Back in my transparency film days I used to routinely under expose by 1/3 of a stop, sometimes even more. When I did this with my K10Ds I found the images very noisy when I lifted the exposure in Photoshop. I think it will be best to increase the ISO at the shooting stage as Alan says and then use noise reduction later in Photoshop.
Oh, and yes, always shoot in RAW.
Apart from that I can't offer any advice, I've never shot a gig in a dingy club, all my performance pics have been taken out in the open air such as at the Edinburgh Fringe.
If this works out Ted you could hire your son as your agent when you go pro.
Best of luck with it.
David

Sorry guys, can't make it after all. Its a busy time for us and Irene has reminded of other commitments. I fear this may influence Barrie's decision too.
Its a pity because I was looking forward to meeting a whole new group of PU regulars (The Sheffield/Peak District Gang) in addition to renewing acquaintance with people like Gary and Neil.
David

Great idea - the bacon butty clinches it. I wonder if Barrie fancies a trip to Sheffield? We could car share, my turn to drive I think.
David

JAK wrote:

Article 226-1 of the French Criminal Code:
[i]“A penalty of one year’s imprisonment and a fine of €45,000 is incurred for any wilful violation of the intimacy of the private life of other persons by resorting to any means of:
1° intercepting, recording or transmitting words uttered in confidential or private circumstances, without the consent of their speaker;
2° taking, recording or transmitting the picture of a person who is within a private place, without the consent of the person concerned.

However, where the offences referred to by the present article were performed in the sight and with the knowledge of the persons concerned without their objection, although they were in a position to do so, their consent is presumed”.[/quote]If this is so then to me the situation in France is not as clear cut as I first understood it. Assuming nothing has been lost in the translation from French to English to me that seems to say that the offence is taking or transmitting a picture of a person in a private place
And also even without consent If you take a picture of someone who sees you taking the picture but doesn't complain at the time then it can be assumed you have authorisation?
David

I'm indebted to my learned friend for the clarification M'lud.

As you say and John repeats you don't have laws to say you can do something. In the absence of a law that says you can't do it then its safe to assume its legal.

A few years ago because of the outrage many photographers felt at being stopped and questioned by police and security guards when going about their lawful business of taking pictures the photographic press and some individual members of Parliament who were keen photographers, sought clarification. The clarification was that its legal to take photographs in public places, unless reasons for not doing so were compelling. This is recognised by the Association of Chief Police Officers.
David

This is an interesting thread involving a debate that has been continuing for some years. Because I have an interest in street photography I often mentally debate many of the already quoted questions with myself.
Events such as the Whitby Goths, Edinburgh Fringe, war weekends etc are popular with photographers who often appear to outnumber the volume of participants in the event, most of whom are there to parade their costumes and go with the express purpose of being photographed. Non-the-less if I'm doing portraits I always ask permission first. And that includes Fat Spider who started going to the Goths as a photographer before he turned native and now appears as a Goth. Might see you there again in the next couple of months Alan.
For general street views I work within the law that states photography in public places, in the UK at least, is legal. For one thing street photography is not about portraits any more than its about streets. Its about the relationship of people to their environment. This means any people in the shot shouldn't be done as portraits but as figures in a larger view. Newspapers and TV news programmes daily show pictures of crowed streets - its preposterous to suggest every one of those individuals in view should first be approached for permission.
Schools banning proud parents taking pictures of nativity plays and sporting events may be acting within their rights but in my view are misguided. How could those snaps encourage perversion in any way?
JAK raises the question of this week's French competition. Its giving me a lot of thought. The last time I was in Paris, its a few years ago now, I did a lot of street photography. Now I'm wondering if I can retrospectively get away with entering something from then.
David

Perhaps we should have another Pentax mini-meet up here in the North East Stan when the weather gets a bit better and now you're improving. I'm sure the usual suspects would be up for it.
David

These are great Ted, excellent urban documentary/street photography style. You have good reactions to grab the action shots at just the right moment.
Davidr

I agree wholeheartedly in general with this John but I don't think I-Berg's correction to my spelling of Wagga Wagga or my response would have any influence on the outcome of the competition in any way.

David

Lovely set Bill, like many of your excellent landscape series the strength of the submission lies in viewing them as a set, rather like a panel of prints on an exhibition wall. They 'take' you to the location so you feel the scene.
Having said that #3, for me, is the strongest image. The darkly sharp branches add structure and strength to the composition.
David