Why Do Concert Halls Hate Snapshooters?

By Rik Fairlie

Performance hall policies on photography seem woefully anachronistic. I attended the annual Tibet House Benefit at Carnegie Hall last night, and I watched ushers repeatedly scold attendees for snapping photos.

concert

I was nowhere near the stage, mind you, and most fans were taking shots with cellphone cameras or point-and-shoots, without engaging the flash. These images could only be used for e-mail or galleries on social networking sites. It is highly unlikely they could be published or sold, given the poor quality of images taken from that distance in low lighting conditions with a 3X optical zoom. And if flash is disabled, the only thing to disturb performers would be the infrared focus-assist beam, which seems unlikely.

And it’s not just Carnegie Hall. I watched the same behavior at a performance at the Brooklyn Academy of Music several months ago. I snapped off a few shots with a Canon PowerShot SD 1000 before being admonished. (And this was before the performers, a string quartet named Ethel, were setting up.)

So why the fuss?

Today, digital technology has made it possible to photograph just about everything. And our culture has evolved into one that does just that, documenting and sharing every experience on Flickr or Facebook, whether advisable or not.

So I propose that camera makers create a new scene mode called Performance that would make photography palatable to all. The Performance mode should automatically disable flash, set the exposure for low lighting and disable the shutter release sound.

That would be a lot less intrusive than ushers stepping across your line of sight to shut down a flashless photographer in the upper reaches of a concert hall.

Comments are no longer being accepted.

Sam Tea February 4, 2009 · 4:03 pm

My Fujifilm FinePix F60fd calls it “museum mode”. No flash, no sound, no autofocus illuminator. I call it “spy mode”.

Rik Fairlie February 4, 2009 · 5:11 pm

Hi Sam:
I knew about Museum Mode but I didn’t realize that it silences the shutter. That’s great!
Rik

Ron February 4, 2009 · 8:09 pm

Why not simply give your full attention to the performance? Do you have to capture a record?

In addition to not disturbing other patrons, performers themselves are affected by the level of audience attention, or distraction as the case may be, including movement and relative inattentiveness.

A picture may be worth a thousand words, but it’s still not the real thing.

jim, boston February 4, 2009 · 11:31 pm

Jeez, can’t you live for just an hour or two without your toys? I’m sorry, but when I pay money to go to a concert I don’t want to be annoyed/distracted by people fiddling with their gadgets. Next time try just putting your junk away and enjoying the moment. You’ll get more out of it without the distancing created by sticking a camera in between you and the event. You’ll also find the memories are even better when they’re not defined solely by what you happened to get a photo of.

Karl Chapman February 5, 2009 · 7:56 am

I am General Manager of the Usher Hall in Edinburgh and this subject taxes us too, especially with the growth in small digital cameras and mobiles, and the enormous need people have to photograph and share their actions with others.

We do have a policy on photography, ie you aren’t allowed to. The reason for this, and this will be the same for most venues, is that we are contractually obliged to forbid photography (and videos, recordings) by the hirer and/or artist.

How bothered the artist is on the night varies enormously. Obviously in a sea of 2,800 punters at a rock/pop show, the majority of whom are standing, it is very difficult to control and the artist and his/her agent let it ride unless someone is pointing a high end dslr and telephoto lens at the stage. Most of the photos will be very amateur and show up on social networking sites, which in a way benefit the profile of the artist. Lit-up mobile phones seem to have taken the place of the (now prohibited) cigarette lighter held aloft in the crowd.

With classical and more acoustic music it’s just annoying to many members of the audience and the artist – people complain to my staff and we take action. Modern cameras are noisy and the flash is distracting to artists. If it is during the performance we view it as a question of bad manners and ask them to stop. On occasion we delete the images for them just to make the point.

Many cameras now have a video function too which adds to the frisson of contractual obligations and we have found people videoing long tracts of a concert from premium seats.

We always try and explain our reasoning to people, and the fundamental one is upholding our side of the contract.

I hope I have explained our side of things to you. By the way, I am a mad keen photographer and would like nothing better than a high quality, totally silent, flashless camera. //www.awinterlens.blogspot.com

//www.usherhall.co.uk

Burt Spielman February 5, 2009 · 8:29 am

Why the fuss? Because, if even one flash goes off, it disturbs the artists, not to mention at least some members of the audience. Ushers intervene because they have no way of knowing whether an individual has had the sense to invoke “museum mode.” Perhaps, along with incorporating such a feature into new cameras, it should be made the default mode. That way, everyone could just snap away incessantly instead of actually enjoying the event.

Jay Twitchell February 5, 2009 · 9:00 am

Pics and video are prohibited because of contractual issues with the both the union team that set up the stage and the artists that are performing. The performance venue is legally obligated to do as much as possible to keep unauthorized documentation of an event to a minimum. Ultimately the performance venue will have to pay more because of breech of contracts which will inturn raise the overall price of your tickets.

Donna February 5, 2009 · 9:55 am

When one attends a concert, it ‘s extremely annoying when those around you have their cellphones or digital cameras on and are taking pictures throughout the performance..it is not only discourteous to the performers, but to those who have paid to come enjoy the performance without distractions. At last year’s Tibet House concert it was so bad around us, that we had to ask people to be considerate and stop the photography. So there is an issue over and above the ultimate use of the photos. It is a question of consideration of those around you. I am glad the staff at Carnegie Hall was attempying to stop rude behavior!

Diner February 5, 2009 · 10:37 am

Rik

I hope you get it now. Some of us don’t want to be disturbed by people taking pictures, talking to each other, or on their phones. We came to see the performance with as little disturbance as possible.

The ushers wouldn’t be disturbing anyone if no one were disturbing others.

Where to do you draw the line. What seems innocuous to you may disturb others.

K February 5, 2009 · 2:23 pm

I remember attending a tour of the Sydney Opera House and the guide said no pictures were allowed, even though there was no one inside the hall (no performers, no workers, etc…)

Judson Scott February 5, 2009 · 4:16 pm

Why no photography? Because it is incredibly rude to the other audience members.

Jason J February 5, 2009 · 5:16 pm

As a person coming from both the performers angle and the events personnel angle, it’s just rude to be snapping photos. Sit back, relax, and enjoy the performance. No photo or video that you record will ever recreate the live experience.

I do agree that some ushers can be overly aggressive in pursuing audience members. Then again, they wouldn’t have to be if people were just polite and respected both the performer’s wishes and their fellow audience members. Leave the camera home, enjoy the show.

John Picker February 5, 2009 · 5:37 pm

There is another reason to prohibit photography. The other night I was at a local concert and a few people were taking pictures. Because they were in front of me, I was constantly bothered by the backlit screen from the cameras. With my Iphone, for example, when taking a picture the screen lights up so I can see what I’m taking. Everyone around and behind me can see this as well.
At the very least, if taking photos the camera should emit no light of any kind.

Erin February 7, 2009 · 10:32 pm

If you do not like photography…. do not hire Jonathan Coulton to play at your venue or attend one of his concerts. Many photos and videos are taken and posted on Youtube. Coulton embraces it 100% and he is smart by doing so. When you are engaged in a performance and having a blast then you are not concerned at all by clicks and flashes. Choose more entertaining shows is my advice to those who are annoyed.

Red Dot February 9, 2009 · 1:22 pm

Perhaps the venues should put up a system of strong IR LEDs ringing the stage / performance area? That would effectively block cameras from taking photos, right?

T. H. Williams February 10, 2009 · 12:22 pm

As a commercial photographer I am often asked to photograph major concerts and other public events. I obtain the permission of the entertainers and the owners or operators of the venue. There are written agreements regarding the use of the images. There are even times when I am asked not to use flash, U2 concerts for example. I usually work in places where members of the audience are not permitted, including backstage or even on stage. When I attend concerts as a member of the audience I do not take pictures and do not want amateurs around me constantly taking pictures. There is protocol and strict rules regarding photography of commercial entertainment, without it my career would also be in jeopardy!