only as good as the musicians playing it, but the band I have assembled comprises some of the top players on each instrument. Trumpeter Brad Goode serves in multiples roles. During the big-band-style passages, his part alternates between what might be a typical lead trumpet role and a typical lead alto role, and of course he is the trumpet soloist as well. Luckily, Brad is one of the best in business at all of these. Josh Quinlan has the been the alto saxophonist of choice for several of the more creative big bands and other large ensembles in the area, and he has played regularly in smaller groups at El Chapultepec as well. Tenor saxophonist Peter Sommer was featured on my first two CD's – the first recorded when Sommer was only months out of high school – but we have not had the opportunity to work together much in the last decade I am especially pleased to be reunited with Pete for this project. Tom Ball is one of the few improvising trombone players in the area capable of navigating the sort of demanding parts I wrote. On some pieces, Tom also plays euphonium. Guitarist Bill Kopper worked with me on Wendy Fopeano's most recent recording, and as with Tom, Bill has the unenviable task of reading parts of a technical nature that players of his instrument seldom encounter in this type of music. Accompanying me in the rhythm section, Drew Morell has been one of my favorite bassists to work with for many years, and Mike Marlier is one of the tightest but hardest driving drummers around – exactly what is needed to hold an ensemble like this together. Featured vocalist Wendy Fopeano is one of Denver's most expressive singers and is well-known as the host of a regular jazz show on KUVO for the last several years.<br /><br /><img src="http://marcsabatella.zenfolio.com/img/v8/p253933683-11.jpg" /> <img src="http://marcsabatella.zenfolio.com/img/v0/p230262597-11.jpg" /> <img src="http://marcsabatella.zenfolio.com/img/v11/p17793730-11.jpg" /><br /><br />Some of the highlights of the concert will include:<br /><br />Zone Row G – this was adapted from a big band arrangement written in tribute to several different musicians. The central theme of the piece is a “zone row” - a melody made out of a series of pitches arranged to form triads, based on an idea espoused by George Garzone – that is then cast into different harmonic and rhythmic contexts. Over the course of the piece, the “zone row” visits territory inspired by the textures of Maria Schneider, the contrapuntal writing of Fred Sturm, and the serialism of Fred Hess.<br /><br />Fanfare and Fugue – this piece takes a fanfare by Charles Carter that I learned and grew to love as a clarinetist in the Florida State University Marching Chiefs, pairs it with a honest-to-goodness baroque-style fugue based on two themes found in Thelonious Monk's “Brilliant Corners”, and opens it up for both fast-paced improvisation and a musical “conversation” reminiscent of duets between Charles Mingus and Eric Dolphy.<br /><br />Obsession – this Dori Caymmi song popularized by Sarah Vaughan has long been of my favorites, but I have always been interested to hear it in a slightly different arrangement. This version is adapted from a big band arrangement I wrote at DU. It is faithful to the original song while hopefully “kicking it up a notch” in intensity. My arrangement is a feature for soprano saxophone and vocal.<br /><br />As I Do – I composed this after graduating from DU but while teaching there (which I continue to do). I wrote it as a demonstration of the process of writing a larger scale piece, since I was giving my class an assignment to do the same. It is an essentially “positive” sounding composition that balances melodicism and intensity. It contains a number of inter-related themes and different harmonic contexts for improvisation.<br /><br />Serving Notice – the bartender at El Chapultepec while I was playing there made no secret of the fact that he hated jazz and would rather be working almost anywhere else. We all loved him anyhow. When he announced he would be leaving (after something like ten years there), I wrote him a song with a hip-hop beat - which is what he preferred to jazz - and had Wendy Fopeano write lyrics on the subject of finally leaving a situation you have been wanting to leave for some time. The groove, melody, and lyrics really resonate with people when we perform this in small group settings, and I'm excited to now be able to present this tune with a “Chicago”-style horn arrangement. Oh, yeah - the bartender ended up changing his mind about leaving; he's still working there today as far as I know.<br /><br />Hymn For Peter – originally conceived as a simple 4-part chorale in honor of my brother-in-law who died tragically in 2008, the octet version combines a reverentially reflective solo piano rendition of the theme with a gospel-flavored tenor saxophone re-statement, adds room for improvisation, and concludes with a triumphant orchestration of the original chorale harmonization.<br /><br />Down – while vacationing up in the mountains, I happened to share a lodge with folks attending a writing workshop, and on a whim I tossed out the suggestion that I might set some of their poetry to music while we were all there. One of the writers, Jennifer Phelps, took me up on this and submitted her poem “down (anything but red)”. By the evening I had turned it into a song. The octet version is based on an arrangement I did for my recital at DU.<br /><br />Venable – this piece tells the musical story of a (real) backpacking trip through the mountains and an (imagined) midnight encounter with a bear. It is alternately majestic and heart-poundingly thrilling.<br /><br />Mystic Reverie – the one that begat this whole project has always been a crowd favorite on the occasions when it has been performed in small-scale arrangements. The piece covers several different moods over its course, and the climax in which everyone in the audience is invited to sing along “like a drunken sailor” sends them home smiling.<br /><br />My intent is to keep this octet together as a regular working ensemble – recording, writing new music, and adapting more existing pieces from my catalog. I hope to eventually expand into touring, bringing in guest artists, and more. But it all begins at Dazzle on Saturday, May 15, so mark your calendars!Marc Sabatellahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00280931807746316434noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1460687387614137618.post-20019955516105697062010-03-28T19:41:00.011-06:002010-03-29T23:07:34.151-06:00Concert Photography - Post-ProcessingIn previous articles, I covered <a href="http://marcsabatella.blogspot.com/2008/11/concert-photography-equipment.html">equipment</a> and <a href="http://marcsabatella.blogspot.com/2009/04/concert-photography-technique.html">techniques</a> for photographing concerts. But even if you followed all the advice I gave, you probably came home, looked at your images, and didn't quite see what you hoped for based on the examples you have seen in my articles or elsewhere. There are a few fundamental things I always do my concert photographs in post-processing (PP) that make all the difference in the world with relatively little effort. In this article, I will explain some of these techniques.<br /><br />First, I should mention that the software I use for PP is <a href="http://www.acdsee.com/">ACDSee Pro</a>. This application provides integrated image management and non-destructive editing much like Lightroom or Aperture or a few other programs. The techniques I describe are mostly things that can be done in any of these or similar programs, as well as other popular editing programs like Photoshop Elements, Paint Shop Pro, or even Picasa. Since I expect people reading this will be using all sorts of different programs, I will try to be as general as I can rather than deal with the specifics of ACDSee Pro.<br /><br />To give you an idea of the extent of the difference PP can make, I find it useful to look at a whole screenful of thumbnails first before focusing on what might be done to images individually. Here is what I might typically see when I first download my images:<br /><br /><a href="http://i304.photobucket.com/albums/nn173/marcsabatella/examples/thumbs_before.jpg"><br /><img src="http://i304.photobucket.com/albums/nn173/marcsabatella/examples/thumbs_before.jpg" width="100%" /></a><br /><br />As with the other examples in this article, you can click on it to see it larger.<br /><br />There are a couple of things that usually end up being disappointing when we first look at our images. One is that we typically have a lot of very similar-looking shots. Part of this is the fact that concert lighting is usually fairly strongly colored. Even plain "white" spotlights are usually pretty orange. The color of the lighting usually dominates any other color in the scene. But another reason we often have a bunch of similar-looking images at first is because of how we typically shoot. We often take a bunch of pictures of the same musician or scene in hopes of one turning out well before moving on to the next.<br /><br />One of the most important but often overlooked principles of PP is that editing is as much a matter of selecting images as it is of actually adjusting the images themselves. Anyone can look like a much better photographer if we only look at their best images. So as soon as possible, I start the process of rating my images in ACDSee. My scheme is fairly simple: 1-star for images that are out of focus blurry or are otherwise not worth keeping; 2-star for images that are competent and not worthy of deletion but which I don't particularly need to keep looking at; 3-star for the images I intend to keep copies of after the originals have been should been archived to an external archive, 4-star for images that I think are worth sharing with others. Just by grouping my 4-star images together, already I look like a better photographer.<br /><br />If I'm going to try to look like a good photographer, however, I am better off doing my PP first. And the other benefit of doing my rating first is that I can focus my efforts on the 4-star images. While I might process those individually, I often just copy the settings I used on my 4-star images to any similar 3-star images.<br /><br />The following screen shot shows just my 4-star images from the same shoot as the previous example, so there is more variety in the shots themselves. And since I have done my PP - including white balance - there is more variety in color as well. Instead of the screen shot I showed previously, I'd much rather see this:<br /><br /><a href="http://i304.photobucket.com/albums/nn173/marcsabatella/examples/thumbs_after.jpg"><br /><img src="http://i304.photobucket.com/albums/nn173/marcsabatella/examples/thumbs_after.jpg" width="100%" /></a><br /><br />White balance isn't the only thing I changed in PP, of course, but it's the thing that made the most noticeable difference in this screen shot. The other changes I made would be more noticeable in larger views.<br /><br />So now let's turn to the specific PP techniques I use. There's actually not a lot to it, but as the above examples demonstrate, they really make a difference.<br /><br />The first thing I usually do with a concert shot is to apply a preset I created some time ago that sets the white balance to something that works for basic tungsten lighting, sets noise reduction to levels that often work well with my camera at ISO 1600 (my usual setting for concerts), and adds what I think of as a typically appropriate level of sharpening. With ACDSee Pro, I can apply this preset as a batch to all my 3-star and 4-star images if I like, giving me a good starting place for further processing in just seconds. Many other RAW processing program provide a similar sort of capability, but there are some older applications using an older paradigm that don't work this way: you can't apply a preset other than while converting to JPEG, which means no further RAW processing would be possible. I would not like to use such a program, but if that's what you have, then you'll have to do all your work on files one at a time.<br /><br />Here is an image from a recent shoot loaded into ACDSee Pro as it came from my camera (before applying the preset):<br /><br /><a href="http://i304.photobucket.com/albums/nn173/marcsabatella/examples/bob_original.jpg"><br /><img src="http://i304.photobucket.com/albums/nn173/marcsabatella/examples/bob_original.jpg" width="100%" /></a><br /><br />After applying my preset, the colors look more natural:<br /><br /><a href="http://i304.photobucket.com/albums/nn173/marcsabatella/examples/bob_preset.jpg"><br /><img src="http://i304.photobucket.com/albums/nn173/marcsabatella/examples/bob_preset.jpg" width="100%" /></a><br /><br />The orange color cast is lessened, but now it is too magenta. The lights on the stage at moment probably used a colored gel. So I further adjust the WB by hand (using an eyedropper on the hair then fine tuning from there) to yield something I liked:<br /><br /><a href="http://i304.photobucket.com/albums/nn173/marcsabatella/examples/bob_wb.jpg"><br /><img src="http://i304.photobucket.com/albums/nn173/marcsabatella/examples/bob_wb.jpg" width="100%" /></a><br /><br />It is common for WB changes like this to affect our perception of exposure. The original image was mostly red light. By removing much of the red light from the image, I'm left with better color balance, but less light overall. So even though the original image actually showed clipping on the histogram - all in the red channel, which is almost inevitable when shooting under red lighting - the result is now underexposed. On the positive side, most of the clipping is gone. Also, I should mention that because my camera is limited to ISO 1600 and sometimes that is not enough to avoid blur, I will often deliberately shoot underexposed and expect to push exposure in PP. Beyond that, I would also say that metering in concert photography is tricky, and there is no shame in needing exposure adjustments in PP.<br /><br />In this case, I added 0.75EV compensation to bring the overall brightness where I wanted it. This actually blew a few more highlights in the hair and the reflection in the bell of the trumpet, so I used a little highlight recovery to lessen that. While I was at it, I made small changes to two other controls on this same panel. I added a small amount of fill light to lighten shadows further, and I slightly reduced vibrance (similar to saturation, but "smarter") to make the skin tones a little more neutral still.<br /><br />Here is the result of those changes. The green dots in the background show where I have deliberately allowed the background to clip to black, and the red dots show where I have intentionally allowed highlights to clip to white:<br /><br /><a href="http://i304.photobucket.com/albums/nn173/marcsabatella/examples/bob_general.jpg"><br /><img src="http://i304.photobucket.com/albums/nn173/marcsabatella/examples/bob_general.jpg" width="100%" /></a><br /><br />The next step for me is usually to use the Lighting tool in ACDSee to further balance the highlights, midtones, and shadows, while also increasing local contrast and bringing out detail appropriate. This is a tool that may have have an exact analogue in your software, but similar effects might be achieved using curves, local contrast enhancement, or shadow/highlight tools that you may have access to. It is kind of hard to explain exactly how ACDSee's Lighting tool works, but the effect is to allow me to lighten the shadow side of face without reducing contrast in that area, and similarly increasing contrast and bringing out detail on the light side of the face. I am not sure if this will come across well here, but here the effect of the tool on this image:<br /><br /><a href="http://i304.photobucket.com/albums/nn173/marcsabatella/examples/bob_lighting.jpg"><br /><img src="http://i304.photobucket.com/albums/nn173/marcsabatella/examples/bob_lighting.jpg" width="100%" /></a><br /><br />At this size, the image now looks pretty much the way I want it to. But I realize than in larger views, noise will be more apparent. The amount of NR I applied in my preset is pretty conservative, and after exposure adjustments, I often need to apply more. taking an exposure made at ISO 1600 and pushing it by 0.75EV is like shooting at the equivalent of about ISO 2600. Now, I should say that I am not as noise-averse as some are - some amount of noise is pretty much expected in concert photography. Too much NR can smooth away detail, and I prefer a somewhat "grainy" look over a "plastic" one. I should also say that while NR is best done while looking at a 100% view, this is not very representative of how most people will ever see your images. Viewed on the web, they will be much smaller than 100%, and even an 11x14" print won't show noise to the same degree as a 100% view on screen. So don't get too discouraged by how your images may look at 100%. Chances are they will be fine on the web and in smaller prints.<br /><br />The camera I used here is the Pentax K200D, which is fairly average in terms of noise. It is sometimes characterized as having more chroma (color) noise than some cameras but less luminance noise, with an overall blotchiness due to a small amount of in-camera NR that is performed at ISO 1600 even for RAW files. Here is a 100% view of my images with my other changes intact, but the NR I originally applied in my preset turned off:<br /><br /><a href="http://i304.photobucket.com/albums/nn173/marcsabatella/examples/bob_nonr.jpg"><br /><img src="http://i304.photobucket.com/albums/nn173/marcsabatella/examples/bob_nonr.jpg" width="100%" /></a><br /><br />Here is the NR applied by my preset (50% chroma, 5% luminance):<br /><br /><a href="http://i304.photobucket.com/albums/nn173/marcsabatella/examples/bob_defaultnr.jpg"><br /><img src="http://i304.photobucket.com/albums/nn173/marcsabatella/examples/bob_defaultnr.jpg" width="100%" /></a><br /><br />While it might not look fantastic at 100% I know from experience it should look good enough at "normal" sizes. But since if I look closely I do see some larger purple splotches that I know I can control with a bit more NR, I turned the chroma NR up to 75% and luminance to 10%:<br /><br /><a href="http://i304.photobucket.com/albums/nn173/marcsabatella/examples/bob_mynr.jpg"><br /><img src="http://i304.photobucket.com/albums/nn173/marcsabatella/examples/bob_mynr.jpg" width="100%" /></a><br /><br />That's as far as I'd want to take this. Folks who are really allergic to noise might want to investigate dedicated NR programs like Neat Image, but when I have tried them, I find I do not usually prefer the results I get. I could also try turning up ACDSee's controls all the way, leading to the sort of "plastic" look I referred to earlier:<br /><br /><a href="http://i304.photobucket.com/albums/nn173/marcsabatella/examples/bob_maxnr.jpg"><br /><img src="http://i304.photobucket.com/albums/nn173/marcsabatella/examples/bob_maxnr.jpg" width="100%" /></a><br /><br />Actually, while this is noticeably softer if you click on the image to see it full size, I admit that at typical viewing sizes, the softness is no more likely to be noticed than the noise is. Still, I prefer the image the way I had it before.<br /><br />The final thing I would consider doing here is a slight crop. I don't crop very often, and when I do, it is usually because of something really distracting like another musicians' elbow in the picture or a stray microphone stand. But sometimes it is for purely aesthetic reasons, to achieve what I think of as a better balance in the composition by moving a face a little off center or trying to get the right proportion of body to instrument to background in the shot.<br /><br />Some have an almost religious belief in not cropping, insisting on getting it right in camera. While I respect this, I feel I don't have that luxury. Concert photography is too fast paced for me to feel comfortable limiting myself in that way, and when shooting with primes as I usually do, it's often the case that the lens I have is not exactly the focal length I would choose if using a zoom. I do, however, maintain an equally irrational desire to preserve my camera's 2:3 aspect ratio when I do crop.<br /><br />Anyhow, here is the image as it stands before the crop:<br /><br /><a href="http://i304.photobucket.com/albums/nn173/marcsabatella/examples/bob_bc.jpg"><br /><img src="http://i304.photobucket.com/albums/nn173/marcsabatella/examples/bob_bc.jpg" width="100%" /></a><br /><br />All I would want to do here is remove some of the empty space above the head, thus making the face more dominant element in the composition, and paying attention to where I place it. this is what I came up with:<br /><br /><a href="http://i304.photobucket.com/albums/nn173/marcsabatella/examples/bob_ac.jpg"><br /><img src="http://i304.photobucket.com/albums/nn173/marcsabatella/examples/bob_ac.jpg" width="100%" /></a><br /><br />Had I performed a more significant crop that might have affected my perception of the color or exposure, I would have done this much earlier in the process - perhaps right after applying the preset. To be honest, I went out of my way to find an example of an image I had cropped for artistic reasons as opposed to simply cutting out something I didn't wanted, but I don't feel very strongly about the need for the crop here.<br /><br />This leads to a related topic. I virtually never resort to cloning out stands or other distracting items that cannot be cropped away. I suppose this is like some people never cropping. Actually, though, in my case it's more because cloning is a rather more complex operation, and ACDSee cannot do it within the scope of its non-destructive Develop mode. Instead I need to switch to its traditional Edit mode, which in turn requires me to convert to another format in order to preserve my changes, and a separate copy of my file is created as a result. This just seldom seems worth the effort to me as it might be if I using were a program that aloowed cloning in the non-destructive RAW processing, but even then, I still have reluctance to want to mess with brushes and selections and so forth.<br /><br />Instead, I mostly just try to be conscious of my backgrounds when I shoot. I try to position myself so there are no distracting elements that would require cloning. In the case of this image, I suppose some might try to remove the bright line to the left of the trumpet (a reflection off the raised piano lid behind him), but I kind of like it.<br /><br />There are more operations I could employ, and occasional do when necessary, but the steps I have outlined here are pretty much my usual routine. Preset to get WB and NR in the right ballpark, fine tune WB if necessary, correct exposure, play with lighting, further adjust NR if I had to correct exposure by much, and perhaps crop.<br /><br />Here then, is the finished image:<br /><br /><a href="http://marcsabatella.zenfolio.com/img/v8/p19335520-6.jpg"><br /><img src="http://marcsabatella.zenfolio.com/img/v8/p19335520-3.jpg" /></a><br /><br />Because I shoot in manual mode, it is pretty much guaranteed that all other shots I took of the same musician from the same vantage point will have the same issues in terms of color, exposure, and noise. So I can simply copy these settings (everything but the crop, which will rarely match from shot to shot) to all my other similar images in one operation, thus giving me a very useful starting point for further processing should I wish to do more. Often, though, I find no further processing is necessary at all after copying settings. But if the color of the lights changed, I can adjust WB while leaving everything set. Or if I had changed my shutter speed while shooting, I can adjust the brightness to compensate, again while leaving my other settings intact. This allows me to process a large number of pictures relatively quickly.Marc Sabatellahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00280931807746316434noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1460687387614137618.post-21166108583598541932010-02-13T10:47:00.009-07:002010-02-17T09:54:11.227-07:00A Birthday Present from Tom HarrellThis week I got to see trumpeter Tom Harrell play with his quintet at Dazzle here in Denver, and it was fantastic. The group featured Wayne Escoffery on saxophone, Danny Grissett on piano, Ugonna Okegwo on bass, and Donald Edwards on drums. The pictures that illustrate this story are from that show, and there are more pictures <a href="http://marcsabatella.zenfolio.com/p865205714">here</a>. However, the story I am about to tell you is about seeing him in a different context a few years back. It's kind of a long story, but I think you'll enjoy it.<br /><br /><img src="http://marcsabatella.zenfolio.com/img/v5/p487511633-3.jpg" /><br /><br />For my 40th birthday, I treated myself to dinner and a concert by Tom Harrell at the Mount Vernon Country Club. The show was billed as the Tom Harrell Piano Trio, and the promo made specific mention of the fact that Tom would be playing piano as well as the trumpet/flugelhorn he is famous for. Now, Tom is known as one the best trumpeter players in the world, but no one really knew anything about his piano playing. And as some folks reading this are probably also aware, he has some well-publicized mental health issues (diagnosed paranoid schizophrenic), and between that and the effects of the medication he takes to control his condition, there is always some element of mystery where Tom is concerned. So between that and the fact that no one in attendance had ever heard him play piano, and no one really had no idea what to expect that night.<br /><br /><img src="http://marcsabatella.zenfolio.com/img/v8/p300073805-3.jpg" /><br /><br />I arrived early as I had made reservations for dinner before the show. I came alone, as my wife had a gig, and I was seated at a small table directly in front of the piano. I wondered for a moment if Peter - the general manager of the place and a huge jazz fan whom I had met but did not know well - had somehow made sure I would have a good view because he knew I was a pianist (he almost certainly would not have known it was my birthday). I decided this was pretty unlikely - why would the general manager be looking over seating arrangements personally? - and attributed my prime seating to nothing but coincidence and good fortune. During the buffet dinner, though, I happened to walk past where Peter was sitting, and he stopped me and asked if I liked my table. Apparently, he had deliberately sat me there after all; I was originally supposed to off in a corner somewhere.<br /><br />But that's not all. Peter then asked me if I would like to sit in and give Tom a chance to just concentrate on trumpet for a tune or two. Not that he had checked with Tom yet, but Peter wanted to gauge my interest. I was kind of stunned - I'm a reasonably well known pianist in the area, but people aren't normally asked to sit on concerts of this sort, and frankly, as far as I knew, Peter had barely heard me play before. I told him I would certainly love to play with Tom, and that I even knew one of his tunes - <span style="font-style: italic;">Sail Away</span>. Peter told me he'd check with Tom and get back to me. I went back to my table and finished my dinner.<br /><br />So then the concert started. Tom has written a whole bunch of new material lately, so he and the rest of the band were all reading it. I liked the moods they created. Tom mostly played the piano. I suspect that Peter, like most people there, probably wanted to hear Tom play a little more trumpet, as that's what he is famous for resides, and that's probably why he was so keen on having me sit in.<br /><br /><img src="http://marcsabatella.zenfolio.com/img/v7/p36621116-3.jpg" /><br /><br />They finished up by playing a bebop tune and Tom introduced the bassist and drummer (the first words out of his mouth all evening). Then they left to a round of applause. At that point, Peter (the general manager) lept up to the stage and encouraged us to keep clapping, and maybe Tom would come back for an encore - and Marc Sabatella (that's me) might even join them.<br /><br />Sure enough, Tom and the band came back out, and Peter motioned me on stage. He had told Tom I knew <span style="font-style: italic;">Sail Away</span>, but the bassist looked at me and said he didn't really know the tune, so Tom and I should just do it as a duo. It shocked me at first that Tom's bassist wouldn't know what was undoubtedly his most famous composition, but apparently they had been playing Tom's new music exclusively in this group. I tried suggesting we just do a standard we all knew, but I don't think Tom heard any of this exchange, and he started counting off <span style="font-style: italic;">Sail Away</span> in his usual manner ("uh, uh, uh, uh"). Tom started playing the melody, I started accompanying him, and the bassist and drummed slipped out the back.<br /><br />Now, what happens next is best appreciated if I give you a little bit of backstory. Back when I was in college at FSU in the 80's, another famous trumpeter - Red Rodney - did a concert as a featured soloist with our school big band. I was new enough to jazz that I didn't know who he was, although someone probably told me he had once played with Charlie Parker. What I <span style="font-weight: bold;">did</span> know was that I had this big unaccompanied solo right in the middle of an arrangement of <span style="font-style: italic;">My</span> <span style="font-style: italic;">Romance </span>- a whole chorus of nothing but me. But no one told Red this. On the concert, when it came time for my solo, and the rest of the band dropped out, Red just kept playing, so it was me and him. Now, had I been a mature adult with any respect for jazz history, I would have been in heaven, thinking to myself, "how cool is this - I'm playing a duo with Red Rodney"! But alas, I was young, cocky, and ignorant, and my actual thoughts ran more along the lines of, "you m*****f***er, get off the stage - this is <span style="font-weight: bold;">my </span>solo"! I've been paying for this in bad karma ever since, with the price usually involving someone stepping on one of my solos on that same tune (which has happened on several other occasions strangely enough).<br /><br />So, now, back to Mount Vernon. Tom Harrell counted off <span style="font-style: italic;">Sail Away</span>, and it's just me and him. I'm thinking to myself, "how cool is this - I'm playing a duo with Tom Harrell"! I even managed to flash back to my experience with Red Rodney and laugh a little at myself for having wished Red Rodney would leave the stage and let me have my solo. So there I am up on stage with Tom, finally able to appreciate the opportunity I was being blessed with. I was playing accompaniment as he started playing the melody: "da da daah; da da dah da dah da daah; da da dah da dah da daah, daah, daaah...". And then - I swear I could not possibly make this up - before we got ten seconds into the piece, Tom walked off the stage and left me to finish it for myself, thus ending our duo and giving me the solo performance I had stupidly wished for 20 years earlier.<br /><br />I knew enough about Tom's condition not to take this personally. There could have been any number of reasons for him to have left in the middle of the tune like that, and there was no point in worrying about what they were. More pressing was the question of what to actually do about it. I considered simply stopping right where I was, walking off the stage myself, and forgetting the whole thing. I considered just finishing up the melody and cutting it off there. But what I decided was this: people are there listening, so I might as well give them some music. So I played the rest of the melody myself, took a rather perfunctory but serviceable solo chorus, and as I was getting ready to play the head out, Tom rejoined me, so we did finish the tune together. The bassist and drummer came back with him, and Tom asked if I would join them for a tune everyone knew, so we played <span style="font-style: italic;">Like Someone In Love</span>." The bassist informed me they did this in Ab, which is not one of the three keys this tune is most commonly played in. But I had spent the better part of two years learning to handle just that sort of situation - basically teaching myself to transpose by ear. So while it might not have been a great performance on my part, I acquitted myself well enough. And that was that.<br /><br /><img src="http://marcsabatella.zenfolio.com/img/v4/p42806955-3.jpg" /><br /><br />After the show, we speculated on what happened. Someone suggested to me that perhaps Tom had left because he felt bad about doing an encore without the rest of his band. Someone else told me the piano was turned up fairly high in the monitors because Tom had a relatively light touch, and when I played with my heavier touch, it may have been too loud for him. Just this week when my wife interviewed him for her radio show on KUVO, we learned that <span style="font-style: italic;">Sail Away </span>has major personal significance for Tom, and it is possible that whatever he was thinking, he may have been overcome with emotion as well. But I cannot discount karma as an explanation, either.<br /><br />I did get to talk to Tom myself a little right after playing with him, but of course I didn't come out and directly ask about that, and I think I'm just as happy not having a definitive answer. Oh well. I got to hear a nice concert, had a great time on <span style="font-style: italic;">Like Someone In Love</span>, had that surreal ten second experience on <span style="font-style: italic;">Sail Away</span>, and most of all, came away with a story to tell. Not a bad way to spend one's 40th birthday. Tom, if you're reading this, thank you!Marc Sabatellahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00280931807746316434noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1460687387614137618.post-81275361123397884182009-10-13T19:13:00.003-06:002009-10-13T19:25:09.367-06:00More Faces of FallLast year, I posted about <a href="http://marcsabatella.blogspot.com/2008/09/aspen-in-vail.html">a trip to the mountains</a> to see the aspen turning. It's an annual tradition for most Coloradans, and this year my wife and I set aside the one fall day we both had off together for a drive. I tried to do my research first to find out where the leaves would be peaking that day, but perhaps due to the freeze the night before, it turned out most of the leaves had already fallen where we chose to go - toward Guanella Pass from the south side. So we missed the typical "fields of gold" scenes I photo. However, we were able to revisit a spot we had stumbled on a few years ago - an unmarked and otherwise unremarkable pull-off on the side of the road where a short trail leads to a river - that we can only describe as magical. It's hard to say what makes this particular spot along this particular river so special, but we both felt it strongly. Something about the color of the water and the rocks, the way the river is just far enough into the woods for its banks to be completely natural despite being only a few dozen yards from the road, the fact that it seems so non-descript and thus leads most people to simply pass it by. So no, I'm not going to tell you where it is, exactly. But I can show you some pictures!<br /><br /><img src="http://marcsabatella.zenfolio.com/img/v4/p338298147-3.jpg" /><br /><br /><img src="http://marcsabatella.zenfolio.com/img/v8/p48357912-3.jpg" /><br /><br /><img src="http://marcsabatella.zenfolio.com/img/v1/p439774578-3.jpg" /><br /><br />After spending some time at "our" spot, we continued further along the road, and while there were little or no turning aspen to be seen, autumn in Colorado can have other charms as well:<br /><br /><img src="http://marcsabatella.zenfolio.com/img/v1/p336441428-3.jpg" /><br /><br /><img src="http://marcsabatella.zenfolio.com/img/v8/p296905642-3.jpg" /><br /><br />Last year, I got to see the aspens on the hillside, but missed the opportunity to walk among and be surrounded by them, which is actually my favorite way to experience the aspen. This year, even though most of the leaves had already fallen, I was at least able experience walking through an aspen grove. In some ways, doing this after the leaves have fallen is even more wonderful (although the "quaking" of the leaves on the trees is not to be missed), as there is something about the tightly spaced vertical trunks I find mesmerizing in itself. And the leaves on the ground still teased with their color:<br /><br /><img src="http://marcsabatella.zenfolio.com/img/v8/p200036626-3.jpg" /><br /><br /><img src="http://marcsabatella.zenfolio.com/img/v8/p484510922-3.jpg" /><br /><br />I still entertained notions of making another trip the next weekend in hopes of finding a place where the leaves hadn't fallen yet. But as it turned out, we got snow, and while I did make it up to the mountains, I got an entirely different kind of picture - one that served as a reminder that I had missed my chance but would be welcome to come back next year to try again:<br /><br /><img src="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2597/4000445508_a0df2bd70e.jpg" />Marc Sabatellahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00280931807746316434noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1460687387614137618.post-69673586535206753162009-08-04T10:05:00.009-06:002009-08-04T21:28:59.214-06:00Road Trip - The Western SlopeAlthough I've lived in Colorado for over 20 years now, I have spent very little time on the Western slope of the Rockies. So when my friend (and fellow Pentaxian) Ed called with an idea for a quick weekend road trip to Arches National Park and Colorado National Monument, I was game.<br /><br />On the surface, it seemed like a questionable proposition. After getting in late Friday night after a gig, I'd be getting up early (for me) on Saturday morning, and we'd spend most of the day driving west to Moab, Utah. We'd have only about 4-5 hours of daylight to explore and shoot in Arches. Then we'd be driving back east to Grand Junction, where we'd spend the night and get up the next morning for only another 4-5 hours at Colorado National Monument (and a brief side trip to the Palisade wine country) before we'd need to head back to Denver, where I had a gig that evening. But Ed had already rented the car and was planning on doing the driving anyhow; all I had to do was come along. So I did!<br /><br />I've driven west as far as Grand Junction a few times before, and there is beautiful country along the way (Glenwood Canyon in particular), but I had never explored the Grand Junction area itself, or driven any further west. The Utah state line is only a few miles from Grand Junction, and Arches only an hour or so from there. The terrain rapidly appears to get less interesting to me after passing through Glenwood, once the novelty of the mesas wears off. Crossing into Utah, I almost wondered if Arches could possibly be as spectacular as what we had already passed through to get there. But of course, its reputation suggested it would be.<br /><br />Needless to say, I was not disappointed. Within a few miles of the entrance to Arches, things suddenly did get a lot more interesting. Here is a shot from the first stop we made:<br /><br /><img src="http://marcsabatella.zenfolio.com/img/v3/p546568838-3.jpg" /><br /><br />Because time was so limited, we explored mostly by car. Arches is very conducive to this, as many of the major formations are close to parking areas, with little or no hiking required to see them. In fact, the view from the car is just as amazing, which is surely what these folks were thinking:<br /><br /><img src="http://marcsabatella.zenfolio.com/img/v3/p687670246-3.jpg" /><br /><br />Sometimes, what is most interesting about a place is not the majestic panoramas, but the small details:<br /><br /><img src="http://marcsabatella.zenfolio.com/img/v0/p913434345-3.jpg" /><br /><br />In some areas, there isn't that much to look at nearby, but what there is makes you look that much harder, as Ed demonstrates:<br /><br /><img src="http://marcsabatella.zenfolio.com/img/v1/p971166658-3.jpg" /><br /><br />One of the more famous rock formations in Arches is the Balanced Rock. It's an impressive structure, although from some angles it looks more impossibly situated than others. Some viewpoints also make the scale of the thing more clear. And from any given position, the light is more dramatic at some times of day than others. Since we didn't have the luxury of planning our visit there to coincide with the optimum time of day for the optimum viewing angle, we settled for making the shots we could, and I do rather like this one:<br /><br /><img src="http://marcsabatella.zenfolio.com/img/v4/p920002760-3.jpg" /><br /><br />Scale is everything in trying to photograph scenes like this. Without a person in the shot, it can be difficult to appreciate just how big the formation is, but one also has a tendency to want to see "pure" landscapes. And with limited time and no familiarity with these particular formations and limited experience with this type of photography in general, it was very difficult to capture images that reflect the true feeling of the place. That is especially true when viewing pictures on a small computer screen. I like shots like this one because the people in it are not distracting to the shot, but once you see them, they do help give a sense of scale:<br /><br /><img src="http://marcsabatella.zenfolio.com/img/v4/p565809390-3.jpg" /><br /><br />We did time our sojourn through the park so that we would be be near the most famous landmark, Delicate Arch, around sundown. The trial to take you right to the foot of the arch was far too long given the limited time we had, so we instead chose a vantage point from which you can see the arch across a canyon, around half a mile away. Luckily, I had my 500mm mirror lens with me to bring it closer:<br /><br /><img src="http://marcsabatella.zenfolio.com/img/v0/p1049054156-3.jpg" /><br /><br />After having dinner in Moab and spending the night back in Grand Junction, doubt again surfaced: could Colorado National Monument - located just minuted from town - possibly hold a candle to Arches? While I at least had some idea of what Arches would offer, I really had no clue with Colorado National Monument; it was only a name to me. But as before, there turned out to be no cause for concern. The terrain here is very different from Arches, but no less amazing. I've never been to the Grand Canyon, and most canyons in Colorado are typically experienced from the bottom looking up. Colorado National Monument is home to a system of canyons - Ute, Red, Monument, Echo, and several others - and the road through the park travels along the rim of most of these.<br /><br />Shortly after the gates to the park, one is greeted with a sense of leaving one world and entering a different one:<br /><br /><img src="http://marcsabatella.zenfolio.com/img/v0/p707238341-3.jpg" /><br /><br />The first canyons one sees are relatively small ones. I was completely unprepared for the size of the large canyons one encounters soon enough:<br /><br /><img src="http://marcsabatella.zenfolio.com/img/v3/p713209686-3.jpg" /><br /><br />Once again, capturing a sense of scale is difficult. Here's one only partially successful attempt, sitting on the rim with my feet dangling over the precipice, with an absolutely enormous drop below that doesn't quite look as dramatic as it felt:<br /><br /><img src="http://marcsabatella.zenfolio.com/img/v5/p1023039611-3.jpg" /><br /><br />Some of the rock formations here look almost like ruins from something man-made, the the Coliseum:<br /><br /><img src="http://marcsabatella.zenfolio.com/img/v2/p927472554-3.jpg" /><br /><br />On the way home, we stopped briefly in Palisade to take a few quick shots of the vineyards:<br /><br /><img src="http://marcsabatella.zenfolio.com/img/v1/p673367031-3.jpg" /><br /><br />I hope to be able to visit the Western slope again soon and spend a bit more time!Marc Sabatellahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00280931807746316434noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1460687387614137618.post-91958265410486530982009-07-11T09:21:00.017-06:002009-08-15T18:37:23.561-06:00The Vivitar 500/8 Mirror LensI recently bought a Vivitar 500/8 mirror lens (also sold as Samyang, Phoenix, Opteka, Quantaray, and perhaps other brands). Although it's not a great lens, it's not nearly as bad as some say, once you figure out how to use it. So I thought I'd share some of my experiences. Here's a sample image:<br /><br /><img src="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2552/3788064180_88e9fd0316.jpg"><br /><br />First, though, some background.<br /><br />If you use an SLR (digital or otherwise) and have ever tried shooting birds or other wildlife, you've probably thought about getting a longer lens. And chances are you've seen ads for <a href="http://www.photozone.de/mirror-lenses">"mirror" lenses</a> (aka catadioptric, aka reflex) that seem too good to be true - under $100 for a brand new 500mm lens that's barely bigger or heavier than the "kit" zoom that came with your camera. If you've read up on the topic at all, though, you know that mirror lenses come with some major disadvantages: a small and fixed aperture (usually f/8), poor contrast and sharpness, and very odd-looking donut-shaped "bokeh" (the appearance of out of focus areas).<br /><br />Now, every once in a while you come upon someone who manages to get good results from a mirror lens, and they'll often steer you toward the more expensive ones, saying the cheap ones are to be avoided. But if you're like me, you can't help but be curious. After borrowing one of the "good" ones (the Sigma 600/8) for a few weeks, I found that mirror lenses were not all bad, although they do take some work to get the hang of - both in use and in post-processing. Here's a sample image that I like from the Sigma:<br /><br /><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3606/3414085551_9a2a49b53e.jpg" /><br /><br />I'm not going to try to convince you this image stands up to viewing at 100% on my 10MP Pentax K200D as well as an image from top quality glass telephoto lens. And if I'm able to get close enough to shoot with at 200mm or 300mm and still fill the frame the way I want, I can get better results with my 200m prime, or my 50-200 or 70-300 zoom. But if I end up needing a teleconverter and/or having to crop significantly in post-processing to get what I want with one of these shorter lenses, the Sigma mirror lens wins over any of the other options.<br /><br />Unfortunately, this particular model was discontinued long ago and is kind of hard to find and relatively expensive when you do find it. Worse from my perspective, it is bulky for a mirror lens, and around three times the weight of one of the smaller models. It might seem petty to complain about the size and weight of a mirror lens, because at around 2 lbs even the heaviest are much smaller and lighter than a regular telephoto lens of that focal length would be. For me, though, that Sigma was in a bit of a no-man's land. If I'm going to carry a 2lb lens that doesn't fit in my camera bag, I might as well carry around something even bigger that will do the job with fewer compromises. But will I normally bother to carry any lens that big? I know I'm much more likely to actually use a lens that comes in at under a pound and fits in my bag.<br /><br />There are other discontinued models from Tamron, Tokina, and others that are considered among the better mirror lenses and are probably worth seeking out, but they may also be harder to find, more expensive, and heavier than one might prefer. Frankly, my experience with the Sigma just made me that much more curious about the cheap models one sees advertised everywhere.<br /><br />There are basically two 500mm mirror lenses currently on the market, although they are sold under a wide variety of different brand names. There is a 500/8 (normally black) made by Samyang and sold under that brand name as well as Phoenix, Opteka, Vivitar, Quantaray, and probably others. Then there is a 500/6.3 (normally white) that is usually sold under the name Pro-Optic but sometimes Kenko and perhaps others. Both are T-mount lenses, meaning that with a proper adapter, they can work with any camera mount. Usually, these lenses are sold with an adapter for a specific camera, but be aware that you can actually buy one for any camera brand if you don't mind picking up an adapter for your own camera separately (only $15 or so at your local camera store), and you might get a better deal on a used one that way.<br /><br />I thought for a while about which of these lenses to try. Although the f/6.3 sounds better than f/8, one thing I learned from the Sigma is that DOF is so shallow at extreme focal lengths that a fixed f/6.3 as opposed to f/8 could create more problems than it solves. Plus the f/6.3 version is twice the weight of the f/8, and somewhat more expensive to boot. So I became fixated on the Samyang-made 500/8.<br /><br />Unfortunately, as you also may have discovered in the search process that presumably brought you to this article, there just aren't many detailed reviews or even sample images from this lens, under any of its various names. What I managed to find didn't seem to resolve anything for me - some folks who hated the lens, others who thought it was surprisingly good, and only a small handful of sample images to support either opinion. Most of the references to the lenses came from people who never used either but dismissed them out of hand. Which left me still wondering how one of the Samyang-made 500/8 lenses would work for me.<br /><br />I knew from the Sigma that one shouldn't expect stellar results right out of the box. Many people have little experience with manual focus, and the small fixed aperture of most mirror lenses means the viewfinder is quite dim, making focus harder than usual. Many do not realize that long telephoto lenses will create very shallow depth of field (DOF), and that avoiding camera shake at those focal lengths can be very difficult too. Many people don't realize they really need to use a hood with these lenses, or that they are supposed to always use the small clear filter that can be inserted in the rear of most mirror lenses. Many are put off by the donut bokeh that is inherent in all mirror lenses. Many see the low contrast and sharpness on the images straight from the camera and don't realize just how much this can be improved via post-processing.<br /><br />Therefore, it doesn't surprise me that some think even the better mirror lenses are "junk". But more importantly, if someone reports a bad experience with one of the cheaper models, I take that with a grain of salt.<br /><br />So as I said in the beginning of this article, I did finally pick up a Vivitar-branded version of the lens. I bought it used, as even the $99 brand-new price tag seemed like too much of a gamble. My assumption was that there are a lot of these lenses on the used market that are perfectly fine but are being being sold by people who just don't "get" it.<br /><br />I'd say the lens has pretty much met my expectations. Not as good out of the box as the Sigma, but capable with a little work of producing results "almost" as good. As with the Sigma, the results are not nearly as sharp as they would be if I were able to shoot from closer with one of my other telephoto lenses. But depending on the resolution of your camera and the quality of your other telephoto lenses, you may still find that mirror wins if you'd need a teleconverter or heavy cropping to get the composition you want at 200mm or 300mm. Here's an (appropriately post-processed!) example I like from one of my first outings with the Vivitar:<br /><br /><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3479/3705987714_4e8eeb5518.jpg" /><br /><br />But unless you're careful, it's just as easy to get terrible results that would make you assume the lens was not capable of anything like that. So let's look at some of the things that can make the difference.<br /><br />As I alluded to earlier, technique is a big part of it if you are not used to manual focus or extreme telephoto lenses in general. Depth of field at 500mm and f/8 is very shallow, so you have to really nail the focus or the image will be out of focus. Fortunately, the focus ring on the Vivitar is very smooth, with good resistance and a long throw. If your experience with manual focus is limited to the "kit" zoom lens that came with your camera, you will probably find the actual mechanics of it easier with the Vivitar, even if the viewfinder is dimmer because of the fixed f/8 aperture.<br /><br />Holding a camera steady with a 500mm lens can be more difficult than you might imagine. The old "1 / focal length" rule is probably on the optimistic side in this case, especially when used with a "cropped" sensor that makes the field of view narrower than it would have been on the 35mm cameras for which that rule was invented. A good tripod helps a lot. But one of the advantages of a relatively small and light lens like this is portability. And many people wanting that in a lens would be reluctant to use a tripod or even a monopod, even though the fixed f/8 aperture means you may often be looking at shutter speeds below 1/500".<br /><br />For those wanting to handhold the camera with this lens, systems like Pentax, Sony, or Olympus that employ camera-based stabilization provide a significant advantage over Canon or Nikon. This is true even though camera-based stabilization might not be as effective as lens-based stabilization in general, and even though camera-based stabilization systems tend to be less effective at longer focal lengths. But any stabilization is better than none. I find it awkward, imprecise, and often misleading to express the effectiveness of stabilization as being "X" number of stops better, but I'd say that without stabilization, shutter speeds slower than 1/500" are very likely to be noticeably blurry for me; with stabilization, I have a fair chance at a decently sharp picture at 1/90".<br /><br />If you don't have camera-based stabilization but still wish to handhold the camera, see if you can find a rock, table, or other surface to rest the camera on, as this can control shake at least as well as a monopod. Otherwise, you will need to increase ISO to get shutter speeds above 1/250" (and preferably to 1/750"). You will want to experiment for yourself to find what shutter speeds you need to get get the results you want. Unfortunately, while the aperture is technically f/8, you will find the lens absorbs so much light that shutter speeds are more consistent with what you'd expect of f/11. I find that on a typical sunny day, ISO 400 can give me shutter speeds of 1/500" or better in direct sun but not in the in the shade, and shooting on an overcast day is similar to shooting in the shade. So you might often be looking at ISO 800 or even 1600, depending on how steady your hands are.<br /><br />Some mirror lenses come with hoods, but this one did not. When shooting anywhere near the direction of the sun, lens flare is pretty unmistakable - simply using your hand to shield the lens from the sun yields an improvement that is obvious just looking through the viewfinder. I bought a cheap 72mm collapsible rubber hood that might not eliminate as much flare as a hood designed specifically for the lens, but it works better than nothing. Still, it is better to avoid shooting in the general direction of the sun.<br /><br />The famous donut bokeh is going to be more troublesome in some situations than others, and that requires some experimentation to figure out. Small bright highlights create the most obvious donuts. But the prominence of the donuts also has to do with how far you are from your subject relative to the out of focus areas. In a lot of shots - such as most of the ones I've posted here - I am barely aware of it. It gets more prominent the closer the background is to your subject. A very distant background will be so blurred you will probably not notice. And my impression is, the Vivitar seems less prone to donuts than the Sigma in any situation.<br /><br />Even if you are careful about all of this while shooting, you will probably be disappointed with how the images look straight out of the camera. Contrast, sharpness, and saturation are all relatively low, and your camera probably doesn't have strong enough settings to fully address this. You will almost certainly be needing post-processing to improve this - and you will be needing to increase these parameters far more than you are probably accustomed to. Also, when using high ISO and then increasing contrast and sharpening in PP, noise becomes even more visible than usual for that ISO. You may need to experiment with both the noise reduction and sharpening settings in your PP software to combat this. I find that doing NR as usual for the ISO but setting a higher than usual threshold for sharpening and being relatively aggressive with amount and to a lesser extent with radius works well for me.<br /><br />When applying this much adjustment in PP, you can get much better results from RAW than from JPEG. I have created a preset that increases contrast and sharpness while adding a bit more vibrance too. By making this a preset, I can easily apply the same settings to all images shot with this lens in one click. In a matter of seconds, the results improve dramatically. Of course, I can also custom process images after applying the preset - there are adjustments that are best made on a per-image basis using levels and curves adjustments, local contrast enhancement, hue adjustment (color is often cooler than I would like), and so forth. But just applying my basic preset instantly makes the results from the Vivitar much more impressive than they would otherwise be.<br /><br />When you are careful to observe this advice about shooting and post-processing, the Vivitar can definitely beat the results you might get using a 50-200, 70-300, or another similar telephoto lens, and then cropping to yield the same field of view as a 500mm lens. Of course, you'd hope this would be so, or there wouldn't seem to be any reason to use the Vivitar if you already own another telephoto lens. On the other hand, there is something to be said for actually seeing your subject large in viewfinder - particularly if you enjoy just looking at wildlife. And in situations - like with birds in trees, or birds in flight, even - where you might find yourself focusing manually even with an autofocus lens, having the subject appear large in the viewfinder can help. So even if the Vivitar did not actually beat the results from cropping an image from a shorter focal length, it wouldn't be without its appeal.<br /><br />But if you need to be convinced, here is a comparison. First is a 100% crop of an image from my 50-200 at 200mm. That means it is blown up as big as it can be without getting "pixelation". Following that is a corresponding crop from the Vivitar, resized to match. The original image is the one shown at the top of this article:<br /><br /><img padding="1px" width="275px" src="http://i304.photobucket.com/albums/nn173/marcsabatella/examples/200c.jpg" /><br /><img padding="1px" width="275px" src="http://i304.photobucket.com/albums/nn173/marcsabatella/examples/500c.jpg" /><br /><br />If you look closely, you will see the Vivitar image clearly contains more detail. I should point out, though, that this is apparent only in cases where you need to crop beyond the field of view of a 500mm lens as I did above, or in cases where you wish to print the full image larger than 4x6". If I crop the image from the 50-200 to exactly match the full image from the Vivitar and then print both at 4x6", the results are practically indistinguishable. So don't completely discount the value of cropping. It's only on larger prints or heavier crops where the Vivitar wins.<br /><br />Still, there is no denying the fact that the Vivitar is capturing more detail, or the fact that it provides a much larger viewfinder image, which is nice in itself. And mirror lenses can be surprisingly versatile. Here's a portrait made at that same location (Arches National Park) minutes earlier:<br /><br /><img src="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2510/3794923667_6a743005b6.jpg" /><br /><br />I imagine the most common use for this lens will be for wildlife, though, and birds in particular. I don't think I have quite reached the potential of this lens for that purpose yet. But here is a shot that came out reasonably well considering it was handheld at 1/180":<br /><br /><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3480/3730709834_f7b078c766.jpg" /><br /><br />I don't particularly recommend this lens for concert photography. 500mm is usually far more than you want, and f/8 (more like f/11 in practice) is usually much too small an aperture to get a fast enough shutter speed to stop subject motion. But I have observed that in most venues where you might need very long focal lengths (200mm or more), the stage lighting is often good enough that you can get away with smaller apertures than one needs in smaller clubs. I tested this idea recently with the Vivitar at a concert in a 300-seat recital hall, shooting from the rear balcony. At ISO 1600, all I could manage was a shutter speed of 1/45". But I'm used to shooting at that speed with my shorter lenses, so I know that stopping subject motion is possible with good timing. By resting the camera on the balcony railing, I was able to get the camera steady enough to take this shot:<br /><br /><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3465/3818467808_ffaca2b707.jpg" /><br /><br />For large outdoor concerts, I could see this lens being quite useful.<br /><br />Now, I won't lie - I have taken sharper landscapes, portraits, wildlife pictures, and concert shots with my 200mm and 300mm telephoto lenses. But I cannot stress enough that in order to get those results, I had to be much closer to my subject. If I tried shooting from the distances I was dealing with in these examples, I would need to crop the image very heavily in PP to get the same field of view. And as the comparison I posted above suggests, the Vivitar is capable of giving better results than simply cropping an image from a shorter lens. BTW, I find teleconverters usually give results that are not even as good as cropping, although this depends on the specific lens and TC involved.<br /><br />On the other hand, if you don't have enough light to get a fast enough shutter speed to stop subject motion or camera shake, a mirror lens is not the best answer. Again, neither is a teleconverter, since they will reduce most telephoto lenses to f/8 or worse as well. Cropping a shot taken at 200mm or 300mm can be a very viable way to get a usable image as long as you don't need to print too large. But mirror lenses like the Vivitar are a fun and effective way to get the shot without cropping.<br /><br />In conclusion, I hope I have set your expectations for what this inexpensive mirror lens can and cannot do, and how to get the most out of it. A lot of people are extremely disappointed by this lens, and of course, it does not come close to matching a high quality 500mm glass telephoto lens. But I do think most of the naysayers are not taking full advantage of the potential of the lens - shooting with questionable focus and stability, without a hood, and not enhancing for contrast or sharpness or color. It is capable of taking pictures you are not likely to get any other way from a lens of this price, size, or weight.Marc Sabatellahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00280931807746316434noreply@blogger.com23tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1460687387614137618.post-19017258077382534692009-04-29T17:00:00.027-06:002010-03-29T18:16:46.446-06:00Concert Photography - TechniqueI'm going to assume you've already read <a href="http://marcsabatella.blogspot.com/2008/11/concert-photography-equipment.html">my article on equipment</a>, or else you are already satisfied with your equipment choices. And by the way, when you finish this article on technique, check out the third installment on <a href="http://marcsabatella.blogspot.com/2010/03/concert-photography-post-processing_28.html">post-processing.</a><br /><br />To summarize the article on equipment, you'll want a camera that gives you acceptable quality at the high ISO speeds you will often be needing, and a lens or lenses with a relatively wide maximum aperture (f/2.8 or better, ideally) in a focal length range that provides the sort of field of view that works for you. For me, that means a DSLR (Pentax K200D) and lenses in the short to medium telephoto lengths. 100mm is the sweet spot for me on APS-C, although I know others prefer wider angles, and longer is useful if you can't shoot from as close to the action as you otherwise might. Although I mostly use primes, I think a 50-135mm zoom would be ideal for most people.<br /><br />Pretty much any camera that satisfies these basic requirements - good high ISO performance, wide aperture lens - should also give you control over ISO, shutter speed, and aperture. It doesn't really matter whether this is done via a completely manual mode, or via the use of aperture priority or shutter priority modes combined with exposure compensation, exposure lock, or other manual overrides. Basically, any DSLR should do the job, but a film camera or full featured fixed lens camera that provides this same type of capability would be fine too.<br /><br />Before we go further, I should point out that my main musical interest is jazz, and that affects my photography in some significant ways. For one thing, it means my photographs tend to be more about individuals than the the "band", because such is often the nature of jazz. It means that my subjects are often playing wind instruments, which have their own set of issues regarding focal length choice, composition, and focus. It means I am often working in small clubs with very simple but very poor lighting - not the type of elaborate lighting displays typical with some rock bands. And the listening environment is often pretty quiet compared to typical rock shows. So if some of my comments seem strange to you - like if you cannot possibly imagine anyone caring about the sound of a DSLR shutter - then feel free to take those with a grain of salt. Still, I expect most of what I have to say will be relevant to anyone who has stumbled upon this article.<br /><br />Here's an example of the kind of photograph I like to take:<br /><br /><img src="http://marcsabatella.zenfolio.com/img/v8/p365198409-3.jpg" /><br /><br />Even if you have a different creative vision than I do, you may still find my technical commentary useful.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Basic Settings</span><br /><br />Beginners are often bewildered by the various settings on their cameras. I can cut through some of that by telling you there are only three that really matter - ISO, aperture, and shutter speed. These are the basics of exposure and have been since the dawn of photography. If your camera provides controls over sharpness, contrast, saturation, and so forth, that's fine, and feel free to mess with them if you like. But none of those things make a fundamental difference to the image in the same way the basic exposure settings do. And especially if you shoot RAW - more on that in a moment - you will find that the exposure settings are the only things that are fixed when you take the picture. All else can be changed later.<br /><br />I personally use "M" (manual) mode to control my exposure. I did this at first because with my old manual lenses, it is the only way exposure can be controlled. But I soon realized I liked the control it gave, and I found I would get more consistent results that way too, so now I use it all the time even with my modern lenses. The optimum exposure doesn't vary from shot to shot nearly as much as an autoexposure system will tend to think. Consider a person wearing light colored clothing in a spotlight standing against a dark colored background in the shadow (a typical situation). As long as the person doesn't change their clothes or move out of the spotlight, there is no reason for exposure to change. But an autoexposure system can easily be fooled by such irrelevant factors as how much of the dark background is visible in the shot, whether the lighting on the background changes, whether a second person enters the shot, whether an instrument or microphone happens to catch a reflection from the spotlight, whether the spotlight itself is in the picture, etc.<br /><br />Also, the autoexposure system often recommends a shutter speed that is too slow to stop camera shake or subject motion. In low light concert photography, you often need to be prepared to underexpose in order to get a sharp pictures, and then expect to improve the exposure in post processing (PP). You will probably be needing to override the default suggested exposure more often than you think. So some amount of manual override is often necessary no matter what mode you shoot in.<br /><br />On the other hand, if you are not used to shooting in "M" mode, it can be daunting at first, and you are indeed likely to blow some shots until you get the hang of it. Stage lighting often varies in color from one part of the stage to another, and sometimes in intensity as well. An exposure that works for one musician in one area of the stage might work another musician in another area of the stage, but it might not. It will be up to you to monitor changes in lighting across the stage, and also over time - systems that change the lighting every couple of minutes are common in some venues.<br /><br />So anyhow, as I see it, you have two choice: use "M" mode and watch for changes in lighting, or use an auto mode and watch for everything else. Your call. If you use an autoexposure mode, you need to either make liberal use of your exposure-lock control or expect to be constantly adjusting exposure compensation based on your read of the scene. Otherwise your exposures may vary wildly for no good reason, even when shooting what seems to be the same scene, and some will be blurry from too slow a shutter speed.<br /><br />I'll deal with the specifics of setting exposure later. For now, I want to run down the other camera settings you can make before you start shooting and mostly leave alone.<br /><br />First, as I alluded to before, you'll want to shoot RAW. Whatever you might think about doing PP, it's almost always going to help a lot in concert photography, and need not be particularly time consuming in order to be useful. Batch setting white balance, noise reduction, and perhaps a global exposure adjustment can be done in seconds for an entire cardful images, and will turn a set underexposed, noisy, orange-colored images into something you can really be happy with. There are programs that try to provide this same level convenience to JPEG, but the very nature of JPEG is such that you will not be able to maintain the same quality when doing these sorts of adjustments. If you insist on shooting JPEG anyhow, be my guest, but expect to never be able to get rid of of the stage lighting color casts, and expect any shots you underexpose in order to get a fast enough shutter speed to never look anywhere near as good in terms of detail or noise as it could - it is just not possible to PP that type of JPEG image to the same extent as with RAW.<br /><br />If your camera or lens features some form of stabilization (IS, VR, SR, OS, AS, or whatever the manufacturer of your gear calls it), turn it on unless you are using a tripod and the manufacturer recommends it not be used with a tripod. Most stabilization systems work fine with a monopod. If you don't have stabilization, a monopod is a cheap way and relatively unobtrusive to improve stability.<br /><br />If your camera gives you a way to quickly switch between auto and manual focus, find it and learn to use it. Pentax DSLR's have a button that can temporarily disable AF while pressed without needing to actually switch to MF mode; I find that incredibly useful. Others like to set up their cameras so that pressing the shutter does not perform AF at all, but instead a button press does. That's an option too. What we're looking for here is a way to achieve focus on a subject, then make sure the camera doesn't refocus while you fire off a string of shots of that subject.<br /><br />If your camera requires you to do something special to turn off flash, do that now. If you plan to shoot with flash, you can safely skip the section on exposure, because it won't be relevant. You'll have to turn elsewhere for help with flash exposure. But do make sure you know flash is acceptable before assuming you'll be using it. As a musician myself, I can tell you it's never acceptable during my performances, but that's my world. Yours may be different.<br /><br />Although ISO is one of the three exposure parameters that in theory might vary from shot to shot, in practice, light levels are often low enough that you'll just want to set it as high as you stand (in terms of noise) before you start shooting and not mess with it again all night. I shoot at ISO 1600 practically all the time in my concert photography.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Positioning And Composition</span><br /><br />Once your camera is set up, your next step is to position yourself and frame your shots to get the results you want. This is the part that is the most personal, so my advice here will be pretty general.<br /><br />In general, the closer you are, the better. You'll be able to capture more detail, you'll have more dramatic perspective and depth of field effects, and it will be easier to position yourself to avoid obstructions. You'll also be less intrusive to fellow attendees if you are between them and the band than if you are continually pushing through the crowd. Although you do want to be respectful and not stand directly in someone else's line of sight for long. Nor do you want to be so close you are distracting to the musicians. But shots like this can't be taken from further back:<br /><br /><br /><img src="http://marcsabatella.zenfolio.com/img/v8/p343758474-3.jpg" /><br /><br />If you are close and you want a shot of the whole band, you'll need a wide angle lens, and if you don't have anything suitable, standing further back will have to do. Sometimes the only convenient spots to be near the stage don't allow for unobstructed views of all the band members, so some shots might have to be taken from further away with a longer lens. This is obviously very specific to the venue and band. Depending on the arrangement of the musicians and where you position yourself, you might be able to capture shots of the whole band from surprisingly close with a 50mm lens, or even 70mm, as I did here:<br /><br /><img src="http://marcsabatella.zenfolio.com/img/v5/p25117540-3.jpg" /><br /><br />While occasionally it works out that you can get all the shots you want from one position, more often than not you'll be better off moving around. To minimize disruption, it is usually best to do all the shooting you need to do from one spot (including lenses changes as necessary), then move to another spot, rather than constantly flitting around. On the other hand, you may also want to minimize lens changes, and that might suggest taking all shots you think you will want with one lens, moving around as necessary, then change lenses and repeat.<br /><br />Because my main musical interest is jazz, and jazz is so much about personal expression, I tend to be primarily interested in capturing images of individual musicians more so than shots of the entire band. I usually take one or two band shots just to have them, but I mostly focus on more intimate portrait-like shots, as you can see from the examples I am including. Because so much jazz involves wind instruments in the front, and piano, guitar, bass, and drums further back, I can often use a longer telephoto lens and still incorporate the whole instrument than I could if I were mostly shooting guitar players in the front line. But all this varies according to the specific band and how they are set up on stage. One of the things I do in planning my shots is think about what focal lengths I will need to capture head-and-instrument portraits of each musician from a variety of different vantage points.<br /><br />Obviously, you will never be able to completely anticipate every shot you might want. You will likely find that moving around suggests shot to you that you might not have thought of otherwise. But if you try to keep these ideas in mind, things usually go smoother. Here's a shot I had not planned to take, but once I arrived in the spot where I was planning to shoot the pianist, I saw an opportunity to shoot the whole rhythm section:<br /><br /><img src="http://marcsabatella.zenfolio.com/img/v8/p104159280-3.jpg" /><br /><br />Any shot you can take while leaning against a wall, or post, or other support - or seated - is likely to come out sharper than any shot you take while standing unsupported. Camera/lens stabilization and monopods can help, but still, the steadier you are yourself, the better.<br /><br />All basic compositional concepts you might learn about in any book on photography technique - or drawing or painting, for that matter - apply. However, given that you should be expecting to post process your shots to some extent, and that can include cropping, it might not be worth obsessing too much about composition while shooting. But there are some things that you are much better off paying attention to now than trying to deal with later. When lining up a shot, try to be aware of things that are in the frame but might turn out to be unnecessary or distracting, such as overly busy backgrounds, objects or people in the background that appear growing out of your subject's head, etc. When shooting singers using microphones or people playing wind instruments, it is often best to shoot from an angle to either side so that you can still see most of the face:<br /><br /><img src="http://marcsabatella.zenfolio.com/img/v7/p426608484-3.jpg" /><br /><br />On the other hand, sometimes with a wind instrument especially, the "coming right at you" look can be quite effective too, even if it partially obscures the face:<br /><br /><img src="http://marcsabatella.zenfolio.com/img/v3/p100173322-3.jpg" /><br /><br />I also like to be on the lookout for interesting geometric shapes formed by the musicians, their instruments, and whatever else is in the frame, to create the occasional semi-abstract shot. I don't know or care if anyone else would find this shot interesting, but I do, and that's all that matters to me:<br /><br /><img src="http://marcsabatella.zenfolio.com/img/v8/p225689839-3.jpg" /><br /><br />For maximum impact, try to get the most contrast you can between the subject and the background - usually a light figure against a dark background. Even "black" skin in a spotlight will often be lighter than an unlit background:<br /><br /><img src="http://marcsabatella.zenfolio.com/img/v6/p811370842-3.jpg" /><br /><br />Of course, a darker figure against a lighter background will "pop" just as well, and that can happen at times even with "white" skin if the lighting is right:<br /><br /><img src="http://marcsabatella.zenfolio.com/img/v7/p531355272-3.jpg" /><br /><br />Watch your subject for motions that keep repeating and see if you can identify a spot in the cycle where the subject is holding a pose for a moment - that will allow you to shoot with a relatively slow shutter speed and still get a reasonably sharp picture. For example, for anyone who rocks back and forth, there is always a point of zero motion at either end of the "rock". On the other hand, shots of musicians engaged in an action that cannot be stopped at the kind of shutter speeds you will be using can be effective too - nothing says motion and excitement like a little subject blur. Particularly if parts of the subject are in motion but parts are not. I usually strive to freeze the face but show motion in the limbs, at least for instrumentalists:<br /><br /><img src="http://marcsabatella.zenfolio.com/img/v6/p863367436-3.jpg" /><br /><br />One more word about the sort of portrait-like shots I usually take. I tend to go for shots showing moments of intensity, often featuring almost pained looks on the faces of the musicians:<br /><br /><img src="http://marcsabatella.zenfolio.com/img/v1/p872758471-3.jpg" /><br /><br />These seldom turn out to be the musicians' favorite pictures of themselves. So I do try to capture them smiling or otherwise looking as they might like to see themselves:<br /><br /><img src="http://marcsabatella.zenfolio.com/img/v1/p938025183-3.jpg" /><br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Exposure</span><br /><br />Once you've settled on a basic location and composition for a series of shots, you need to set exposure before you can actually shoot. Yes, I know - your camera has autoexposure, and in other settings it works just fine to just point and shoot and let the camera take care of the rest. But for various reasons that I alluded to above, this doesn't usually work so well for concert photography. I will be more specific about this now.<br /><br />When shooting a single lit figure against a dark background - something very common in concert photography - a camera autoexposure system will typically try to exposure the background to "medium" brightness, like an 18% gray card. This will virtually always result in an overexposed figure, and depending on your aperture and ISO, probably too slow a shutter speed to stop blur. You want to expose for the figure in the light, not the dark background. Here is an example where the dark background would have led the camera to suggest a shutter speed that was unusably slow, yielding a blurry subject and blown out detail in places, and it would have ruined the effect of the dark background as well. If you think the cord growing out of the keyboardist's back is distracting now, imagine how it would looked if the background were a stop brighter:<br /><br /><img src="http://marcsabatella.zenfolio.com/img/v1/p500179620-3.jpg" /><br /><br />Conversely, if there is a bright light in the picture frame, most cameras will underexpose the shot in order to avoid blowing out that light and to keep the average brightness of the scene down. This picture would have come out almost completely black except for the spotlight if I had just blindly accepted the exposure suggested by the camera:<br /><br /><img src="http://marcsabatella.zenfolio.com/img/v7/p711839810-3.jpg" /><br /><br />To some extent, overexposure and underexposure can be dealt with in PP, but best results are always obtained when you get thing as close as practical in camera. The trick is in learning how to do this efficiently.<br /><br />Instead of letting the camera choose an exposure based on the whole scene and then trying to figure out how much adjustment might be necessary and in which direction, I usually find it more effective to use substitute metering - setting exposure based on a scene that is dominated by the kind of lighting I want to expose for. Spot metering can be useful for this, although I actually prefer center-weighted. Either way, you can point directly at your subject and zoom in to center the meter on him or her, then set and lock the exposure using the exposure lock control or simply by being in manual exposure mode. Or you can use a spot on the floor or wall that is in the same light as your subject if that works out better. Once you have set the exposure in this way, you can shoot any composition you want containing that subject with confidence that your subject will remain consistently exposed regardless of how the rest of the scene changes from shot to shot.<br /><br />For example, the camera-suggested exposure in the following shot would have been far too low because the spotlight in the frame would have fooled the meter. The singer would have lost in the shadow:<br /><br /><img src="http://marcsabatella.zenfolio.com/img/v6/p53231013-3.jpg" /><br /><br />But the following shot, taken moments later, would have been overexposed because the spotlight was not in the shot, so the dark background would have fooled the meter instead:<br /><br /><img src="http://marcsabatella.zenfolio.com/img/v6/p523599704-3.jpg" /><br /><br />By carefully metering on the singer himself in the shoot, and then leaving that exposure alone while shooting, I was able to capture both scenes as I wanted them, without having to dial in different amounts and types of exposure compensation throughout the series. The same exposure worked for all shots of that subject form that vantage point, and that is going to be true more often than not.<br /><br />As I mentioned before, I use manual mode more or less exclusively. Pentax cameras provide a button that quickly sets what it thinks is an appropriate shutter speed while I am pointed at my chosen metering target, so I can still take advantage of the camera's metering system, and I can then adjust that suggested exposure as necessary to get the subject as bright as I want. Once set, I can and do simply leave exposure alone until the lighting changes or my attention turns to a subject in different lighting.<br /><br />Even when using substitute metering techniques, you might still need to use compensation at times, however. For instance, positive compensation is often needed for subjects under bright spotlights or else the camera will try to expose to make your subject look only medium bright instead of looking like he or she is in a spotlight. Or, if you are deliberately trying to create a silhouette against a light background, negative compensation might be necessary if metering off the subject. Also, shots taken under strongly colored lighting are likely to cause one color channel of the camera to "clip" - and therefore lose detail - long before the picture looks overexposed as a whole. So you often need to underexpose in strongly colored light. For these reasons and others, compensation can still be necessary. But it is much easier to adjust based on your subject and how you want it to appear, rather than trying to figure out how to adjust an exposure your camera is making based largely on one aspect of a scene (like a dark background or a spotlight) in order to make a totally unrelated aspect of the scene (like your subject) come out the way you want.<br /><br />I should note that in practice, I actually don't bother going through all of this very often. At some venues where I shoot regularly, I know before I arrive what exposure settings with work. ISO 1600, f/2.8, and 1/45" is so typical at one venue, for instance, that I can set that before leaving my house and never revisit it. Usually, when I first begin shooting at a venue I will take test shots of different spots on the stage to see if exposure needs to be adjusted up or down from one spot to the next because of the arrangement of lights. I then memorize the shutter speeds that worked: 1/45" when shooting most of the musicians but 1/30" for the drummer and 1/60" for anyone at the front microphone, for instance. Again, using manual mode makes it simple to actually get the camera to use the settings I want, as long as I remember to change shutter speeds when appropriate.<br /><br />You might find that your favorite venue lets you be similarly consistent about exposure. If it is especially well lit, you might not need ISO 1600 or f/2.8, or you might be able to get a faster shutter speed. If it is not as well lit, you might need to increase ISO further if your camera allows, or use a larger aperture if your lens allows. Or, you might just settle for an underexposed picture in order to keep shutter speeds high enough, and hope to be able to correct this in PP. I routinely shoot a little underexposed at ISO 1600 and push exposure up to a stop or so in PP - giving me the equivalent of ISO 3200 - and still get acceptable (to me) results in terms of noise. That depends on your camera and your standards. But if you're thinking that you'll be able to shoot with a typical f/4-5.6 zoom at ISO 200, you are likely to be extremely disappointed.<br /><br />In case you are unclear on the tradeoffs between ISO, apeture, and shutter speed, you might want to read up more on exposure elsewhere. What I'll say here is this: higher ISO means more noise (graininess); larger aperture - represented by smaller f-numbers - means shallower depth of field (DOF) which can make getting your subject in focus more difficult; slower shutter speed means blur from camera shake or subject motion. Expect to need ISO around 1600 and aperture around f/2.8 in order to get a shutter speed fast enough to combat blur. The faster the shutter speed the better, so even if I have the luxury of having enough light to not need ISO 1600 or f/2.8, I'll often leave ISO and aperture there just to take advantage of faster shutter speeds. But if your camera or lens does not perform well enough for you at those settings, by all means, decrease ISO or stop down the lens when you can do so without introducing too much blur.<br /><br />I find 1/30" a good benchmark for controlling blur from subject motion if my timing is good, and it's fast enough that between the stabilization technology built in to my camera and taking advantage of whatever physical aids I can (walls, posts, chairs, etc), I don't have to worry too much about blur from camera shake even when using my 135mm lens. Of course, 1/30" won't stop a subject in active motion, but as I said, if my timing is good, I can expect a high percentage of reasonably sharp pictures.<br /><br />If necessary, I'll shoot slower, but I expect to need to take more shots in order to get lucky enough to have one come out acceptably sharp. I've occasionally resorted to speeds as slow as 1/6" and managed to get good results, but that's not something one can count on. Here's one where I got lucky at that speed:<br /><br /><img src="http://marcsabatella.zenfolio.com/img/v8/p497905165-3.jpg" /><br /><br />At 1/120", unless you are shooting at long telephoto lengths (200mm or beyond on APS-C) or not supporting yourself and the camera at all, you can reasonably expect most shots to come out sharp. Some musicians I find notoriously difficult to get sharp pictures of because the move so much, but if I can get them in a situation where I can use 1/120" or faster, I can usually nail them. So although f/2.8 is usually adequate for me, I am happy to have a 50mm lens at f/1.7 to help me get those those kinds of shutter speeds when I really need them:<br /><br /><img src="http://marcsabatella.zenfolio.com/img/v8/p193645674-3.jpg" /><br /><br />Most of your shots will probably end up between these extremes, so your success will come down to your timing and ability to stabilize yourself and the camera/lens.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Focusing And Shooting</span><br /><br />Focus similarly can be done using a combination of automatic and manual techniques. The main problem with simply pointing and shooting is that often, the camera will notice a microphone or instrument and focus on it instead of the musicians' face. This is of course most likely not what you want. Also, AF tends to be slow on many cameras in low light, and erratic in highly colored stage lighting, causing you to miss more shots than you might like. Plus, when taking multiple shots in a row of the same subject - something you should be in the habit of doing in order to increase your chances of at least one coming out blur-free - you don't want the camera stopping to refocus (and possibly getting it wrong) between shots. So just as with exposure, you will often want to set focus once, then shoot a whole series.<br /><br />The specific of how to do this vary with camera brands and models, which is why I suggested looking into this when initially setting up your camera. As I mentioned, I have mine set up so that a button on the back of the camera temporarily disables AF. I'll half press the shutter to perform an initial focus, and if I judge that the camera was successful, I will then park my thumb on the AF cancel button while I snap as many shots as I want. Others will use a button to focus and have their cameras set so that pressing the shutter does not refocus, which accomplishes the same goal: focus once, shoot as often as you like.<br /><br />That initial focus, of course, is very important. Many of my favorite concert lenses are manual focus only. That takes practice, but I am pretty good at it by now. When using an autofocus lens, I will usually let the camera try, but knowing that it might miss, I rarely accept its focus without verifying it for myself in the viewfinder. Most modern Pentax lenses allow you to override focus manually after AF lock has been achieved, without having to turn off AF, and I use this facility quite often. So even if you mostly use AF, having good MF skills can help a lot.<br /><br />Psychologically, many of us have a tendency to make the same mistake the camera does: to focus on a microphone or instrument in front of the subject rather than the subject himself. You have to be very careful not to allow the camera to do this when using AF, and also not to do this yourself when using MF. Here's a shot where an AF system might have been fooled, but focusing manually I was able to get what I wanted:<br /><br /><img src="http://marcsabatella.zenfolio.com/img/v1/p1008716317-3.jpg" /><br /><br />I will often take a test shot and examine the results on the LCD at high magnification. Only after convincing myself that focus is good will I take more shots. I might do this several times before being satisfied. Luckily, musicians usually tend to stay in one spot long enough - or at least return to one spot often enough - to make this feasible. In that sense, it is easier than most sports. So by all means, check images and/or histograms on your LCD periodically to make sure you are getting the shots you think you are in terms of exposure and expression as well as focus. But be aware that depending on the setting, the bright light from the LCD might be distracting.<br /><br />Speaking of distractions: for all their other advantages, DSLR's have a reputation for loud shutters (and Pentax DSLR's especially so). Even the quietest DSLR makes more noise than is normally acceptable during a quiet classical concert. I try to time my shots to occur during moments when it is not likely to be bothersome. For some concerts, that means I can shoot whenever I want, of course. For others, it means avoiding shooting during certain tunes only. For others, it means waiting for the loudest passages, or perhaps only when the applause starts at the end of a piece (but hopefully before musicians have put their instruments down).<br /><br />I've given my opinion on flash elsewhere, but again for the record: don't use it unless you know for a fact it won't be disruptive. And I don't know about any other musicians, but from my own perspective, I can tell you it's <span style="font-style: italic;">always</span> disruptive to me. If you do shoot in a situation where it is acceptable and you don't think the light from the flash will ruin the mood of the shot, that does of course change everything regarding exposure, but you'll have to turn elsewhere for advice on that - it's just not my thing.<br /><br />One final note: I usually shoot with some sort of objective in mind. For instance, to capture at least one good shot of every musician, to capture different group poses that seem representative of the band as a whole, to capture of a shot of someone playing a specific instrument that I have not captured them using before, and so forth. When I think I have shot enough, I usually put my camera away and go back to just listening. This frees up space for other photographers if I am in the front, but it also allows me to enjoy the music more - which is, after all, presumably related to why we shoot concerts in the first place.Marc Sabatellahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00280931807746316434noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1460687387614137618.post-71584342549660309742009-04-18T19:19:00.013-06:002009-05-03T12:49:54.444-06:00Creative Improvised Music - A Wakeup Call From Ken VandermarkI attended a show recently that featured saxophonist Ken Vandermark, and it got me thinking.<br /><br /><img src="http://marcsabatella.zenfolio.com/img/v7/p26380869-3.jpg" /><br /><br />I first became aware of Ken almost 20 years ago. At the time, I was mostly into very mainstream jazz - Charlie Parker, Bill Evans, etc. I was knew of, had respect for, but didn't really listen much to, certain "free jazz" musicians that had strong ties to the tradition - Cecil Taylor and Ornette Coleman in particular. And at some point after moving to Colorado in 1988, I began subscribing to Cadence magazine. Cadence covers jazz, but also more generally "creative improvised music" - much of which exists outside the radar of the mainstream jazz media. And it seemed that every other CD they reviewed at that time featured Ken Vandermark.<br /><br />I don't know that it is possible to describe this music succinctly, because by its very nature, much of it defies convention of genre or idiom. It often involves improvisation that is free of typical chord structures and hence is often atonal. Some people find it hard to identify any sort of structure, but then, many find it hard to recognize structure in bebop.<br /><br />I started listening to some of this music, including Ken's, and was intrigued. For quite some time I worked incorporating some of these sounds and ideas into my own composition and playing, and I found it very musically rewarding. I even ended up recording a CD with trumpeter Hugh Ragin for the Creative Improvised Music Projects label, which is run by the same folks (Bob Rusch & company) that publish Cadence Magazine.<br /><br />That was all while having a day job as a software engineer, treating music as a hobby. At some point I realized that playing music "as a hobby" was about as fulfilling as when someone you really like tells you that they like you too - "as a friend". So I quit the day job and went into music full time. At some point after that, however, I had to accept that as personally fulfilling as this "creative improvised music" was, my career pretty much demanded I focus primarily on traditional forms. Between playing a steady gig for many years at El Chapultepec (where it was all about playing "standards"), going back to school to study composition, teaching jazz theory, and any number of other factors, my musical thinking has been much more focused on mainstream jazz again for the last decade or so. It's not that I deliberately turned my back on "creative improvised music", but I did not go out of my way to make room for it, either, and not surprisingly, it didn't make room for me.<br /><br />When Ken Vandermark came to town last week with Dutch musician Ab Baars, I of course attended, and really enjoyed the performance. It also served as a wakeup call - a reminder of something that had been missing from my musical expression for too long. I'm not sure how I'll respond to that realization, but it was an eye-opener. I still have a lot of straightahead compositions I hope to record soon, and I still expect to be making my living playing mainstream jazz. But I need to keep in mind what it was I loved so much that it set me on this path in the first place.<br /><br />Here are some shots from the concert featuring Ken along with saxophonist Ab Baars, bassist Wilbert De Joode, and drummer Martin van Duynhoven:<br /><br /><img src="http://marcsabatella.zenfolio.com/img/v5/p25117540-3.jpg" /><br /><br /><img src="http://marcsabatella.zenfolio.com/img/v8/p154032300-3.jpg" /><br /><br /><img src="http://marcsabatella.zenfolio.com/img/v7/p210615505-3.jpg" /><br /><br /><img src="http://marcsabatella.zenfolio.com/img/v8/p300676958-3.jpg" /><br /><br />By the way, I was also surprised to see that Ken was about the same age as me, and had actually only just hit the scene when I became aware of him. For some reason, as much as I was seeing his name back then, I assumed he had been around a long time already.<br /><br />A couple more shots:<br /><br /><img src="http://marcsabatella.zenfolio.com/img/v7/p492526510-3.jpg" /><br /><br /><img src="http://marcsabatella.zenfolio.com/img/v5/p351582596-3.jpg" />Marc Sabatellahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00280931807746316434noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1460687387614137618.post-69233268422575681902009-04-05T23:58:00.011-06:002009-04-06T21:21:50.167-06:00Big Birds at Prospect ParkI'm lucky to live in an area with a lot of wonderful parks and open space areas. One of my favorites is Prospect Park, and I've visited it several times lately. The weather has been all over the map the last couple of weeks - from warm sunny days to blizzards - but that's spring in Colorado. And that's a beautiful time and place to be. I've done my share of landscape painting over the years, and landscape photography as well. But for some reason, this month it has mostly been birds that have caught my eye.<br /><br />I am sure cormorants have been around here longer than I have, but this year is the first time I've noticed them, or knew what they were. A whole flock has taken over a tree on a pond at Prospect Park:<br /><br /><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3543/3397611462_7455fb10c8.jpg" /><br /><br />They use the tree as a launching pad for excursions to feed and to collect nesting materials:<br /><br /><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3579/3396801401_5c7a3f554a.jpg" /><br /><br /><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3349/3414084915_5e4c57ac05.jpg" /><br /><br />The way they are building a network of nests in the tree reminds me very much of the condominium building visible behind the tree:<br /><br /><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3652/3414890128_03fb8de8f5.jpg" /><br /><br />One day while my wife Wendy and I were watching and photographing the cormorants, a couple of birdwatchers came and told us where we could find a hawk in a tree elsewhere in the park. We were a bit skeptical that it would still be there when we got there, but there it was:<br /><br /><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3660/3396807617_3907279018.jpg" ><br /><br />We thought we were lucky to get off a couple of shots, as we were sure it would fly off at the sound of our shutters. But it turned out this hawk was unflappable. We were able to photograph it from as close as we wanted:<br /><br /><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3606/3414085551_9a2a49b53e.jpg" /><br /><br />On two separate occasions I watched and shot this hawk for probably an hour. It didn't do anything really dramatic, but I managed to catch a number of "moments", such as here when it might have found some prey:<br /><br /><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3564/3414086729_d5bde8ffdf.jpg" /><br /><br />Rather than dive and attack, it started calling out - perhaps to alert the other hawks in the area:<br /><br /><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3552/3414892506_2bb7ac7a71.jpg" /><br /><br />This bird was circling above us the whole time, but never came in any closer:<br /><br /><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3652/3414891314_f22cae652d.jpg" /><br /><br />Eventually, my friend on the branch above me lost interest in whatever had commanded its attention, and went back to more mundane activities, such as scratching its head:<br /><br /><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3321/3415739532_edaaf16b7c.jpg" /><br /><br />At one point it shifted position and lifted its tail and I was sure it was going to fly off, but all it actually did was poop:<br /><br /><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3550/3414892808_0998dd6a1e.jpg" /><br /><br />When the wind blew, it would have to do something to keep its balance. In this instance, it apparently decided it was best off balancing on one foot:<br /><br /><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3330/3414932795_2959863bd0.jpg" /><br /><br />It was also a gust of wind that prompted the most dramatic pose offered by the hawk:<br /><br /><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3421/3396807103_5f7a99f182.jpg" /><br /><br />I have no idea how long this particular hawk will stay in the area, but I plan to visit as often as I can, as this was just an amazing experience.Marc Sabatellahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00280931807746316434noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1460687387614137618.post-84529709011107598562009-03-07T16:30:00.003-07:002009-04-07T09:23:04.458-06:00Returning To The SceneAs some of you know, I played the piano at a jazz club in Denver called El Chapultepec (aka "the Pec") for a number of years, ending back in July. I hadn't been back since - not because there were any hard feelings, but simply because there hadn't been any particular reason to visit. A few days ago, the saxophonist I had worked with most of those years - Keith Oxman - suggested we meet there and visit. OK, and also to see about maybe playing there again. When they ended our run last summer, they decided not to have anyone there on a steady basis any more on weekend nights but instead to bring in different bands each night, as most clubs do. No particular reason we couldn't be one of them!<br /><br />So we dropped by last night. It was great to see the owner Angela, the bartender James, and the rest of the crew again. The band du jour was led by trumpeter Hugh Ragin, who was the first musician I worked with regularly in Colorado, going back almost 20 years. This from last night:<br /><br /><img src="http://marcsabatella.zenfolio.com/img/v8/p497905165-3.jpg" /><br /><br />BTW, that was shot at 1/6". I was able to rest my elbows on a countertop, so you can't credit me or Pentax shake reduction too much for the lack of camera shake. But for the lack of subject motion blur, you've got to credit Hugh, who has one of the most relaxed trumpet techniques you're ever likely to see.<br /><br />They've made some cosmetic changes at the Pec over the last few months. Nothing really major - some faux brickwork behind the stage, new carpet in the dining area, etc. But one of the most immediately noteworthy changes was the lighting. At least the way they had it set last night, it was still as bad as ever toward the front of the stage where Hugh was. But the light on the piano was a *lot* brighter and cooler than in the past. Actually, I think it mostly came from a neon beer sign, but light is light. In this shot of pianist Ron Jolly, it's hard to recognize it as the same place, as anyone who has tried to shoot there will attest:<br /><br /><img src="http://marcsabatella.zenfolio.com/img/v7/p229158050-3.jpg" /><br /><br />Keith and I sat in and played a tune or two. No pictures of me, of course, but here's Keith, pretty much back to 100% after his bout with cancer:<br /><br /><img src="http://marcsabatella.zenfolio.com/img/v5/p148068353-3.jpg" /><br /><br />On those last two, I'll take some credit for good timing in getting reasonably sharp pictures at shutter speeds of 1/20" and 1/15" respectively :-)<br /><br />Oh yeah - we did talk to Angela, and she's more than happy to have us back from time to time. I think playing there on an occasional basis will be great - it will be more likely that we'll be able to get people to show up to hear us as opposed to just depending on the people who happen to drop in as we always had (it's the busiest neighborhood in the city). So hopefully I'll be seeing some of you there at some point!Marc Sabatellahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00280931807746316434noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1460687387614137618.post-37594783198837056742009-02-16T21:18:00.009-07:002009-04-17T21:31:51.648-06:00Rene Marie - Voice of My Beautiful CountryMany of you have probably heard of Rene Marie, whether you remember it or not. Jazz fans may know her from several recordings she did for the MAXJAZZ label. But beyond the jazz world, she had her additional "fifteen minutes of fame" in the United States at large last year when she sang at the Denver State of the City address. She had been invited to sing the national anthem, but she chose to use her own arrangement of the song in which she superimposed the words of the patriotic spiritual <span style="font-style: italic;">Lift Every Voice And Sing</span> over the melody to <span style="font-style: italic;">The Star-Spangled Banner</span>. That caused quite a stir and was a hot topic for a while on talk radio and political commentary nationwide, as some people took great offense at this.<br /><br />Before I go any further, I should disclose that I know Rene and consider her a friend. Not so close that I think I can speak for her, nor so close that I imagine she would particularly care what I think. But close enough to be confident that she would encourage me to be honest just as I believe she has been.<br /><br />If you're looking for insight into why Rene made the choice she did, you can read the <a href="http://renemarie.com/qa.htm">statement</a> she released on her web site some time ago. Frankly, the State of the City story is old news. What I really want to share is my reaction on hearing the piece - and the whole three-movement suite of which it is a part - performed in full last week at an event honoring the 200th birthday of Abraham Lincoln. However, to the extent my feelings were informed by the events of last year, and since the story from my perspective does start with the State of the City address last year, I'll begin by saying a few words about the earlier event.<br /><br />I was not present at the State of the City address, but like most people in Denver, and many around the country, I heard about it after the fact. My feelings at the time were probably what a lot of people thought: that it was an a very odd thing to choose to do, but also not worth getting as worked up over as some people were getting. I mean, on one hand, she <span style="font-style: italic;">was </span>asked (albeit apparently not being paid) to sing a song, and she responded by singing a somewhat <span style="font-style: italic;">different </span>one: same melody, but different lyrics. A questionable choice, to be sure. On the other hand, consider that a good number of performances of the national anthem have no lyrics at all (eg, every time it was played at an Olympic award ceremony last year). So it can hardly be claimed that omitting the original lyrics was a travesty in itself. Furthermore, the lyrics she used instead can not reasonably be said to be inappropriate for a civic function:<br /><dl><dd>Lift every voice and sing,</dd><dd>'Til earth and heaven ring,</dd><dd>Ring with the harmonies of Liberty;</dd><dd>Let our rejoicing rise</dd><dd>High as the listening skies,</dd><dd>Let it resound loud as the rolling sea.</dd><dd>Sing a song full of the faith that the dark past has taught us,</dd><dd>Sing a song full of the hope that the present has brought us;</dd><dd>Facing the rising sun of our new day begun,</dd><dd>Let us march on 'til victory is won.</dd></dl> <p>Liberty, rejoicing, faith, hope, victory - these are the themse of practically every patriotic song ever written, including <span style="font-style: italic;">The Star-Spangled Banner</span>. It is not like Rene was singing "kill whitey" or "death to the infidels" or any such nonsense, as one might have surmised from the vehemence of the reaction by some against her.<br /></p><p>To the extent that there was anything wrong with her choice, it really just had to do with the idea of meeting expectations - and expectations that have particular meaning to a lot of people. Now, as a jazz musician myself, I know that the notion of surprise is one of the defining elements of the genre. It is the basis for the appeal of improvisation. I would hate to be called to task every time I have substituted a Db7 chord for a Gmi7. On the other hand, I don't need to be told that there are certain liberties one might be "expected" to take, and others one might not be. As far as I could see, Rene may have crossed a line, but it was hardly a line between black and white (in any sense of the words), nor did she cross it very far, and I don't really see why people took so much offense.</p><p>Even among people who were trying to be civilized in their criticism, I thought one comment in particular was off-base: the comparison to a house painter being hired to paint your house green but responding by painting it red instead. There are two major flaws in that analogy. One is that no money was involved. And the other is that if someone paints tyour house, that is something you have to see every day until you pay someone to paint it again. There were - or should have been, I thought - no similarly lingering effects from a song. No money wasted, no real harm done.<br /></p>As far as I was concerned, that was all there was to the story, until I heard Rene speak about it last week at the Lincoln's birthday celebration and then perform the full suite of which her arrangement of <span style="font-style: italic;">Lift Every Voice And Sing </span>/ <span style="font-style: italic;">The Star-Spangled Banner </span>was a part. The event was held at St. John's Episcopal Cathedral in Denver, and it featured Dr. Vincent Harding, an associate of the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., moderating a "dialog on race and the future of America." If you do read the statement on Rene Marie's site, you'll have a pretty good idea of what she said last week, but her remarks in person went a bit further in explaining the background behind how she came to write the suite. At the risk of perhaps getting some minor details wrong, I will try to summarize her story, while relating it to my own experience.<br /><br /><img src="http://marcsabatella.zenfolio.com/img/v5/p479349326-3.jpg" /><br /><br />Rene began by talking about being in Russia on a concert a few years ago. A reporter who was interviewing her referred to her an American, and that took her aback slightly. She sad that this got her thinking about why she felt that way, because it was not that she was <span style="font-style: italic;">not </span>American, or that she was <span style="font-style: italic;">ashamed </span>of being an American. As she shared her own thoughts on this, my mind turned its attention to my own feelings.<br /><br />My sense is that one identifies oneself in various different ways, but any time one belongs to an minority group, that identify is often stronger than others. For instance, I am a visual artist. Right now, I paint mostly in oils, but I do not necessarily identify with other oil painters specifically. However, when I was primarily a pastelist, I identified with other pastelists to a <span style="font-style: italic;">much </span>greater extent. I joined the Pastel Society of Colorado, entered pastel-only competitions and exhibitions, and so forth. I think this is because oil is one of the dominant mediums in the world of visual art, where pastel is definitely a "minority." Or, as another example, I am a photographer, and as such have a certain connection to other photographers, but I feel that connection much more strongly among that minority of my fellow photographers who shoot with Pentax gear. I do not sense the same type of camaraderie among the people I know who shoot Canon or Nikon, and I think that is because they dominate the market and Pentax is little guy in comparison. I also suspect the jazz community of which I am a part is more tightly knit than, say, the pop/rock community.<br /><br />Being a pastelist in a world of mostly oil painters, or a Pentax shooter in a world of mostly Canon/Nikon shooters, or jazz musicians in a world of mostly pop/rock musicians, gives me a certain sense of identity. As a white person living in America, I can't say I feel any special identity that is associated with being white or with being American. My sense of identify as a pastelist or Pentaxian or jazz musician is far stronger than my identity as a white person or as an American. If I were black, I could see that part of my identity being correspondingly stronger. But white or black, I would be surprised if an interviewer here in America referred to me as an "American," as if that were a significant part of my identity here. After all, virtually everyone I encounter in my daily life is an American too. You might as well refer to me as a ten-fingered person. And merely visiting another country does not change my self-identity. Regardless of where I am located at the moment, my identity as a pastelist or Pentaxian or jazz musician would seem more significant to me than my identity as an American.<br /><br />Now, none of this is what Rene Marie was talking about. It is how <span style="font-style: italic;">I </span>related to what she was talking about. What she was talking about was not just the <span style="font-style: italic;">irrelevance </span>of her identity as an American, but also how it seemed somehow in <span style="font-style: italic;">contradiction </span>with other aspects of her identity (not that she put it in those terms), even though of course she <span style="font-style: italic;">is </span>an American. But like all black Americans, she has had to reconcile her identity as "black" with the reality of living in a country in which her ancestors were enslaved because of that identify, in which her parents were not allowed to eat at certain lunch counters or attend certain schools because of that identity. It is possible to be American and to love America even while living with that contradiction, and that is what she spoke about.<br /><br />As she related, she grew up singing both "The Star-Spangled Banner" and "Lift Every Voice and Sing" and enjoying both. But the former was specifically about a war that was fought at a time when her ancestors were still slaves; it was about a flag that flew over buildings that her ancestors were not allowed to enter. As such, what I think I heard her saying was that it was harder to relate to as a child, even though she enjoyed singing it and loved what the country had become since then. "Lift Every Voice and Sing," however, resonated more strongly with her from the beginning, speaking as it does about the ideals of the faith and liberty.<br /><br />It was thoughts on these topics - even if I have taken the liberty of personalizing some of those thoughts - that prompted Rene to want to write a suite of patriotic music that reconciled her identity as "black" with her identity as an American. So she took the lyrics to two patriotic songs - "America the Beautiful" and "My Country 'Tis of Thee" and set them to her own melodies. The music, I think, came from her identity as a black person and from her Christian upbringing; they are essentially gospel melodies and harmonies. I think that fusing "Lift Every Voice and Sing" and "The Star-Spangled Banner" would have been a similar reconciliation of these two identities that are, of course, not actually in contradiction at all.<br /><br />With all these ideas floating in my head, and the spectacular surroundings of the cathedral itself, it was a sublime setting to listen to the music. Of course, everyone present knew enough of the backstory that there was no question as to the appropriateness of this arrangement in this situation. And the musicians accompanying Rene - Jeff Jenkins on piano, Mark Simon on bass, and Paul Romaine on drums - are among the top players in Denver (which is saying a lot).<br /><br /><img src="http://marcsabatella.zenfolio.com/img/v6/p376031906-3.jpg" /><br /><br />I have heard Rene perform in other venues and know her to be a world-class musician, but the impact of this performance was on another plane entirely. It was inspiring, uplifting, healing, mesmerizing, exciting, creative, and beautiful all at once. I think it safe to say that it would have been difficult for anyone - even her critics - not to have come away stunned in the most positive sense of the word. I don't know if she recorded this performance or not, but you can hear a studio version on <a href="http://renemarie.com/music.htm">her site</a>.<br /><br /><img src="http://marcsabatella.zenfolio.com/img/v4/p499016990-3.jpg" />Marc Sabatellahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00280931807746316434noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1460687387614137618.post-33809522218900673272009-01-17T13:41:00.004-07:002009-01-17T14:45:40.297-07:00Fred Hess Recording SessionEarlier this month I had the pleasure of taking part in a recording session by the Fred Hess Big Band. Fred's music is always a fun challenge to play, but spending the better part a whole week in rehearsals, a concert, and of course the recording itself added a new human dimension. Instead of struggling on my own to get my own parts down, showing up for the gig, playing the tunes once with a handful of musicians, and then going home, it was an experience shared with at least 17 other people and lkely to be remembered by all of us for a long time.<br /><br />It started with a day of rehearsal. Fred's charts are very complex and require a fair amount of explanation:<br /><br /><a href="http://marcsabatella.zenfolio.com/img/v6/p564800009-4.jpg"><br /><img src="http://marcsabatella.zenfolio.com/img/v6/p564800009-2.jpg" /><br /></a><br /><br />Tyler Gilmore of the 9th & Lincoln Orchestra served as conductor, so Fred could concentrate on playing. Tyler was the glue that held the whole thing together:<br /><br /><a href="http://marcsabatella.zenfolio.com/img/v5/p1025033399-4.jpg"><br /><img src="http://marcsabatella.zenfolio.com/img/v5/p1025033399-2.jpg" /><br /></a><br /><br />However, Fred led the band during our reading of his infamous "The Clefs Visit Grandma's". I suppose the most relevant thing I can tell you about this chart is that the idea of me getting up from the piano and taking a picture in the middle of the performance was not out of character for the piece:<br /><br /><a href="http://marcsabatella.zenfolio.com/img/v3/p826941301-4.jpg"><br /><img src="http://marcsabatella.zenfolio.com/img/v3/p826941301-2.jpg" /><br /></a><br /><br />One of the highlights of the week - and indeed, of my whole career - was working with drummer Matt Wilson and bassist Ken Filiano. As is the custom during most recording sessions, both Matt and Ken were in an isolation booths:<br /><br /><a href="http://marcsabatella.zenfolio.com/img/v5/p995375996-4.jpg"><br /><img src="http://marcsabatella.zenfolio.com/img/v5/p995375996-2.jpg" /><br /></a><br /><br /><a href="http://marcsabatella.zenfolio.com/img/v4/p932757896-4.jpg"><br /><img src="http://marcsabatella.zenfolio.com/img/v4/p932757896-2.jpg" /><br /></a><br /><br />This was a little disappointing, as part of what makes a rhythm section work is close communication, and that's difficult when you can't even see each other. Luckily, the gig we did at Dazzle that week was another story entirely, and that was magical:<br /><br /><a href="http://marcsabatella.zenfolio.com/img/v4/p570308613-4.jpg"><br /><img src="http://marcsabatella.zenfolio.com/img/v4/p570308613-2.jpg" /><br /></a><br /><br />Matt and Ken have been Fred's recording and NYC rhythm section for several years now and know his music pretty well, but Ron Miles has an even longer history with Fred. Working with Ron was another highlight for me. Although we have performed together several times before, and both Ron and I have recorded with Fred individually, this is the first recording Ron and I have been on together.<br /><br /><a href="http://marcsabatella.zenfolio.com/img/v3/p831974769-4.jpg"><br /><img src="http://marcsabatella.zenfolio.com/img/v3/p831974769-2.jpg" /><br /></a><br /><br />Here are a few of final shots, of the saxophone and trumpet sections and of engineer Colin Bricker:<br /><br /><a href="http://marcsabatella.zenfolio.com/img/v5/p599017849-4.jpg"><br /><img src="http://marcsabatella.zenfolio.com/img/v5/p599017849-2.jpg" /><br /></a><br /><br /><a href="http://marcsabatella.zenfolio.com/img/v6/p715586758-4.jpg"><br /><img src="http://marcsabatella.zenfolio.com/img/v6/p715586758-2.jpg" /><br /></a><br /><br /><a href="http://marcsabatella.zenfolio.com/img/v6/p629384576-4.jpg"><br /><img src="http://marcsabatella.zenfolio.com/img/v6/p629384576-2.jpg" /><br /></a>Marc Sabatellahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00280931807746316434noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1460687387614137618.post-50129443171559089872008-12-04T11:26:00.006-07:002008-12-08T14:46:10.840-07:00Hymn For PeterDedicated to Peter Fopeano (1965-2008)<br /><br /><a href="http://www.marcsabatella.com/music/peter_orchestra.mp3">Listen to a (simulated) orchestra playing my composition, "Hymn for Peter"<br /></a><br />My wife Wendy's family has a large Thanksgiving gathering every few years, with relatives coming in from all over the world. Although he would sometimes make the trip for part of the time, her youngest brother Peter was never able to be with us on Thanksgiving day itself, because he worked at a casino and Thanksgiving was one of their busiest days of the year.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/marcsabatella/3092942653/sizes/l/"><br /><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3120/3092942653_c32afab905_m.jpg" style="float: left; margin-right: 10px;" /><br /></a><br /><br />Peter lost his job earlier a few months ago, and while that is seldom a good thing, one silver lining was that he was going to be on Thanksgiving for the first time in many years. Although this year was not going to be one of the large worldwide gatherings, my wife and I made plans to fly out to Kansas City to celebrate with her immediate family, and Peter in particular.<br /><br />The morning before we were to fly out, we received news that Peter had been shot and killed while sitting in his car - an unintended victim of crossfire between rivals standing on either side.<br /><br />Needless to say, our trip to Kansas City took on an entirely different meaning, as our celebration was tempered by mourning. I do not think I can express my feelings about all this in words here in this blog. However, on Friday - the day after Thanksgiving - I had time to sit alone with my thoughts for some time, and not surprisingly, I turned to music for release. I decided to write a composition to perform at Peter's memorial service.<br /><br />The idea started as a simple tune that I would play on the piano and embellish with improvisation in my usual manner. My model was Don Pullen's Ode to Life, which is a jazz piece that incorporates improvisation but has a classical feel to the composed sections. Because I wished to be alone, I did not compose at the piano (which was in the dining room), but rather in silence with pencil and paper only, in the bedroom where Wendy and I were staying. While this is not my norm, it is not something I have no experience with, either - I composed away from the piano often when I was writing in a classical idiom as part of my degree.<br /><br />Perhaps for these reasons, when the first few phrases came out of my pencil, I realized I was writing not a jazz tune at all, but a hymn. After writing the basics of the melody and harmony for the first section of the piece, I turned my attention to arranging it in traditional four-part chorale harmony. I think wrote a second section for the piece and arranged it similarly. At that point, I had a completed hymn, but not a clear idea of what I would do with it.<br /><br />Since I was not at the piano, and I had my computer with me, I entered my hymn into Finale, the scoring software I have used for years, so I could hear it, edit it, and then print it out. At first, when I hit the playback button to listen to the results, it played using the default piano sound. But at some point I started thinking about what it would sound like if it were sung - even though I had not (and still have not) written any lyrics for this. So I changed the sound to a sample of a choir singing "oooh" and "aaah". Although I can't say the results were impressive in themselves, it immediately struck me that the piece really needed to be scored for some sort of instrumental ensemble. The most obvious choice seemed to be a straight rendering of the four-part SATB harmony into the instruments of the quartet: two violins, viola, and cello. I set this up in Finale, and then started considering how I might put together a quartet or even a small string section (with multiple players per part) to record this during the week between then and the memorial.<br /><br />By the next day, however, it occurred to me that I really wanted to hear how it would sound with a full orchestra. I knew there was no way I could get an actual orchestra lined up to play it such short notice (and indeed, it would be difficult even with no time constraints). But I also know that Finale comes with some fairly high-quality orchestral samples - ones that are often used in film scoring. So I spent most of Saturday and Sunday working on an orchestral arrangement of my hymn.<br /><br />What I ended up with is a pretty faithful rendering of the original SATB chorale harmonization, using the different colors of the orchestra to add variety, as opposed to actually creating new harmonies and so forth. Over the last few days since returning to Denver, I have continued to tweak this, and while I suspect I'll continue to do in the future, I think this at a place where I would like to share it. So if you have not already clicked the link at the top of this entry, you can do so now.<br /><br />The memorial service is Monday in Kansas City. I still have not decided if I am going to simply play this on the piano as per my initial plan, or use this recording, or use a recording of a real string quartet that I still plan to try to make between now and then. I may well decided to play it myself, since that in some ways is the most personal expression I can put forward at the service. As a composer, my orchestral arrangement is at least as personal to me as my own playing. But of course, this is not about my relationship to the music - it's about expressing my feelings about Peter.<br /><br />Peter, this is for you.Marc Sabatellahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00280931807746316434noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1460687387614137618.post-48276487188714376222008-11-17T23:56:00.021-07:002010-03-29T17:59:30.588-06:00Concert Photography - EquipmentI do a lot of writing, a lot of teaching, and a lot of <a href="http://marcsabatella.zenfolio.com/f728849872/">concert photography</a>. So I figured it was time to combine these activities and write up some advice on shooting concerts. This first entry will deal with equipment. There is also a second article on <a href="http://marcsabatella.blogspot.com/2009/04/concert-photography-technique.html">technique</a>, and now a third on <a href="http://marcsabatella.blogspot.com/2010/03/concert-photography-post-processing_28.html">post-processing</a>.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Light</span><br /><br /><img style="float: left; margin-right: 10px; width: 40%;" src="http://marcsabatella.zenfolio.com/img/v3/p951474309-2.jpg" /><br /><br />Let me start by telling you what kind of advice you won't get here: advice on using flash. That's for a different blog, one perhaps entitled "how to annoy musicians and fellow listeners while ending up with pictures that fail to capture the original mood of the event". OK, that's a little harsh - flash <span style="font-style: italic;">can</span> be effective and useful for certain effects and in certain settings, but it's just not what I do.<br /><br />Instead, we're going to be talking about available light photography. For outdoor concerts, life is pretty simple, but not so for indoor concerts. While the lights on stage may seem bright in comparison to the dark of the club or hall, they usually aren't very bright by photographic standards. So we're talking about low light photography. This means shooting at relatively high sensitivity (eg, ISO 400, 800, 1600, or even higher) in order to get shutter speeds fast enough to avoid blur. Many of the techniques we'll talk about involve dealing with these issues.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Camera</span><br /><br />Now, it is certainly possible to shoot concerts with film cameras, and obviously, people have been doing this for much longer than they have with digital. Most of the advice I give will be similar between film and digital, but I will be focusing on digital, since that is where most of my experience is. In general, you're best off with a digital single lens reflex (DSLR), as they are able to shoot at higher ISO values with lower noise (graininess). So the rest of my comments assume you are using a DSLR. As of this writing, I use a Pentax K200D, which has more than adequate noise performance, even when forced to underexpose at ISO 1600, as is often the case. It also has built-in stabilization, which allows me to shoot at lower shutter speeds than I otherwise might. Stabilization is discussed further below - in the section on lenses - because on other camera systems, stabilization is a function of the lens, not the camera.<br /><br />Of course, some "point and shoot" (P&S) cameras are also capable of good results if you know how to use them to their best advantage. The controls are often different, but if you understand how they work, you may be able to make use of much of the advice I will give on using a DSLR. And even though you cannot change lenses as you can with a DSLR, the discussion on lenses below might be useful in choosing a P&S camera, as you not only want good high ISO performance, but also a lens that will do the job for you, since you won't be able to change lenses later.<br /><br />Your camera will need to provide manual exposure controls of some kind. I prefer the fully manual "M" mode, but creative use of exposure lock, exposure compensation, and other controls in an autoexposure mode can be just as effective.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Lens</span><br /><br />There are two critical factors in considering lenses for concert photography: focal length and maximum aperture. Aperture is easy: basically, you want the biggest maximum aperture (ie, the lowest f-number) you can afford for the focal lengths at which you will be shooting. That is because larger apertures translate into faster shutter speeds, and in low light, we are constantly struggling to get fast enough shutter speeds to combat both camera shake and subject motion. Indeed, lenses with large maximum apertures are often called "fast" lenses, because they allow fast shutter speeds. "Slow" lenses with a maximum aperture slower than f/4 are essentially useless, and you really want f/2.8. You might think that f/2 is even better, and sometimes it is, but not only do lenses get more expensive as the maximum aperture increases, but they also get bigger and heavier, and for telephoto lenses, this can be a very significant factor. Also, f/2 is not always practical for concert photography because the depth of field is so small - it can be impossible to get a musician and his or her instrument to both be in focus. So f/2.8 is kind of a standard maximum aperture to shoot for. The f/2 lenses are more of a special luxury except at certain focal lengths like 50mm where you can get relatively small and inexpensive f/2 lenses quite easily.<br /><br />Focal length is the more difficult consideration in choosing lenses, as this is more subjective, and it probably is not the case that one focal length will suffice. Most photographers these days are accustomed to using zoom lenses, which provide a range of focal lengths, so to some extent, the decision is easier than if you had to choose a single focal length. The advantage of a zoom, of course, is being able to take both wider angle shots and more close-up shots - and everything in between - from the same location. The downside is that f/2.8 zooms tend to be fairly expensive as well as large and heavy. Zooms faster than f/2.8 are practically non-existent, and they are even more expensive, large, and heavy if/when you do find one. So prime lenses - ones with a single focal length - still have their places.<br /><br /><img style="float: left; margin-right: 10px; width: 40%;" src="http://marcsabatella.zenfolio.com/img/v4/p464495989-2.jpg" /><br /><br />As is the case with the guitar player here, many of my concert photographs are basically head-and-shoulder or upper body portraits with instruments. These are the sorts of images musicians like to use as "action shots" in their promotional materials. I suppose I gravitate to these because I am a musician myself. And as you have probably gathered my now, my main interest is jazz, so I am dealing with clubs rather than auditoriums. I tend to shoot from a table in the front at a club when possible, so I am usually only a few meters away from my subjects.<br /><br />To get these kinds of shots at these kinds of distances, a focal length of around 100mm is just about perfect. My most used lens is the manual focus Pentax-M 100 f/2.8, henceforth referred to as the M100/2.8. This is what I used for the guitar player at left, for example. Note that my camera has a 1.5X "crop factor", meaning that 100mm is the equivalent of a 150mm lens in terms of what would produce the same field of view on 35mm film. Most DSLR's are similar in this respect, but be sure to know the equivalent crop factor for your own camera if comparing focal lengths to mine.<br /><br />If I cannot get close to the front in a club, or if I am in a larger auditorium and have to shoot from further back, I will use a longer lens, but the further back I am, the lower the expectations I have regarding the results. I have a manual focus 135mm lens (maximum aperture f/3.5) that works well for me when I am not in the very front, and a manual focus 200mm f/4 lens that I will use on rare occasions when I know I will be really far back but still want to try to take pictures. I have also used a 135mm lens with a 1.4X teleconverter to yield the equivalent of a 200mm lens that is one f-stop slower, but I'm not sure this does better than simply cropping the image from my 135mm lens without a TC. In some larger auditoriums I have even used a basic cheap 50-200mm zoom lens with a maximum aperture of only f/5.6 at the long end. The good news is that stages in large auditoriums also tend to be better lit than in small clubs, so f/5.6 might be fast enough. This is also the lens I used most for outdoor concerts during the day.<br /><br />Here are some samples to show how these focal lengths work. First, another shot from the front row with the M100/2.8:<br /><br /><img src="http://marcsabatella.zenfolio.com/img/v3/p24558598-2.jpg" /><br /><br />And this one from just a little further back with the M135/3.5:<br /><br /><img src="http://marcsabatella.zenfolio.com/img/v1/p249833231-2.jpg" /><br /><br />This one was in a larger auditorium where I was perhaps 20 rows back. The stage was lit well enough that was able to use the DA50-200/4-5.6 zoom at 200mm and f/5.6:<br /><br /><img src="http://marcsabatella.zenfolio.com/img/v0/p274185589-2.jpg" /><br /><br />There are 70-200/2.8 zooms available for most camera brands, and these are quite popular for concert photography. This focal length range worked well for 35mm film, but on cameras with a "cropped" sensor, I find these lenses unnecessarily large, heavy, and expensive (the better part of $1000, and that's without stabilization). Pictured here is a Nikon version:<br /><br /><img src="http://marcsabatella.zenfolio.com/img/v5/p768116056-2.jpg" /><br /><br />If you're serious enough about concert photography to consider buying such a lens, you are probably serious enough to go out of your way to position yourself close to the action so that you don't actually need the 200mm end very much. In situations - like sitting 20 rows back in a large auditorium - where you might you feel the need for 200mm and f/2.8, you'll probably find a 70-200/2.8 too large to deal with if there are other people sitting next to and in front of you. On the other hand, if you're at an outdoor concert during the day, you might want 200mm, but wouldn't need f/2.8.<br /><br />The upshot of this is, I think most people are better off with lenses a bit shorter than 70-200mm as their main concert lenses. A 50-135/2.8 or 50-150/2.8 zoom is not necessarily much cheaper than a 70-200/2.8, but they can be significantly smaller, lighter, and easier to handle, and I think these are more useful focal length ranges for concert photography on a camera with a 1.5X crop factor.<br /><br />Still, even a 50-135/2.8 lens is over twice the length and three times the weight of my M100/2.8. In fact, the M100/2.8 is even smaller than the cheap 18-55mm zoom lenses that most DSLR's are packaged with. Lens size and weight may not matter to everyone, but smaller lenses do help me feel less self-conscious about taking pictures from the audience, and they make the camera easier for me to handhold. Throw in the fact that one can buy an M100/2.8 for under $100 and you can see why I recommend it so highly for Pentax users. But I am not sure if anything comparable exists for other brands. I think Canon and Nikon owners would do well to look at the 70mm, 90mm, 100mm, or 105mm f/2.8 macro lenses, or the 85/1.8 or 100/2 lenses, that are available for these systems.<br /><br />But at around $400 for a single focal length, these are getting expensive enough that many folks may decide that a more versatile 50-135/2.8 or 50-150/2.8 is worth the extra money to cover their telephoto concert needs. Certainly if I were a full-time professional, the lens would pay for itself easily, and I would appreciate the flexibility if I were under pressure to get a certain number and range of pictures. With primes, sticking to one focal length <span style="font-style: italic;">is</span> a little limiting, but changing lenses often can be a hassle. For my purposes, a couple of primes that I change only occasionally meets my needs.<br /><br />Of course, if you're looking to capture full body shots, or wish to include more than one musician in the picture, you'll need a correspondingly shorter focal length. In that case, something like a 50-135/2.8 zoom can make more sense than a longer prime. Or, you can do as I do, and bring a shorter focal length prime as well. I usually bring my DA40/2.8 "pancake" (which takes virtually no space in my bag and runs only a little over $200), although sometimes I will instead bring my manual focus A50/1.7 (also quite small, and well under $100) if I feel I might need something faster than f/2.8. I also have a DA70/2.4 to give me yet more options. But I rarely take more than two of these lenses with me, I decide based on the venue which two to take.<br /><br />The 50mm focal length is worthy of special mention if for no other reason than the fact that this is usually the first "fast" lens people buy - often as fast as f/1.4. While 50mm is shorter than I usually prefer, you can always crop the results to resemble those from a longer lens. And 50mm can be an interesting focal length in itself:<br /><br /><img src="http://marcsabatella.zenfolio.com/img/v0/p501987775-2.jpg" /><br /><br />However, 50mm or even 40mm on a "crop factor" camera is not usually wide enough for shots of a whole stage. For that, depending on the size of the stage and how close you are, you might need 28mm, 18mm, or even shorter. If you move back from the front row, then you don't need such a wide angle lens, but then you usually find the people in front of you end up in the photo, too, which you may not want. I normally have my M28/2.8 (under $50) with me, although I rarely use it for concert photos, because I normally prefer taking more closeup pictures. But here is an especially small stage where 28mm was just barely wide enough to fit all four musicians in:<br /><br /><img src="http://marcsabatella.zenfolio.com/img/v5/p777417075-2.jpg" /><br /><br />For people who take many shots like this and are not as interested in getting as close as a 100mm lens would allow, a 28-70mm, 28-75mm, or 24-70mm f/2.8 zoom lens can make for a nice compromise. With these, you can capture both semi-wide angle shots like above as well as semi-closeup shots, and these lenses are not terribly large or terribly expensive ($400) considering their versatility. While 70mm is not really as long as I would like, it's still enough to isolate individual performers and show them in some detail. You can certainly do quite well with such a lens.<br /><br />Of course, no one is limiting you to just one lens. A 28-70/2.8 plus a 105/2.8 macro and perhaps a very inexpensive 50/1.8 would cover your needs better than a 70-200/2.8 for roughly the same price. For the record, I usually have three lenses with me: either the M100/2.8 or M135/3.5, either the DA40/2.8 or A50/1.7, and the M28/2.8. I rarely feel constrained in any way with these.<br /><br />There are two other considerations worth mentioning here in choosing lenses.<br /><br />One is focus. Pentax users are in the enviable position of having access to a great many used manual focus lenses that work just fine on our cameras. My M100/2.8, A50/1.7, and M28/2.8 lenses cost me around $200 <span style="font-style: italic;">combined</span>. Auto focus is often slow and/or unreliable in low light, and it is also easily confused by the instruments, microphones, standards, and other paraphernalia on stage. So if you can save money by going with used manual focus lenses, that is worth thinking about.<br /><br />The other consideration is stabilization. Dealing with the slow shutter speeds we are often faced with in concert photography, stabilization can be a very useful thing. With some camera systems, stabilization can be built into the lens. Although it costs more for a stabilized version of a lens versus an ordinary one, it can be worthwhile. At a focal length of 100mm and a shutter speed of 1/30", stabilization can make the difference between having most of your shots come out acceptably sharp and most of them ruined by camera shake. Here, Pentax users have the advantage of having stabilization built in to the camera, meaning that all of our lenses - even a used manual lens you find for $20 in a pawn shop - end up being stabilized. On the downside, lens-based stabilization is generally claimed to be somewhat more effective.<br /><br />Still, any stabilization is far better than none, so I think in-body stabilization is more practical for most people. Both Canon and Nikon make stabilized 70-200/2.8 lenses, which may be one reason these are popular with professional concert photographers despite being quite expensive (around $1500) and longer than usually necessary for most people. But realistically, most beginning Canon and Nikon concert photographers will probably have to pass on the benefits of stabilization for concert photography, as only the slower lenses are available in stabilized form at an affordable price. And while stabilization allows you to take shake-free photos at slower shutter speeds than you would otherwise, slow lenses won't allow fast enough shutter speeds to freeze subject motion.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Other Equipment</span><br /><br />Aside from the obvious - camera and lens, perhaps spare batteries and memory cards - there really isn't a whole lot else you might need.<br /><br />Since we're dealing with low light and slow shutter speeds, a tripod might seem a logical tool. In practice, I find dealing them too distracting, and indeed, they usually aren't allowed at most venues. A monopod can be a reasonable compromise, however. But I usually do well enough simply bracing myself against my chair or a post, and with the shake reduction provided by the camera, I usually find subject motion more of a problem than camera shake.Marc Sabatellahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00280931807746316434noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1460687387614137618.post-55278035684302497272008-11-15T11:06:00.017-07:002008-11-15T13:20:56.571-07:00InspirationAs a person involved in so many creative endeavors - music and art most obviously, but also photography, writing, and even my approach to cooking and other activities - the subject of "inspiration" comes up fairly often. As in, where does my inspiration come from. That is a difficult question to answer, but I would like to share a few thoughts on the matter.<br /><br /><img style="width: 50%; float: right; margin: 10px 0 0 10px;" src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3105/2736088730_48c4ffa3f2.jpg" /><br /><br />My main occupation is music - specifically, jazz. One of the unique things about jazz is that, compared to other forms of music, one is almost constantly <span style="font-style: italic;">creating</span>. Improvisation is the heart and soul of jazz. In a typical performance, probably 95% of what I play is improvised. This means that each time I play a gig - as I do usually a couple of nights a week on average - I am coming up with several hours' worth of music I have basically never played before. Sure, I am building on foundations that have been laid down already, but most of the specific melodies I play really are created on the spur of the moment. I am accustomed to not waiting for "inspiration" to strike me as if this were an unusual event. I no more require "inspiration" in order to decide what note to play next than I do in order to decide when to take my next breath.<br /><br /><img style="width: 50%; float: left; margin: 10px 10px 0 0;" src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3212/2714045469_2b21d73101.jpg" /><br /><br />This is in fairly stark contrast to a classical musician practicing a piece over and over so he can perform it pretty much exactly the same way every time. But more importantly, it is also quite different from the image of, say, a writer staring at his typewriter for days on end waiting for a word or two to come out. I come closer to this situation when I am <span style="font-style:italic;">composing</span>, as opposed to improvising, music. Although I know from experience that I can generally compose a tune any time I sit down and put my mind to it. I have not tended to do this very often, but for a while, when I had a regular weekly gig with my quartet, I was writing a tune a week.<br /><br />For a long time, painting was somewhat similar for me. Virtually all my paintings are landscapes, and virtually all done on location (<span style="font-style: italic;">en plein air</span>). I would make a commitment to myself or a friend or a group (such as a class I might be taking) to show up at a particular time and a particular place and paint whatever happened to present itself that day. I might wander around for a few minutes to find something I liked, and think some about the vantage point that would produce the best composition, how to frame the scene, and how I would approach the painting. But overall, the feeling was almost as automatic as improvising music: just about any time and any place would do, and I would find something to paint as surely as I would find a phrase to play when improvising in jazz.<br /><br /><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiFxTRjnVvHz7v9UVUAVYFmQxppmAidC7XCrpSCKd2C2bhTY_DY14iPjxMSTDb3O2WzCicRfMDKgltlOLyagyFPCRw_bxt6EQeX4z5wNM-g4ysMfbDxGRTtpkib53aVYVyKLo3GNLWBbWo/s1600-h/MJS_081027_0244p.JPG"><br /><img style="float: left; margin: 10px 10px 0 0;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiFxTRjnVvHz7v9UVUAVYFmQxppmAidC7XCrpSCKd2C2bhTY_DY14iPjxMSTDb3O2WzCicRfMDKgltlOLyagyFPCRw_bxt6EQeX4z5wNM-g4ysMfbDxGRTtpkib53aVYVyKLo3GNLWBbWo/s200/MJS_081027_0244p.JPG" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5268955178650832610" border="0" /><br /></a><br /><br />A couple of weeks ago, however, I hit a point of temporary crisis. I had met a friend to paint at a location we had been to several times before. Very nice scenery, with a river, trees, some interesting old buildings - everything that would normally get me going.<br /><br /><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgaz4YeA6uEHq8jN1Hm_mZ4fUxNuO0rym1KOmRjnxftmT2CLbaJg9CqBy0nASsXI3TIQ9cioV0-Wp4nVgOkIVz2rgHbDf7HIAivSQK1kb4N1rDcMgvki3S569DOyUZd3C0Mc3wQX8cnCN4/s1600-h/MJS_081027_0233p.JPG"><br /><img style="float: right; margin: 10px 0 0 10px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgaz4YeA6uEHq8jN1Hm_mZ4fUxNuO0rym1KOmRjnxftmT2CLbaJg9CqBy0nASsXI3TIQ9cioV0-Wp4nVgOkIVz2rgHbDf7HIAivSQK1kb4N1rDcMgvki3S569DOyUZd3C0Mc3wQX8cnCN4/s200/MJS_081027_0233p.JPG" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5268955171668236114" border="0" /><br /></a><br /><br />On this occasion, though, I simply could not get inspired. I wandered about with my camera as I always do, taking "test" pictures of various subjects and checking them out on the screen to see if I thought they would make good paintings. Many shots looked perfectly usable, but the overall sense I had was, "been there, done that."<br /><br /><a href="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3203/2996187177_59a7a90e24.jpg"><br /><img style="width: 50%; float: left; margin: 10px 10px 0 0;" src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3203/2996187177_59a7a90e24.jpg" alt="" border="0" /><br /></a><br /><br />The only two shots I took that excited me were shots that were almost totally unpaintable. Or at least, they could not easily be painted on location. The image at left depended on a quality of light that was not going to last but a minute. The image at right (below) depended on the length of my shadow, which was going to get shorter and shorter the longer I worked - plus the shadow of my easel would have become part of the picture. It would not have been impossible to work around these issues, but now that I had the photographs, I felt no need to go to that much trouble to recreate them as paintings.<br /><br /><a href="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3034/2997027874_92dea1de0a.jpg"><br /><img style="width: 50%; float: right; margin: 10px 0 0 10px;" src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3034/2997027874_92dea1de0a.jpg" alt="" border="0" /><br /></a><br /><br />I actually considered giving up for the day, as I had been walking in circles for over an hour. But instead, I decided to embrace the idea that inspiration <span style="font-style: italic;">is</span>, or at least can be, important. I still clung to the belief that it should be possible to find something to be inspired by, but accepted that I might have to look harder to find it. In jazz, I always feel I am better off eschewing the obvious and instead going for the less common, but this was one of the first times that the same feeling came over me in painting. I finally got tired - if perhaps only for a moment - of doing essentially the same painting over and over.<br /><br /><a href="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3036/2997028826_823dfdd8b6.jpg"><br /><img style="width: 50%; float: left; margin: 10px 10px 0 0;" src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3036/2997028826_823dfdd8b6.jpg" alt="" border="0" /><br /></a><br /><br />In the end, I found something that inspired me - a patch of tall grass that appeared to me like bamboo. In order to really capture what fascinated me about the scene, I sat on the ground on squatted low to give me vantage point where I would be looking up at the top of the grass. This is the type of "unusual" viewpoint that I always admire in photography but seldom think about in painting.<br /><br />I set up my easel on the ground, too, and painted from this same position. Here is what I ended up with:<br /><br /><a href="http://marcsabatella.zenfolio.com/img/v5/p616300136-4.jpg"><br /><img style="display: block; margin: 10px auto 0 auto;" src="http://marcsabatella.zenfolio.com/img/v5/p616300136-2.jpg" /><br /></a><br /><br />The moral? I am not sure. Like I said, I just wanted to share some thoughts. I welcome any comments you may have!Marc Sabatellahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00280931807746316434noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1460687387614137618.post-10512814572356113762008-10-31T11:57:00.034-06:002008-10-31T22:19:01.421-06:00FloridaI went back to Florida for my 25-year high school reunion recently. I've visited many times since high school, and had a camera with me on most of those occasions, but on this particular trip, it seemed I was seeing things as if for the first time. I think that's because my wife Wendy was with me, and while she too has visited Florida with me before, this was the first time since I got her a digital camera of her own. So I was in part seeing things through her eyes. But I would also like to think my own photographic eye is developing. Anyhow, here is some of what I saw.<br /><br />We visited the beach pretty much every day we were there. Sometimes what was most interesting was the seascape itself, and others times it was the people:<br /><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://marcsabatella.zenfolio.com/img/v4/p221899586-3.jpg"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer;" src="http://marcsabatella.zenfolio.com/img/v4/p221899586-3.jpg" alt="" border="0" /></a><br /><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://marcsabatella.zenfolio.com/img/v4/p310269518-3.jpg"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer;" src="http://marcsabatella.zenfolio.com/img/v4/p310269518-3.jpg" alt="" border="0" /></a><br /><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://marcsabatella.zenfolio.com/img/v4/p306699283-3.jpg"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer;" src="http://marcsabatella.zenfolio.com/img/v4/p306699283-3.jpg" alt="" border="0" /></a><br /><br />When I was growing up in Florida, I was always mesmerized by sandpipers - small birds that feed along the shore, constantly running up to the water and then running away as each wave comes in:<br /><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://marcsabatella.zenfolio.com/img/v4/p28290297-3.jpg"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer;" src="http://marcsabatella.zenfolio.com/img/v4/p28290297-3.jpg" alt="" border="0" /></a><br /><br />Because of my own affinity for the sandpiper, this shot of the daughter of two friends of mine is particularly special to me:<br /><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://marcsabatella.zenfolio.com/img/v4/p798861012-3.jpg"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer;" src="http://marcsabatella.zenfolio.com/img/v4/p798861012-3.jpg" alt="" border="0" /></a><br /><br />I'm not an early riser by nature, but Wendy made me get up before dawn to watch the sunrise over the ocean. Unfortunately, it was mostly overcast, so we didn't actually see the sun rise. But we were rewarded with some beautiful scenes nonetheless:<br /><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://marcsabatella.zenfolio.com/img/v2/p430283379-3.jpg"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer;" src="http://marcsabatella.zenfolio.com/img/v2/p430283379-3.jpg" alt="" border="0" /></a><br /><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://marcsabatella.zenfolio.com/img/v4/p381506592-3.jpg"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer;" src="http://marcsabatella.zenfolio.com/img/v4/p381506592-3.jpg" alt="" border="0" /></a><br /><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://marcsabatella.zenfolio.com/img/v2/p322059177-3.jpg"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer;" src="http://marcsabatella.zenfolio.com/img/v2/p322059177-3.jpg" alt="" border="0" /></a><br /><br />Florida is not just about the beaches, of course. The local flora and fauna are also fascinating:<br /><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://marcsabatella.zenfolio.com/img/v2/p223222626-3.jpg"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer;" src="http://marcsabatella.zenfolio.com/img/v2/p223222626-3.jpg" alt="" border="0" /></a><br /><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://marcsabatella.zenfolio.com/img/v4/p364659917-3.jpg"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer;" src="http://marcsabatella.zenfolio.com/img/v4/p364659917-3.jpg" alt="" border="0" /></a><br /><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://marcsabatella.zenfolio.com/img/v2/p197141467-3.jpg"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer;" src="http://marcsabatella.zenfolio.com/img/v2/p197141467-3.jpg" alt="" border="0" /></a><br /><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://marcsabatella.zenfolio.com/img/v4/p362535805-3.jpg"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer;" src="http://marcsabatella.zenfolio.com/img/v4/p362535805-3.jpg" alt="" border="0" /></a><br /><br />But one way or another, water dominates most aspects of life in Florida:<br /><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://marcsabatella.zenfolio.com/img/v4/p432892090-3.jpg"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer;" src="http://marcsabatella.zenfolio.com/img/v4/p432892090-3.jpg" alt="" border="0" /></a>Marc Sabatellahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00280931807746316434noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1460687387614137618.post-35142274232358201732008-10-11T20:03:00.009-06:002008-10-31T21:58:53.636-06:00Butterflies<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/marcsabatella/2930518074/in/photostream/"><br /><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3236/2930518074_2fdee11827.jpg" width="100%" /><br /></a><br /><p>I try to bring my camera with me almost wherever I go, because I never know when a great photo opportunity will present itself. Earlier this week I was teaching piano lessons at Regis University and had some time to kill when one of my students didn't show up. I decided to go for a walk around campus, but didn't get more than 20 feet beyond the front door of the building, because I found myself surrounded by a cloud of butterflies that were feeding in a flower bed next to the building. I've never seen them there before, but assume they must be passing through as part of a migration, or maybe conditions were just right for them this year.</p><br /><a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/marcsabatella/2929659213/in/photostream/"><br /><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3272/2929659213_f535234af5.jpg" width="100%" /><br /></a><br /><p>I spent the next twenty minutes attempting to photograph them. In doing so, I looked more closely at the insects than I ever had before, and learned some things about them I probably should have known already but didn't . For instance, this species at least feeds with wings closed. The butterflies extend their wings only just before taking off and just after landing, or when a gust of wind causes them to lose their balance. I learned to anticipate these moments as the best times to shoot. Even so, it took a great deal of patience and luck to get even a few decent shots.</p><br /><a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/marcsabatella/2929659081/in/photostream/"><br /><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3041/2929659081_f4f0eeb2af.jpg" width="100%" /><br /></a><br /><p>For the joy these creatures gave me while shooting, for what learned in the process, and for the pictures I ended up with, I have to figure those were among the best twenty minutes I've spent all year.</p>Marc Sabatellahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00280931807746316434noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1460687387614137618.post-75893728355366753392008-10-06T13:14:00.008-06:002008-11-15T11:53:17.073-07:00Hazel Miller<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://marcsabatella.zenfolio.com/img/v4/p207954090-3.jpg"><img style="margin: 10px; float: left; cursor: pointer; width: 200px;" src="http://marcsabatella.zenfolio.com/img/v4/p207954090-3.jpg" alt="" border="0" /></a><br /><br />On Saturday night, my wife and I did a gig at a fundraiser for Friendship Bridge, an organization that helps Guatemalan woman escape poverty. We were the opening act for Hazel Miller, a fixture on the Denver jazz/blues/R&B for many years.<br /><br />I had actually only heard Hazel in person once before, and only briefly. She is a very dynamic performer, belting out a variety of familiar and not-so-familiar tunes by folks like Stevie Wonder and Aretha Franklin.<br /><br />The bassist was Rich Lamb. I've known Rich for a while now - and my wife has known him since they were basically kids.<br /><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://marcsabatella.zenfolio.com/img/v4/p470821527-3.jpg"><img style="margin: 10px; float: right; cursor: pointer; width: 200px;" src="http://marcsabatella.zenfolio.com/img/v4/p470821527-3.jpg" alt="" border="0" /></a><br /><br />Hazel had two keyboardists with her. Pictured first here is Dana Marsh, who has been working with Rich (both with Hazel and in other contexts) for many years.<br /><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://marcsabatella.zenfolio.com/img/v4/p232304636-3.jpg"><img style="margin: 10px; cursor: pointer; width: 200px;" src="http://marcsabatella.zenfolio.com/img/v4/p232304636-3.jpg" alt="" border="0" /></a><br /><br />The rest of Hazel's band was unfamiliar to me, but it featured Harry Padilla on keyboards and Frank Selman on guitar. The drummer was too obstructed and too much in the dark for me to get a good shot of him.<br /><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://marcsabatella.zenfolio.com/img/v4/p168590005-3.jpg"><img style="margin: 10px; cursor: pointer; width: 200px;" src="http://marcsabatella.zenfolio.com/img/v4/p168590005-3.jpg" alt="" border="0" /></a><br /><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://marcsabatella.zenfolio.com/img/v4/p408083560-3.jpg"><img style="margin: 10px; cursor: pointer; height: 200px;" src="http://marcsabatella.zenfolio.com/img/v4/p408083560-3.jpg" alt="" border="0" /></a>Marc Sabatellahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00280931807746316434noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1460687387614137618.post-9812695433036663652008-09-28T12:21:00.009-06:002008-10-31T21:13:31.285-06:00The Aspen in Vail<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg_N_0RYFhneNJvMlrMJRpCppu_aitKLDdKGRDQeWxKN-BR9bV8D63DBNbXa1nVsSp-w4PTiz2eU62sNosnI8PA6IVNscBIIBfMx3mNsHBW-xWAabX6O1bg-VysCIBUywNTqQnxdawDxaU/s1600-h/MJS_080927_8527w.JPG"><img style="padding: 10px; cursor: pointer;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg_N_0RYFhneNJvMlrMJRpCppu_aitKLDdKGRDQeWxKN-BR9bV8D63DBNbXa1nVsSp-w4PTiz2eU62sNosnI8PA6IVNscBIIBfMx3mNsHBW-xWAabX6O1bg-VysCIBUywNTqQnxdawDxaU/s320/MJS_080927_8527w.JPG" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5251153325930302914" border="0" align="left" /></a><br />I played a gig in Vail last night. The gig itself was nothing out of the ordinary - background music for an awards dinner at an architectural convention. But the setting was pretty amazing. Vail is of course well-known as a ski resort town. While some ski towns are considered "charming", Vail is really little more than a collection of expensive condos has a reputation for being too rich for its own good. But I had never been there during those magical weeks during the fall when the aspen trees turn gold. And whatever else one might say about Vail, it is spectacular around there right now.<br /><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjIrSKKPg_mYCkMKD_OkEBHFZnHbiQ5ZMFK3fU5N9SYqEYASkNWGrP-SQNzNKLRtDzp28CkpeqIvxx14-ZZer-Lkd3TONSneiDyVVhVVjpLD01wgVi4D7ettMXaDq5TewmNyt1oObzahJE/s1600-h/MJS_080927_8536w.JPG"><img style="padding: 10px; cursor: pointer;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjIrSKKPg_mYCkMKD_OkEBHFZnHbiQ5ZMFK3fU5N9SYqEYASkNWGrP-SQNzNKLRtDzp28CkpeqIvxx14-ZZer-Lkd3TONSneiDyVVhVVjpLD01wgVi4D7ettMXaDq5TewmNyt1oObzahJE/s320/MJS_080927_8536w.JPG" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5251153329228118354" border="0" align="right" /></a><br />Now, when I first moved to Colorado after having spent half my life up to that point in New England, my first reaction to the fall colors here was, "is that all?" Aside from some ornamental trees planted in towns, fall colors here really are just various shades of yellow. To a New Englander, that's a major disappointment at first. But over time, the aspen trees have a way of casting a very special spell that ultimately captivates most of us.<br /><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjZjfQPJx7o6frD6Rzg-cmYn_6HFkCHWIJuvIzwfuWd2HX6INATtbnrsrYPWcVyzx7tP_2MdEYMIrglC5nuEwApjT8eWDJKJMK9t2dzxeUE5YHZonTRyZ_MPZg_FaIKsNhiFhu54LHEsbU/s1600-h/MJS_080927_8555w.JPG"><img style="padding: 10px; cursor: pointer;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjZjfQPJx7o6frD6Rzg-cmYn_6HFkCHWIJuvIzwfuWd2HX6INATtbnrsrYPWcVyzx7tP_2MdEYMIrglC5nuEwApjT8eWDJKJMK9t2dzxeUE5YHZonTRyZ_MPZg_FaIKsNhiFhu54LHEsbU/s320/MJS_080927_8555w.JPG" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5251153330478808898" border="0" align="left" /></a><br />For one thing, despite attempts to cultivate it in around Denver, the tree really is only happy growing in the mountains. So seeing an aspen in town immediately takes your spirit up yet another mile above sea level. But of course, in the mountains, you don't normally see just one aspen tree. They grow in groves, all connected by a shared root system. When you stand next to an aspen tree, chances are you are surrounded by an entire football field full of them. An aspen grove amongst the pine trees that otherwise dominate the mountains is really almost literally like an oasis in the desert. There is nothing quite like the sensation of cross-country skiing through the shade of the pines trees and suddenly emerging into a sunny aspen grove. It is virtually impossible not to stop and be quiet for a while.<br /><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhZ7ACKAtbVacT7I7vqQ4cYb6QK0-mUBs0u50CXcsle8aRjlImqV9eff3ET7_ms1cOTUsWUQposBMyccj1zmb7Y96hQXMgZafDrUssnKswb9GithvjmXqHdVXjA-c1SwhGE2n4W0FEfiKo/s1600-h/MJS_080927_8566w.JPG"><img style="padding: 10px; cursor: pointer;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhZ7ACKAtbVacT7I7vqQ4cYb6QK0-mUBs0u50CXcsle8aRjlImqV9eff3ET7_ms1cOTUsWUQposBMyccj1zmb7Y96hQXMgZafDrUssnKswb9GithvjmXqHdVXjA-c1SwhGE2n4W0FEfiKo/s320/MJS_080927_8566w.JPG" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5251153331496028786" border="0" align="right" /></a><br />And the tree itself is quite fascinating to stand next to. The trunk is reminiscent of white birch. The leaves are mostly round, and while they are green on the front during the summmer, the back is decidedly silver. They are attached to their branches in such a way that the slightest breezes causes them to shimmer as they rustle. The color difference persists as they turn different shades of gold.<br /><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg0EEniwwdl0sfeX8atreeKN6g7P8WUm4sCuceBaohtzL1SArcWR1t2f9nfyoK0mhjb5SDm2AT0-IVetcUZtm-xhaBZORUHAIplnBq94PbfaOF-nn9_1Hkie99fcfK8pn8iN4b4kXM29CE/s1600-h/MJS_080927_8569w.JPG"><img style="padding: 10px; cursor: pointer;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg0EEniwwdl0sfeX8atreeKN6g7P8WUm4sCuceBaohtzL1SArcWR1t2f9nfyoK0mhjb5SDm2AT0-IVetcUZtm-xhaBZORUHAIplnBq94PbfaOF-nn9_1Hkie99fcfK8pn8iN4b4kXM29CE/s320/MJS_080927_8569w.JPG" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5251153341706614562" border="0" align="left" /></a><br />I hope to return to the mountains in the coming week to photograph the aspen more, to paint them, and to simply be in their midst. And when I do that, it will probably be on trails off the main roads. But there was also something quite striking about seeing the aspen in such full glory while right in town. So for that, I am glad I had the opportunity to play that gig in Vail.Marc Sabatellahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00280931807746316434noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1460687387614137618.post-23410640193991515632008-09-26T19:35:00.010-06:002008-10-31T21:14:44.301-06:00Mark Sloniker with Joe Anderies at DazzleOne of my major ongoing projects is to photograph as many Denver-area jazz musicians as I can. I am maintaining a <a href="http://marcsabatella.zenfolio.com/">gallery on Zenfolio</a> to display my best pictures of each musician. There are already well over 100 musicians represented in the gallery. I plan to feature some of them individually here.<br /><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://marcsabatella.zenfolio.com/img/v3/p883138406-4.jpg"><img style="padding: 10px; margin: 0pt 0pt 10px 10px; float: right; cursor: pointer;" src="http://marcsabatella.zenfolio.com/img/v3/p883138406-2.jpg" alt="" border="0" /></a>First up: jazz pianist Mark Sloniker, who lives in Fort Collins. He is my first choice both because he was one of the most recent additions to the gallery, but also because he was one of the first musicians I met upon moving to Colorado in 1988. I lived in Fort Collins for 10 years before moving to Denver, and I have been fortunate to work in Denver fairly regularly since moving here. Mark has been playing a steady gig in Fort Collins for decades, but had not had much opportunity to play at a major Denver jazz club. This was his Dazzle debut, and I was thrilled to be able to be there and see my old friend - who, I might add, is sounding better than ever!<br /><br />Here are a few other pictures from that gig:<br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://marcsabatella.zenfolio.com/img/v3/p696870228-4.jpg"><img style="padding: 10px; cursor: pointer; width: 200px;" src="http://marcsabatella.zenfolio.com/img/v3/p696870228-2.jpg" alt="" border="0" /></a><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://marcsabatella.zenfolio.com/img/v3/p750600801-4.jpg"><img style="padding: 10px; cursor: pointer; width: 200px;" src="http://marcsabatella.zenfolio.com/img/v3/p750600801-2.jpg" alt="" border="0" /></a><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://marcsabatella.zenfolio.com/img/v3/p561891799-4.jpg"><img style="padding: 10px; cursor: pointer; width: 200px;" src="http://marcsabatella.zenfolio.com/img/v3/p561891799-2.jpg" alt="" border="0" /></a><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://marcsabatella.zenfolio.com/img/v3/p639259749-4.jpg"><img style="padding: 10px; cursor: pointer; width: 200px;" src="http://marcsabatella.zenfolio.com/img/v3/p639259749-2.jpg" alt="" border="0" /></a><br />And here's a link to <a href="http://marcsabatella.zenfolio.com/p376650235/">even more</a>.Marc Sabatellahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00280931807746316434noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1460687387614137618.post-29574875045313032332008-09-25T22:32:00.004-06:002008-09-26T20:55:16.112-06:00Welcome to my brand new blog!<br /><br />I suppose in many ways, I am like a lot of other people who start a blog with no specific idea of what they want to do with it. But in some ways, I am a little different. I have been posting my thoughts online since the 1980's in a variety of different online forums relating mostly to music, art, and photography. The only new element here for me is the blog format. I do have some ideas as to how I will use this space, but only time will tell exactly where this will lead. I hope you come along for the ride!Marc Sabatellahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00280931807746316434noreply@blogger.com0