The Zoo clamps down onphotographers

www.fasterlouder.com.au

About the Author

gumbuoy

view my other 392 articles

59
0
950

Thu 12th Jun, 2008 in Local News

The Zoo is one of Brisbane’s oldest nightclubs and music venues, supporting local bands with a place to play for nearly 20 years.

It’s also been a haven for those who wish to hone their photography skills and snap some shots of their favourite bands. Unfortunately, that came to a close this week, with managers advising that all photograpy equipment will need to be cleared with either the Zoo management or event organiser prior to the event.

The following message was posted to the Zoo website:
“Dear Zoo Patrons,

No recording or photographic equipment is allowed to be brought into the Zoo.

Please do not record the event unless you have gained permission from the venue and the performing act themselves, this also applies to patron crowd shots as well.

Anyone caught doing so, with out pre arranged consent will have their gear confiscated until the end of the night.

Thank you in advance for your understanding on this issue.

All the best,
The Zoo.”

It is rumoured that this new policy has been implemented due to some fans taking bootleg videos of a recent Birds Of Tokyo show and posting them online, however this has not been confirmed.

Have your say on this controversial issue in the forums, or by leaving a comment below.

Nobody has hearted this, be the first!

Comments

www.fasterlouder.com.au

arrow left

Add Another | View all the comments in forum »

15181

gumbuoy

gumbuoy said on the 12th Jun, 2008

hey guys, I wanna know what people think about this. Leave us your Zoo shooting stories.

TheMystikEel

TheMystikEel said on the 12th Jun, 2008

I think the Zoo have every right to crackdown on recording gear after the Birds thing, but I still saw a few cameras get in at The Bravery the other day. And go unchecked too. As for photographers, like myself, it can be a bit of a pain when smaller bands who could probably *do* with the internet promotion to help them along, can't get photos of their gig at a larger venue, like The Zoo. Hard to really break it down into what's an OK gig to take a camera to and what's not, I know, but considering the other larger venues in Brisbane I think will probably follow suit, it's looking like only smaller venues like the Troub (with their one red and one yellow light - *sigh*) are going to be the only ones allowing people to take photos.
I would like to know what would happen if someone came to a Zoo gig with a *film* camera. What would they do then? :P

NiteShok

NiteShok said on the 12th Jun, 2008

I wrote about this debacle on my blog. I'm disgusted that Birds Of Tokyo decided to take action in this manner.

Demosthenes

Demosthenes said on the 12th Jun, 2008

I really not keen on getting banned from the Zoo from the Zoo for repeated infringements. Or get refused entry on a band I really want to see.

I love the Zoo. I really do. It is, without doubt, my favourite live music venue. But this leaves me a little disappointed even though I understand that management is caught between a rock and a hard place.

What irks me most is that when bands are little they will do /anything/ to promote their sound and image. Then, once they make it "big", they turn into massive control freaks. OK, maybe that amps the switch a little, but you get the idea. Some of the nutso clauses that get talked about in those stupid photo contracts prove it.

And I think that statement encompasses more than a minority of bands.

It will make it harder for inexperienced photogs who want to do gigs to get that experience. There is still Rics, the Troub, and the Globe (I've shot at the last two without prior permission this year), but will that last?

hashpipe

hashpipe said on the 12th Jun, 2008

Man, this is a damn shame. The Zoo is a great place to shoot and basically where I learned to use a camera. What is up with bands who don't want publicity?

NiteShok

NiteShok said on the 12th Jun, 2008

I don't blame The Zoo one bit. I blame Birds Of Tokyo for fucking the Zoo's management - and every Zoo punter - over because they're of the image-obsessed-wanker breed that Demosthenes alluded to.

imparts

imparts said on the 12th Jun, 2008

How ridiculous - If the zoo had any brains they would set up a you tube site and encourage people to post their recorded videos - move with the times people

gumbuoy

gumbuoy said on the 12th Jun, 2008

i guess once a band gets big enough, half a dozen happy snaps taken by a random punter and posted on their facebook isnt going to increase the fanbase of the band at all.

and if a band is road testing new songs, and it turns out they dont like one of them, because its rubbish, having a fan video out there of one of the crap songs could damage the band, maybe?

i dunno, its a long bow to draw, but thats the only reason i could think of

gumbuoy

gumbuoy said on the 12th Jun, 2008

and then watch the bands refuse to play their any more? yeah not going to happen i think...

Demosthenes

Demosthenes said on the 12th Jun, 2008

i guess once a band gets big enough, half a dozen happy snaps taken by a random punter and posted on their facebook isnt going to increase the fanbase of the band at all.

and if a band is road testing new songs, and it turns out they dont like one of them, because its rubbish, having a fan video out there of one of the crap songs could damage the band, maybe?

i dunno, its a long bow to draw, but thats the only reason i could think of

I think it's more likely to be money, since it could cannibalise sales. Or sales of the live DVD or what the fuck ever.

With photos, gosh, they might not get a percentage from it or something.

But guess what, band people? You can't make money off everything! Most photographers make sweet fuck all to the best of my knowledge. I have enormous sympathy for musos -- it's so hard for them to make ends meet and so few actually make a living from it for all their talent -- but a velvet glove is likely to get a better and less bitter response than the iron fist.

NiteShok

NiteShok said on the 12th Jun, 2008

if a band is road testing new songs, and it turns out they dont like one of them, because its rubbish, having a fan video out there of one of the crap songs could damage the band, maybe?

I considered this angle, too. It's still bullshit. There is no need for a band to act in such a way. Bring down the walls of the fortress. If they screw up onstage, or demo a song that's later canned, there's no good reason why they should attempt to smother the knowledge of the event ever occurring.

Funnily enough, a similar event to what I described above occurred in 2006 or 2007 after a Karnivool show. Note that Birds Of Tokyo singer Ian Kenny also fronts Karnivool, who I believe are a far more talented and original band.

I'm not 100% on the details, but from what I understand, Karnivool played a show that was recorded by a well-known (and usually amicable) [url=http://blog.myspace.com/auslive]bootlegger. The band must have had a shocker, because they emailed asking for him to take the recording down.

It irks me when artists act in this manner. Remember Prince throwing a hissy fit at YouTube a couple of weeks ago? He tried to stop users uploading his cover of Radiohead's Creep. I imagine that he was unsuccessful.

saimagizzle said on the 12th Jun, 2008

Actually...

Daft Punk aren't releasing a DVD companion to the Alive 2007 tour CD purely because they said (and I paraphrase) "There is already enough footage on youtube that does the job well enough".

I think that bands and venues should embrace the digital bootleg age and get over themselves. Youtube bootlegs won't harm DVD sales, unless it's the DVD on youtube, nor will audio rips impact on CD sales. It's free publicity!

If a band isn't willing to be up on youtube or something like that because they are too precious, then they shouldn't be on stage to begin with.

As a photographer, speaking as a photographer, I don't have anything to say on that subject.

Bananaphone

Bananaphone said on the 12th Jun, 2008

I'm a photographer and have shot at the ZOO a lot. There are pros and cons to the rule, but firstly I'll say it is ILLEGAL for them to confiscate anyones gear. Their first post on the website didn't even state that they would give the gear back, they changed it after I emailed them with a massive serving telling them that they are openly admitting their desire to break the law on their own website.

Now you can agree to have them stow your gear or whatever (I sure as hell wouldn't) to stay, or you have the choice to leave. They cannot take your gear, but you can be asked to leave the premises.

I'd say smuggling gear in there is pretty stupid now anyway. So don't do it, if you're any good with a camera it's easy enough to start shooting for FL or a streetpress anyway.

As for my personal views on the matter

CONS: Photographers have one less place to cut their teeth at gig shooting, these conditions are only able to give good results when a shooter is experienced and knows their shit. It is hard to get that when you can't shoot some gigs for yourself first. The powerhouse, cascade court events, and other gigs (especially free community gigs) are a good start for shooters who need some practice (and to be arrogant, there's a few ;))

Bands could potentially get less coverage aka photos but I don't imagine the photos lost will be of a high enough quality that anyone is going to lose sleep anyway.

And finally, going to see a gig is a night out. People at the Zoo take snaps of themselves and their friends just as much as they do the band! I say take your small point and shoots or whatever and put it at the bottom of your bag. Don't go trying to break the rules and use it to shoot the bands, but if you want to have your camera around because you're doing lots of things on the night (and fair enough) then I think it is reasonable to expect that you'd be allowed to do so.

PROS: Less crappy photos being sent to publications for a shitty photo credit when the good shooters out there are already dealing with an industry that doesn't see value in the product because so many shit photographers are willing to give it all away for free.

Less competition for places front of stage for photographers shooting for publications. Yes, I get there early, and I don't give up my spot til I've done my job, even If I need to take a leak.

Anyway I think that rambling will do me, if you want to see what I do check www.okletsgo.com.au

Bananaphone

Bananaphone said on the 12th Jun, 2008

Oh and as for that Daft Punk crap, if you can't produce a DVD (where you'd have exclusive backstage footage etc.) that views better than hand held cam corder bad quality sound shit on youtube, then you clearly don't deserve to have DVD revenue.

NiteShok

NiteShok said on the 12th Jun, 2008

Absolutely right.

I think a few of you aren't focusing on the real issue here: The Zoo was forced into creating these restrictions.

It's my understanding that The Zoo has existed as a live music venue since 1992. They've always been fine with punters bringing in cameras, up until a recent show and the subsequent threat of legal action.

That appears to be the sad and disappointing reality here.

Bananaphone, while I was sitting up the back during the Bravery show on Tuesday, I saw a security guard take a bunch of small cameras to a back room, presumably to be returned to punters after the show.

Bananaphone

Bananaphone said on the 12th Jun, 2008

Well if the security guard made people feel like they HAD to have their stuff confiscated then he was committing a crime.

People just don't know that security and even police have no right to confiscate your photographic gear without proper legal backing.

That said if people are happy to have their cameras stowed somewhere til later, that's fine too.

Bananaphone

Bananaphone said on the 12th Jun, 2008

The real problem is fucking managers who have to be in control of when their bands go to the toilet. They have to squeeze every fucking penny out of them possible and bully anyone that isn't making them money.

As far as im concerned Birds of Tokyo probably don't even know what's going on, but the Zoo is a fucking staple of the Brisbane live music scene, and I reckon if 1 band is going to get upset about that they can fuck off for good.

Bands should just sign a release that allows for the fact that people may have cameras in the venue. If they aren't happy about it, there will always be another band wanting a chance.

I am pretty pissed that a pissant manager of a fairly small band is forcing influential decisions upon pieces of Brisbane history.

gumbuoy

gumbuoy said on the 12th Jun, 2008

Bananaphone, while I was sitting up the back during the Bravery show on Tuesday, I saw a security guard take a bunch of small cameras to a back room, presumably to be returned to punters after the show.

and the crazy thing is that we got shots of that gig, because our shooter headed along, not to shoot, but just to watch, with her own ticket, she happened to take her camera and checked her camera into the cloak room, and a little later, she was talking to the staff of the zoo, they found out she occasionally shot for us, and they wrote her a photo pass on the spot and gave her the camera back.

we got permission to use the photos from the promoter, post-gig...

gumbuoy

gumbuoy said on the 12th Jun, 2008

The real problem is fucking managers who have to be in control of when their bands go to the toilet. They have to squeeze every fucking penny out of them possible and bully anyone that isn't making them money.

As far as im concerned Birds of Tokyo probably don't even know what's going on, but the Zoo is a fucking staple of the Brisbane live music scene, and I reckon if 1 band is going to get upset about that they can fuck off for good.

Bands should just sign a release that allows for the fact that people may have cameras in the venue. If they aren't happy about it, there will always be another band wanting a chance.

I am pretty pissed that a pissant manager of a fairly small band is forcing influential decisions upon pieces of Brisbane history.

The trouble is that there could be legal ramifications of not doing anything. Here I get a chance to flex my "Creative Industries Legal Issues" muscles.

A person has a right to protect their image, their physical appearance is copyrightable, so technically a bands members have the right to not have their photo taken at all while performing.

Obviously most bands don't care, but that is their right, and while you can't really sue a random blogger for shooting and posting, you can sue the Zoo for being negligent ie they COULD have done something about it, but chose not to.

Obviously this is a summary, which is pretty much all i was given at the course :>

Also, it's all very well to say to give another band a chance, but what if its not a local band, but a bigger international act, where the Zoo is requesting them to play, rather than the other way round.

NiteShok

NiteShok said on the 12th Jun, 2008

You're jumping to conclusions, but I echo your sentiments.

I've messaged the band on MySpace to try and get this matter cleared up.

gumbuoy

gumbuoy said on the 12th Jun, 2008

You're jumping to conclusions, but I echo your sentiments.

I've messaged the band on MySpace to try and get this matter cleared up.

hey man if you can get them to confirm it was them, and go on record with a statement, i can upload a new news item, or edit an existing one, with the details?

NiteShok

NiteShok said on the 12th Jun, 2008

Sure, I'll keep this thread posted.

I linked them to this discussion. It'd be cool if they joined the conversation.

Demosthenes

Demosthenes said on the 12th Jun, 2008

If we're talking money and squeezing, I wonder how many bands have ever considered the true cost of hiring a photographer for a shoot. At the agency I work at, hiring a photographer for a client for a half day shoot is upwards of $800.

Now consider that a band basically gets a photographer for the evening for a price of somewhere between $10 and $150 (depending on the artist). Yes, it is a touch apples and oranges, but it still seems like a pretty sweet fucking deal to me.

And even if some of the shooters aren't necessarily the most experienced or the most skilled (yet), I could easily point out a dozen shooters on this site alone who I think are immensely talented at getting great live shots.

Bananaphone

Bananaphone said on the 12th Jun, 2008

Yeah I am jumping to conclusions but given the amount of experience I have with bands vs managers and all the little fucking things they try to get away with in contracts and the such, im pretty happy to point to their manager on this one. There are always exceptions such as the Eels, Bjork etc. who hate photographers more than their managers.

As for their image, at least if you take the shot from public property, they don't own their image. Though I am pretty sure you can't use it in a way that is derogatory.

As for shooting from private property, I'd have to reread about that. But my main argument was that The Zoo can't confiscate gear but can kick you out, so if you're face to face with security, you choose between the two.

Bananaphone

Bananaphone said on the 12th Jun, 2008

Yeah 60 - 120 an hour is pretty fair for a good photog. You can get more of course, but that generally happens with more commercial clients.

Also I am glad this issue has attracted conversation.

NiteShok

NiteShok said on the 12th Jun, 2008

Me too. There's a whole lot of issues bundled into this single event. I'm happy with the discussion thus far. I've initiated contact with the both band and venue involved; it'd be really cool if they joined in.

NiteShok

NiteShok said on the 12th Jun, 2008

Andrew

hi joc here from the Zoo -

just writing in response to the camera regulations and all of the posts -

as we have stated on the website and mail out's since bringing the policy in -

Please do not record the event unless you have gained permission from the venue and
the performing act themselves, this also applies to patron crowd shots as well.

If you are interested in taking photo's you are able to email the Zoo and ask permission to
take shots as a number of people have done since this new policy has come into play.
We then forward each request to the management / agent and it is then up to each act if they
want their photo's taken.

It is a lot more work for The Zoo but we are then trying to ensure that each act's privacy and wish
is taken into account not just assuming they are ok with people taking shots. It is each individual's
right to have or not have their photo taken - and i don't think they should be thought of in a less
than favourable light if that is their attitude to this matter. We have in the past been less strict on this matter
and their were recent events that made us review the policy but we are walking along a new path for
the Zoo and one we are trying to handle with our normal integrity and trying to consider all involved.

I am sure other venues would just say - no camera's and that is it.
They wouldn't have the headache's in trying to make a system fair for all. So please consider that
when people are very rude and not understanding.

all the best
joc
Joc Curran
Owner/Manager

THE ZOO
ph/fax 07 3854 1381
PO Box 902
Fortitude Valley Q 4006
zoocrew@thezoo.com.au
www.thezoo.com.au

Thanks Joc!

Demosthenes

Demosthenes said on the 12th Jun, 2008

I'd love to hear their thoughts, although I'm not sure we'll see much in the way of change of policy. A bit of clarification would be great though.

Edit: Oh, too slow on the post. :x

Having read what Joc wrote, I dunno if it's possible for the venue to do a lot more. I'm sure it will mean more work for them, for both small and large gigs. And I think that sucks.

It's more than the Tivoli or the Arena do for punters. And if you sent such a request to the Entertainment Centre or the Convention Centre it'd probably disappear into a black hole.

de-tec-tive

de-tec-tive said on the 12th Jun, 2008

this is a really interesting thread...

jxe520

jxe520 said on the 12th Jun, 2008

And I quote directly from the Ric's Bar House Policy, which i pocketed from one of the outside tables earlier in the year having laughed at it quite a lot, especially the bit about the dress code...

Be surprised if they enforce it but it's still there.

Demosthenes

Demosthenes said on the 12th Jun, 2008

And I quote directly from the Ric's Bar House Policy, which i pocketed from one of the outside tables earlier in the year having laughed at it quite a lot, especially the bit about the dress code...

Be surprised if they enforce it but it's still there.

I never ever knew that! Colour me surprised....

jxe520

jxe520 said on the 12th Jun, 2008

But more importantly, remember:

Ric's does not have a strict dress code but you may be refused entry or service on the following ground:

- being part of a group (this includes Hen's Nights or Buck's Nights) or gang carrying (sic)

-Wearing or being in possession of antlers/bunny ears, alcohol promotional material (inc hats, caps, t-shirts, stubby holders, stickers), cowboy hats, truckers hats, balloons, whistles, glow sticks, glow necklaces, glow bracelets, laser lights, torches, pens, paint cans, face paint or fancy dress

NiteShok

NiteShok said on the 13th Jun, 2008

Another snipper of information (pasted from my blog comments) before I fall asleep..

I can confirm that the requests to remove audio/video came from the Birds of Tokyo manager. No idea if he was doing it on behalf of anyone.

As mentioned elsewhere, a similar request was made from Karnivool’s manager previously when they had been recorded at a show. With that request the point was made that the band don’t like people’s first experience of the new songs to be bootlegged live footage which I think is fair enough.

I imagine that’s probably the case with BoT too.

In other news, I just returned from another enjoyable night at The Zoo. Pinky Beecroft and the White Russians were rather good; Goldenhorse were great.

StrangeFlower

StrangeFlower said on the 13th Jun, 2008

I remember one of my Photoimaging tutors lecturing us about when model releases do and don't apply... the general law is that you need the permission (or at least the cooperation) of each recognizable individual captured in an image of less than 7 people. If the image contains 7 or more recognizable individuals, their permission is no longer needed.

I'm not sure if thats still the case with something like a band shot where, even if there are more than 7 individuals, you can still either recognize them or include their identities in a caption, title, etc. etc.

So perhaps, as long as you have permission from the venue, just get a few audience members in the shot... that'll make it legal enough... Maybe. ;)

gumbuoy

gumbuoy said on the 13th Jun, 2008

Another snipper of information (pasted from my blog comments) before I fall asleep..

In other news, I just returned from another enjoyable night at The Zoo. Pinky Beecroft and the White Russians were rather good; Goldenhorse were great.

hey dude, i had a shooter there, but no reviewer, if youre interested :)

Demosthenes

Demosthenes said on the 13th Jun, 2008

Polyphonic Spree are fucked, then. ;)

> I imagine that’s probably the case with BoT too.

Sometimes a tiny pebble makes some bloody big ripples in the pond.

NiteShok

NiteShok said on the 13th Jun, 2008

Response from Birds Of Tokyo:

hey fella,
cheers for the message...thats all interesting news to us!! heh...
we didnt threaten legal anything...weird...our manager just asked some kid to take off the new tracks from you tube, which most of my friends bands do also...
but as far as all that stuff goes with the zoo....nothing to do with us mate...there is alot of misinformation on there i think!! we love people taking photos and film away!! just dont post up the new material just before new material is coming out...i dont think thats unfair? we just want people to hear our new material in its best form, after all we pay alot of money for people to make us sound good!! haha
other than that....post everything up on the net! fine with us!

cheers for the insight tho sir!! and yes i remember that off kilter solo! heheh pretty close!!
cheers.
adam s.
(He's referring to an old [url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TNLb1IZtXx0]video of mine on YouTube)

Now I don't know what to think.

Demosthenes

Demosthenes said on the 13th Jun, 2008

I don't think Joc actually stated anywhere that they'd been legally threatened? It could be that a number of instances where bands got a bit iffy about photogs or bootlegs and this was "simply" the straw that broke the camel's back as it were.

By-the-by, I'm not completely sold on the BOT argument. I'd never judge a band's live ability based on a Youtube vid. Those things are often very poor quality and even the better ones get compressed down by Youtube itself iirc so as to conserve bandwidth and make for easier streaming.

gumbuoy

gumbuoy said on the 13th Jun, 2008

By-the-by, I'm not completely sold on the BOT argument. I'd never judge a band's live ability based on a Youtube vid. Those things are often very poor quality and even the better ones get compressed down by Youtube itself iirc so as to conserve bandwidth and make for easier streaming.

Yeah, but you approach your music interest and consumption in a reasonably mature manner, whereas i imagine a lot of music fans, especially younger ones would go

"What the fuck is this shit, BoT must FUXXOR SUXXOR! Justin Timberlake 4 EVA!"

PsychoAndy said on the 13th Jun, 2008

The Tivoli confiscated my camera at The Hives a couple of years ago.
They then decided cameras are OK, revering this stupid rule & most sensible artists realise any bootlegs are great publicity.
Last night I took great photos at Tivoli of the gorgeous Julia Stone & on Sat Powderfinger & I've got tom\ns of photos of KM-H at both Zoo & Tivoli.
Sounds like Zoo have buckled to pressure from ONE band.
What a wimpish thing to do.

No more Zoo gigs for me. Taking photos is part of the GIG experience.
I've been doing it since 1974 at over 1,000 gigs & unless Zoo reverse this decision I won't be going there again.

gumbuoy

gumbuoy said on the 13th Jun, 2008

The Tivoli confiscated my camera at The Hives a couple of years ago.
They then decided cameras are OK, revering this stupid rule & most sensible artists realise any bootlegs are great publicity.
Last night I took great photos at Tivoli of the gorgeous Julia Stone & on Sat Powderfinger & I've got tom\ns of photos of KM-H at both Zoo & Tivoli.
Sounds like Zoo have buckled to pressure from ONE band.
What a wimpish thing to do.

No more Zoo gigs for me. Taking photos is part of the GIG experience.
I've been doing it since 1974 at over 1,000 gigs & unless Zoo reverse this decision I won't be going there again.

well, that seems like cutting off your nose to spite your face - since you're such a regular shooter surely its no hassle to contact the zoo and let them know you're coming?

no more zoo gigs? thats a lot of good gigs youll be missing out on

NiteShok

NiteShok said on the 13th Jun, 2008

No, you're right. I gathered that bit of information (which could be wrong) from speaking to one of the Zoo staff on Tuesday.

Demosthenes

Demosthenes said on the 13th Jun, 2008

The Tivoli confiscated my camera at The Hives a couple of years ago.
They then decided cameras are OK, revering this stupid rule & most sensible artists realise any bootlegs are great publicity.
Last night I took great photos at Tivoli of the gorgeous Julia Stone & on Sat Powderfinger & I've got tom\ns of photos of KM-H at both Zoo & Tivoli.

What sort of camera? I've taken a P&S into the tiv without explicit permission -- and you do see a lot of those - but never tried with a SLR...

Bananaphone

Bananaphone said on the 13th Jun, 2008

I'm telling you right now, the reason you're confused is because the band don't mind you taking photos and the manager is being a control freak.

Seen it time, and time, and time, and time, and time again.

I shot AJS last night too, they had inner beauty shining out of them. Sadly my partner was sick so I had to leave after 5 songs =/

Bananaphone

Bananaphone said on the 13th Jun, 2008

A standard policy for MOST venues is no professional cameras, aka cameras with interchangeable lenses (DSLRs) and no telephoto lenses

You might be able to get a 400d with a nifty 50 on it for instance, but fat chance you'll get in a 40D with bat grip and a 70 - 200 for instance.

Demosthenes

Demosthenes said on the 13th Jun, 2008

A standard policy for MOST venues is no professional cameras, aka cameras with interchangeable lenses (DSLRs) and no telephoto lenses

You might be able to get a 400d with a nifty 50 on it for instance, but fat chance you'll get in a 40D with bat grip and a 70 - 200 for instance.

Yeah I've snuck a 400d with a 50mm into Splendour before. I suspect some of the higher end P&S cameras would come very close to outshooting that these days.

PsychoAndy said on the 13th Jun, 2008

I just have a Canon 8MP camera with 10x optical zoom.
Gets great puictuires at Tivoli from upstairs or down & at both Splendour & BDOs, as the lighting is good.
Got great photos at Grates gig at Zoo in Dec as lighting was good, but often at Zoo lighting is dreadful (nearly as BAD as at The Corridor AKA The Troubadour) & the sound at Zoo is always dreadfull, as to get in the "perfect tringle" listening position is impossible at The Zoo due to THE STAIRWELL. Zoo is also often too hot too.
If Kate Bush plays at Zoo I'll go, otherwise I think I'll gig elsewhere.
Saw Kate B on her only ever Tour in Bristol - best female performer ever, but Bjork was close at BDO 08 & my beloved KM-H is GR8 & getting better every gig in KATE 08.

Bananaphone

Bananaphone said on the 13th Jun, 2008

A P&S can do a great job, especially stuff like the G9. But a 400d with a 50mm at 1.8 will slaughter ANY point and shoot in conditions that are less ideal.

Also I'd take the 3fps rather than the 1fps, quicker focus times, etc. ;)

But I know you weren't about to start a beginner slr vs ps debate.

shanti_lttl

shanti_lttl said on the 13th Jun, 2008

Prosumer cameras are better. :p

And that 50mm has focusing issues. My 24-70L is faster, not as sharp though.

I think it's just something you will have to live with. I remember when my friends supported Sunk Loto and photography was banned. Then there was another time they played at The Lair. There's just times when you can't take photos. If you're a photographer contact some street press or ask to take photos of the bands that play there. That's actually going to take you further then just showing up to a small venue and taking photos.

You should be glad that some $200 p&s camera won't be in the way of your 30 or 40dslr...as selfish as that makes me sound.

Bananaphone

Bananaphone said on the 13th Jun, 2008

My primary lens is a lot faster too, but 1.8 I believe is two times more light than 2.8

And you can always get a 50 1.4 or 50 1.2 too ;)

That said I find 50mm too long front of stage, I just pack one incase the light is REALLY bad.

de-tec-tive

de-tec-tive said on the 13th Jun, 2008

The Tivoli confiscated my camera at The Hives a couple of years ago.
They then decided cameras are OK, revering this stupid rule & most sensible artists realise any bootlegs are great publicity.
i always have trouble at the Palais (in Melbourne). when you're going through the doors they do a bag check and tell you no cameras are allowed, and then once you're in there and the band a playing, tonnes of people are happily snapping away non-stop and they don't do shit. it makes me really fucking mad, if they're going to be so strict at the door they could at least attempt to enforce it.

TheMystikEel

TheMystikEel said on the 14th Jun, 2008

That said I find 50mm too long front of stage, I just pack one incase the light is REALLY bad.

Agreed. I have been shooting on a Sigma 30mm f1.4 for the past couple of weeks (since my 24-70L had to be given back for a while. sigh.) A little wider than the 50 (which, like banana, I carry for emergencies) but tis rather awesome. And rather cheap, all things considered.

As gumbuoy pointed out before, The Bravery thing was interesting. I was fully expecting my camera to be put away somewhere (I wonder if the zoo staff know a SLR can't shoot video.. hmm..) but nope, here have a photo pass. Also agreed re. enforcing their own rules but it's so easy to hide a P&S camera - even a G9 or close in size. Not like they check bags *that* thoroughly, at least from what I've seen (and this isn't just the zoo - other venues are the same. Interpol earlier this year - cracked down massively on *any* cameras at all - two days later a friend emailed me her photos she took from the barrier on a shitty little sony P&S. not great images but the point still stands...)

Hey good to hear someone else was at The White Russians show - crowd was a little light on but the gig was awesome :P

jxe520

jxe520 said on the 14th Jun, 2008

The Zoo is the venue I photograph at the most by a long way (16 gigs so far this year). I'll usually claim a place at the edge of the stage before the band come on, photograph for 4 or 5 songs, go have a drink or two and watch the band, and maybe see if I can squeeze in the other side for the encore to take a few more pics from a different angle. I try not to outstay my welcome, I never go front, centre, I'll squeeze in where I can and try to get the best shots I can; I didn't pay, others have and it's more their right to see the gig than it is mine.

When I was there for KMH I had my place at the very edge of the stage, KMH came on, the first song started, at which point another photographer pushed his way to the front. A group of girls complained to him about pushing in and he then gave it the whole "look, I'm trying to do my job" (I think those were just about his actual words...)and then when he turned my way rolled his eyes.

When I was there for The Audreys a photographer took photos from front centre for the entire gig, which I thought was pretty rude, plus it must be depressing as hell to be on stage and look down and see someone taking photos of you for the whole gig.

It doesn't really surprise me that The Zoo has brought this in, and I expect more smaller venues to bring it in the future, especially as the price of DSLRs will soon be under $500. You only have to have one look at Black Lips vs The Bloggers to think that maybe having less cameras at gigs might not be such a bad thing.

http://blog.wfmu.org/freeform/images/2008/06/06/blacklipsvsbloggers.jpg

NiteShok

NiteShok said on the 14th Jun, 2008

That's a really cool photo blog you've got, Justin.

Bananaphone

Bananaphone said on the 14th Jun, 2008

As far as I am concerned photo passes shouldn't be given out so people can write about it on their stupid personal blogs that get 5 people visiting it a month.

indiie said on the 14th Jun, 2008

Hey good to hear someone else was at The White Russians show - crowd was a little light on but the gig was awesome :P

Are there any reviews/photos of this gig anywhere? I would have been there if it wasn't for exams.

NiteShok

NiteShok said on the 15th Jun, 2008

I don't get it. You're annoyed by their new restrictions, but now you only want legitimate photographers to have access to shooting at the Zoo? Legitimate photogs have gotta start somewhere..

Bananaphone

Bananaphone said on the 15th Jun, 2008

No, I am saying people shouldn't get LEGITIMATE photo passes for shooting bands because they have a blog. If you want to shoot so badly, in those circumstances, buy a damn ticket.

Media passes are limited and allocated generally towards those who actually have some kind of readership because they shoot for a site like FL or a streetpress. To say that a person's personal website is going to help sell tickets or merch in future or promote a band in any meaningful way when its readership is not existant is a tad insulting given that they are PAYING for your tickets.

If you want to pay and bring your camera along, I am all for that. I just don't like amateur point and shoot users blasting away with their flashes in a photo pit when I am there to do a job for a magazine.

TheMystikEel

TheMystikEel said on the 15th Jun, 2008

Should be both soon - am going through photos right now . :)