Видео

You're welcome David! Thanks for watching! -R

Hi Keith! I have done some environmental portraiture in the past but it's been a while. My big fear is that some new concert photographers of which many are even new to photography in general will run up against this scenario and butcher it. Nothing replaces being able to run your camera and having extended knowledge. I myself am starting to do a little more music video work. Video is a whole different animal. I think my publisher was a little shocked that I could do it. LOL the only wildlife where I live is the feral cat on my porch! Thanks for watching! -R

Hi estwern ! Everyone's work flow will be different. The point of the video is how we handle our work. The video gives people a look see at editing of concert photos and the sheer amount of work there can be, Our editing is minimal compared to people that burn and dodge and remove items. We don't use presets and each photo gets individual attention. The video shows my selection process for which photos to work on and use. The process is more that click this button, move over here and tap that button. It covers storage, editing, naming of files and more. It definitely is not a photoshop tutorial but it is a real world working concert photographers work procedures. Thanks for watching! -R

Does that program have any sort of method for marking images as selected? Your way of squinting in at the screen and physically writing the filename down in a notepad seems so primitive and slow. The program I use allows me to go thru the shoot and just tap keys on the keyboard to rate my keepers with 1-5 stars or color coded labels etc then I just have it filter view just those for editing or further culling.

Hi getdavo1!, Yes it does. The program has a star system that lets you pick based on rating. I like he note pad because if needed I can write a few notes as needed. I just started using this system because it's the easiest way I have found to see the photo in a larger view. I am still trying to improve the way I work every time I edit, I am never completely satisfied. I played around with lightroom for a while. Part of the issue is the right side monitor is very high resolution and text is very small and hard to read. I am going to need to do some adjusting. In the selection process I have to look at a majority of shots anyway and enlarge them to see what is exactly there. LOL and another part of the problem is that it's time for the annual eye exam. The bifocals just don't work like they use to! Thanks for watching! -R

Hi!karlsteven9002, I'd need to see an example. is there a lot of back lighting? What camera are you using? Certain brands do not sync together focus points and metering points. Most Canon's do not. Sony's do with a firmware update and Nikon's do natively. You may focusing in one place and metering in another. If you can get an example I can take a look. Thanks for viewing! -R

@robertc.maxfieldiiphotography Hi, thank you for taking the time to reply. My camera is a Panasonic S5 mk 1 full frame. Not the greatest for auto focus or low light. I will try to upload a few pics. Thanks, Marl

Karl, I think you may have tried to send me something but something happened and they disappeared. Please try again. Thanks -R

@robertc.maxfieldiiphotography Hello Robert, I can't seem to send anything via this message. I have taken the liberty of send a couple of images via Facebook messages. Thank you, Karl

Karl they flashed up in my instant messenger and then went away. Please send them again. Not sure what happened. -R

xdlights4944 Welcome to concert photography! If you have any questions let me know and thanks for viewing! -R

stephenlanders I was kind of stunned because I deal a lot more with regional artist. This is the first time I had dealt with a old school global artist from the 70's. Night and day difference from the contract and the original request. I wasn't about to turn loose of my rights after all that. Glad you enjo my videos and thank you! -R

Hi pemitaki! Great question! What you see in the video is a combination of settings to achieve the result. There is a wide variety of combinations. BUT combine this video with these couple of videos it will show it is not only the settings but also the scouting and preparations that complete everything. There is not one set of concert photography setting to fit all situations. Please take a look at these videos! ruclips.net/video/aCEbJ1i4ho4/видео.html and ruclips.net/video/-zv4EsecnAg/видео.html . Sometimes you can not scout the venue but arriving early can give an advantage and let you look around. Thanks for watching! -R

Hi jpsteiner2! That video was one of my early ones. Seems like so long ago. Thank you! and thanks for watching! -R

Hi Jeb! I answered your comments in chunks so it may take a bit to get settled. Who someone has taken photos of really doesn't matter. It's the photos they produce. Old photos almost never hold up today. They might have a good moment, but that is a lot of luck especially the further back in time you go. Jeb, The photos I showed in the video were taken by Robert M. Knight. Robert is a Nikon Ambassador and is still active today. I don't think most of it was luck but there probably some luck involved. That would be simply because for the time technology was not as advanced and the techniques were new. For the time they were great photos but now a lot of great old photos are what beginners capture. We attach additional meaning to photos based on who the subject is. If you take the exact same photo of a well known artist and some fresh new band. People think the one of the known artist is better just because of who is in the shot. It doesn't make it any better a photo. Jeb I study old and new and I do not see a lot of beginners capturing that kind of quality as the masters. In fact I see a lot of bad photos. The bad photos could be for a number of reasons. The number one reason I think for that is lack of knowledge which is expected for young or new photographers. You are correct in that people today think photos of people they recognize are better and that's probably due to them knowing who they are. Viewers have something they can relate to. Perception. You are right it doesn't make it any better. I am sure photographers of the past have a lot of knowledge to offer. However it depends how much they have shot recently as times have changed a lot. The difference might be gear but there is a big difference between film and digital. Most older concert photographers that I know are still very active. The number of concert photographers from the past is also quite a bit lower. There just wasn't that many of them. The average age of viewers of this channel for example is over 40 years old and the majority are over 50 which really amazes me. If studying other concert photographers work is important, which it is they should study people currently shooting. They are more likely to be using gear similar to your own, shooting in lighting conditions that are similar or even the same venues/artists or just editing in the same software. Agreed. I study young and old concert photographers. What I look for is a number of things. Composition, exposure, sharpness and other factors. Just because you are a young pup doesn't mean you aren't any good. There is a lot of good young talent out there. Along with that there is a lot of people that need help. Doesn't mean their work is great but you really cannot learn much from the film days outside of the real basics of basics because that's all there really was back then. You can learn a lot about composition and lighting from early work. Yes lighting has changed a lot but remember the early photographers did it with less. The problem for a lot of people is finding 'the masters' is hard. There is a lot of really average concert photography work. With all the restrictions put on both official photographers/media as well as the crowd it's really hard to find people with a super solid and consistent body of work. Often times it's not the most well known of the past or the current paid photographers that have the best work. There is a lot of average work in both eras. It is hard to find photographers with a solid and consistent body of work. I do see a lot of really bad work and I say that is probably do to lack of knowledge and trying or experimenting. Bad composition, bad exposure, photos that are not sharp. That is one of the reasons for this channel. It is to help people to become better concert photographers. What festers the whole situation is people telling others that their work is great when it really isn't. It may be a setup or an improvement. It may be an ok first attempt but still needs help. I will agree it sometimes is not the most famous photographers that are great but the unknown ones. The examples you showed in the book, are okay photos but nothing spectacular. They are just, normal shots anyone is getting. It's also made harder with older sepia/black and white photos because that hides so much in a photo. You can get away with almost anything when not delivering in full color. The medium shot of Eric Clapton is nice, but it's also just a pretty regular shot. A lot of this is what I mentioned before where we view images as better depending on the subject. If you recreate that photo 1:1 people would not view it the same because you did it with some random person even though it is the same or near identical shot. Yes it's about capturing a moment but the key to concert photography is being there. That truly is the hardest part. Taking the photos is the easiest part of the process. Jeb please remember that B&W was the film of the day. Most concert photos were shot on Tri-X pan film or HP5. Ektachrome 400 was expensive and no where capable of producing what we do today. I agree that it is better to try to reproduce a color photo if it all possible. B&W today is a last resort. That is unless you look at the two and the B&W wins on it's own merit. It is easy to produce B&W today and just walk away. I see that a lot. In some ways it was more difficult in the old days but today has it's own challenges. Thanks for the comments and watching! -R

Awesome! We are based just south of DFW airport! We are all over the Dallas Ft. Worth area and this weekend is no exception. Thanks for the support and watching! -R

Thank you! -R

jahprince8538 I got it for Christmas one year. A very useful gift. Thanks for watching! -R

Thank you! I have several things kicking around in my head including a big one on contracts. This weekend I am doing two days of festivals so it's going to be crazy! Thanks for watching! -R

@@robertc.maxfieldiiphotography have just been to a festival in kent recently and got some great shots of Curved air using a little compact nikon j2 left my nikon d750 at home amazing images out of it im only a hobbiest not pro and retired still love it though

Hi Rider! I really want to get this video series up and running. It was one of the worst performing videos I have produced but I am still going to do it. I even went out and bought an OM-4 to do it. I always wanted one. I used 2 AE-1P's for a while. The company I worked for let me pick 2 of anything they had. I had a black one and a chrome one. When I was tinkering with auto modes I liked shutter priority better than aperture priority. The only reason I changed was I got 2 Minolta X700's with off the film plane metering. Those were the days! Thanks for watching -R

LOL Yup! -R

Sloop Right On!, It's a pride thing to a point. I hear a lot of photographers say that they delete a lot of photos. Worries me a bit but I save and catalog 99% of everything. I love sports and have photographed Formula 1, The NBA, MLB and others but live music is more my passion. It's funny but I got a text from Albert Bouchard of Blue Oyster Cult right after half time of the Super Bowl. I asked him about a shot I took of him sitting on the drums before a show during sound check. He said yes the photo was indeed him. Being able to tell helps. Thanks for watching! -R

Hi Richard! It’s called Rock Gods by Robert M. Knight. It’s available in paperback and hardcover on Amazon. His story of the last two days of Stevie Ray Vaughan is flat out scary and his photographs are what I think most people should strive for. The forward of the book was written by Slash. Thanks for watching! -R

@@robertc.maxfieldiiphotography Thanks. I am going to get it. The few examples you showed are what I regard as what is to be expected.

I got the hard bound for Christmas last year. I think a library in Ohio had it but Amazon has it both in Hard copy and soft bound. I agree. I see so much stuff out there and shake my head. The Eddie Van Halen shot is what I think everyone should strive for. It's amazing. -R

Thank you for your comments @masterinico! When I made this video it was truly simple on purpose. You see a lot of camera and lens reviews and this setting and that setting. I sat and thought no one I know of has ever covered this. Your comments and suggestions are what it is all about! I will need to check out the new EN-EL-15 C battery. Nikon's chargers are really fragile and I end up replacing them quite often. Accessories are a major thing that people do not realize. Accessory bags and the contents over a weekend long festival are important. I thought it may seem silly for adding the cap keeper but I lost my lens cap 3 times at the Dallas International Guitar Festival. Luckily I found all three times LOL. As for SD and compact flash I have 3 matched sets of 32gb sd and CFcards that I rotate. I should replace them next year for sure and up them to 64gbs. I carry 2 Nikon D800's now where at one time I used a D800 and a D7100. The D800 raw files are nearly 80mb a piece. So power and space make a difference. I have caught a few negative reviews for this video for some reason but your reply is !!! Thanks for watching! -R

mmastre it does add some bulk and weight but anything I don't have to carry around that is loose the better. Plus I don't have to stop mid stream. Thanks for watching! -R

ReadIcculus93 patience is hard to teach. There are a lot of pray and sprayers out there. It is sorta like photographing hockey or NBA basketball. Timing can be everything! Thanks for watching! -R

margoann55 White Balance is the only thing I set on auto. It is set at auto1 or normal colors. There are times I really like to play with the balance to tone down or correct colors in Camera Raw. Other than auto focus the only thing I can think f that is set to auto on my camera is WB. Thanks for viewing! -R

A very simple classic camera. No real frills. Makes me cry when I hear people say that they can't do this unless they have focus tracking and IBIS. Life was good with Tri-X or HP-5. If you can run that, you can run just about anything! Thanks for watching! -R

Hi! dalvinderbasi3495, originally in the US ISO was called ASA. ASA rated the sensitivity of the emulsion on film to light. Larger grains of silver more sensitive the film. There is more to it than that but.. .Digital is a little different but the concept is similar. But it is more of turning the gain up and down like the volume on a stereo, sort of. The sensor takes in light and depending on the gain level is how the photo is recorded. So technically you are right and I think I tried to over simplify things a bit. It's the old film guy in me I guess :) . The way it is defined and I will post the link in this reply is this: What is ISO? In simple terms, ISO is a measure of the sensitivity of the camera’s sensor to light. The lowest ISO setting of most digital cameras is 50, 100 or 200. At this setting, the camera’s sensor is least sensitive to light. At higher settings, like 3200 or 6400, the sensor is more sensitive to light. It can be confusing because Digital is different in some was than film. digital-photography-school.com/understand-iso-digital-camera/ Thanks for watching and the comment! -R

@@robertc.maxfieldiiphotography Thank you for the very informative reply. I really appreciate that. Yes of course ASA for film and ISO for digital sensors are different. ASA was sensitivity as you mentioned, digital being different. Thank you so much for your reply, and very interesting and informative reply.

I agree. We are finally starting to get out again after some medical issues. We have 3 events coming up shortly. Thanks for watching -R.

Hi JCasey! I will admit I do the same thing some times. We have one festival where there is a very dark indoor stage(it's in a warehouse) and the other is outdoors in bright sunlight. I leave the ISO set for the indoor and when I get outdoors I increase the shutter speed and aperture. That way I am not changing the setting all the time. The shows happen all day about 30 minutes apart, inside then outside all day long. The higher ISO allows you to get the higher shutter for the moving acts. Punk bands especially. AND the wide angle lenses give you the larger depth of field so is forgiving focusing wise. A lot less chance of blur. I think I would still use selective metering and focusing just to make sure the subject is properly exposed. I can not tell you the number of peoples work I see with bad exposure, blur and noise. Drives me almost as crazy as the shots with the subject smack in the middle on every photograph. I've been shooting a lot of country and blues artist recently so things are a lot slower. It takes a different mindset. I sometimes really miss arena rock shows (a lot)! Thanks for watching!!! Appreciate the comment! -R

Thank you and thanks for watching! -R

Thank you Stephen! This weeks was kind of a video I just went huh? I found some of these shots and forgot I did them. When I started working on them I was a little frustrated at first and realized what happened. Thanks for viewing! -R

Salrex take a look at this! ruclips.net/video/5Nd7EZ3k39s/видео.html Here is a good dose of Eric Johnson! Thanks for watching! -R

@JebSmith-3ehw, while having the faster lens it is not necessary in many cases. It does give you the latitude if needed. It's a luxury that people do not have to have in many cases. Having a higher shutterspeed to stop fast paced movement is a plus. If you don't have it I tend to underexpose and push the exposure in camera raw. Jeb I think you shoot in more caves than I do for sure. At one time 1/1000th of a second was the fastest shutterspeed on many cameras. I did a demo on a Canon XTI Rebel to prove it can be used in a lot of concert work. I even used the kit lens with it. Was it used in dark clubs with crap light ? No but it was in a park at night with stage lighting. The b&w film was of Charlie Daniels over 40 years old and the color was of Van Halen 45 years ago. Both were at 400 ISO. They were both scanned off of film. Really good for their ages. Doesn't matter what camera it was done with. The D800? Professional sports cameras at one time could only shoot 3 to 5 frames a second. ISO performance is excellent. I don't need to use the extreme ranges. I don't need an EVF or face tracking autofocus. Have no need for articulating screens. Not for stills anyway. I focus off and meter off the face of the person I am shooting. And my technique is solid so I can live without IBIS. Once you learn the proper way to hold and use a camera IBIS is not needed. Most of the stuff you mentioned are modern things. Concert photography did not start in 2020. Concert photographers still got results as far back as the 1960's as far as I know of. Thus the title of the video 3 concert photography myths debunked. You can look at my portfolio. 90% of the modern stuff was shot with a D800. NO IBIS, NO focus tracking, EVF, NO high ISO's, NO rapid continuous advances. NO articulated screens. I n places for alleys, warehouses, parks, dark clubs, city streets, and arenas Concert Photography can be done with out all of that. When people post the camera and the lens they used to do it with no one cares they look at the photo. Thanks for the comments and watching! -R Portfolio link www.robertcmaxfield.com

@@robertc.maxfieldiiphotography For sure not everyone has faster lenses but you suggest you are going to get top tier images with a kit lens with a variable aperture at a lot of shows is just false. You can push files in post, however if you are having to push it a lot and on a less capable sensor the images will fall apart very quickly. Caves? Indoor venues sure but you need a lot of light to be able to get clean images. Something like the Canon XTI CAN be used for any type of photography, but it all comes down to what your bar for results is. I can tell you right now that Canon would be unusable in most scenarios. What I was trying to communicate is for the time those cameras might have been good, but they are not now. With no articulating screen combined with no subject tracking you are forced into very limited shooting positions/angels. And no subject tracking just means super super slow focusing even more so with the limited focus points of a DSLR. Of course photos have been around for a while, but the quality of the images from the past are rubbish to be honest. Back then it was all you had but now it's an unacceptable quality. The results back them are equal or less than the results of a random phone happy snap now. I looked at your work, I can see why you don't need those features because it's a lot of the same static shots over and over. Subjects are hardly moving, similar poses, similar composition. The angels hardly vary. Little to no wide shots, there is a couple of full body but as far as I could see no stage shots, no pyro no confetti no FOH shots. There are limited circumstances where usable pictures can be shot with out dated gear yes, but you are really going to get as best a boring no movement portrait at best from those cameras and lenses. If your aim is to take basic portrait like shots in a concert environment of a static act then sure you don't need as much. But for high quality photos of not static subjects you don't need the most expensive camera and lens but a mirrorless with an f4 will be enough. If you took great concert photographers and told them to produce the images they already do with a DSLR with slower glass they couldn't. They could try but the results will be worse. They would be forced kind of like you are to pick basic shots. Having a fast burst isn't essential but to capture those tiny moments if you are snapping 1-5 pics you are going to miss great photos often. The D800 also does not have great ISO performance compared to the lower end full frame mirrorless options. Check dpreviews Studio scene Image comparison tool. I put in the Nikon D800 and 3 lower end full frame cameras from different brands. The Nikon Z5, the Sony A7III and the Canon RP. All set to RAW at 6400 ISO. 6400 is a good number to check because while you want to avoid being there it's no unreasonably high for a concert with mid to poor lighting. Now I will be the first to say that a hyper controlled tests only show you how they perform in a specific case, however the gaps in performance are usually bigger in real world and the D800 does not perform well on this chart compared to the entry level mirrorless full frame from all brands. Most DSLRs are not "bad" cameras, in fact some like the 1DX MK III still hold up okay today. But overall the missing features in most of them compared to mirrorless means you are missing great shots and then shots you get could have been better had you had some of those features. One of the few things I wish my camera had that some others have is pre-shooting. The ability to take a few frames backwards in time so if you just missed something there is a very high chance one of those pre captured frames will be get the moment would be insane. Do I NEED it? No, would it make the 'quality' of my photos higher? No. But would it would do is give me amazing photos that I otherwise would miss. This is pretty much how a lot of the other features work and when combined allow you to have more great photos. This even extends to lenses where having a faster lens opens up options for higher shutter speeds and cleaner images with lower ISO on top of the baked in nicer bokeh backgrounds. Required? No. Difference between those with and those without, very noticeable. You would be hard pressed to find any professionals in the concert field using DSLRs who's work rivals the quality of those using mirrorless. The person behind the camera matters as much as the camera. But give the D800 for example with f4 lenses or slower to the people producing amazing photos and they will not be able to reproduce the same quality work. They may get a few shots here and there but they will have to work 1000x harder for a couple of good frames.

Hi Jeb! I hope I didn't come across that you can totally live with the cheapest gear. While true you can get "DECENT" images with lower priced gear, better more modern and advanced gear makes things easier. You do not need the most modern and expensive gear just starting out. You can even use less expensive, older more professional gear. In extremely dark clubs it will be a lot more difficult. A lot of concerts are also held outside in daylight. As for the articulating screen depends on how you shoot. If you are using the back screen YOU WILL need it as well as IBIS. I do not use liveview and I don't have my arms extended. Using this technique is very unstable.. The quality of modern concert photography in some ways better. In others like you say is rubbish. The point was it was possible even back as far as 60 years ago. Do modern sensors and technology make things better. In the right hands with a photographer that knows what they are doing yes. In my shooting I rarely have FOH and wide angle shots due to I am mainly after a touring single artist. Thus my photos mainly have shots of the artist and not the whole band at once. I also do a lot of shooting from the pit. The D800 for a lot of the work I do is, capable ISO performance and the 36.3 megapixels is a big plus. Would I rather have a Z7 II. Not really. Would I gain anything from owning one. Not really. Jeb these comments solidify my video in that you don't have to have the greatest and latest gear to do most of the work out there. Would it make it easier? Probably so but for the people starting out in the business trying to get started they don't need most of it. You don't have to have the latest photo gear to get decent results. Would I want to use an XTI all the time? Not a chance. But if I had to do it in a pinch I know I could. You are right in the methods of using a camera have changed over time. That will continue. There a lot of really bad modern concert photos out there. Most of that stuff can be cured for the photographer with knowledge and practice. The myth is you don't have to have expensive modern gear. AND you don't. Knowing what you are doing with your gear is the key and that is the same with anything you use. Lens sharpness varies from lens to lens. Cheaper lenses will work but no where near as well. If you look at 85% of concert photos on the internet, exposure is wrong, out of focus, bad composition, and a number of other issues. Most of which have nothing to do with what camera they were shot with. That doesn't include the millions of cell phones either. You can put 20 photos on a table of the same concert from 20 photographers and the thing that makes the most difference is the pilot. The purpose of my videos are to show people that they can do concert photography. They can do it on a budget to start. They can learn this skill and succeed. They can improve on things if they are already doing it. Jeb I enjoy your input and comments! Thank you for them! -R

Where are your videos about your pictures on your You Tube channel. Or your website portfolio where we can critque your pictures you have shot in the past. Seems to me you just want to cause waves and Robert is being nice to you, because that is the way he is and is passionate about photography

@SloopJohnBee-vq6dw, Yes they are and a lot of fun. We shot a lot of events where we see artist for the first time. Some make an impression! Thanks for watching! -R

@rtdg4419, Yup very true! While faster lenses do help they are not always required and in some cases when they are used can cause their own set of issues. That is why I stated I did use my 80-200mm f2.8 for some of the shots but the aperture was f4 or higher. If you look at a lot of people on forums they tell you that you have to have fast lenses and high ISO to work and that is simply not the case. So if someone is looking at a couple lenses say an 85mm f1.2 at $2800 vs an 85mm f1.8 at $800 (still really fast) a person might test each lens for performance for the money. OR they can look at a 70-200mm f4 Nikon at $500 vs a 70-200mm f2.8 Nikon at twice the price. If you are on a budget but still need the job done a little sacrifice. Thanks for watching! -R

@@robertc.maxfieldiiphotography You can extend that from the use of zoom lenses compared to fixed focal length prime lenses. Primes are generally sharper than zooms but my collection of lenses is almost exclusively zooms for the advantage of the lens having many more options than going only with prime lenses. The cost of using only zooms would make it prohibitively expensive to cover the same ranges as zooms.

@rtdg4419, Lenses are funny. In the Nikon world there are very soft zooms such as the 75-240mm f4.5/5.6 or the 35-80mm f3.5/4.5. vs the extremely sharp 80-200mm f2.8's Even some prime lenses may be soft. In the older Canon world many Canon primes tended to be soft. I find picking lenses to almost be like picking watermelons. One lens I love that has a not so stellar reputation is the 28-105mm f3.5/4.5 In the Sony world there are a lot of people swearing by third party lenses. I am not totally sold on that situation. But anyway for someone starting out or on a budget even the cheaper lenses will work out. -R

Hi Raintree25! I started concerts digitally with a Nikon N70s and moved my way up. I just bought another D800 for $399.95 with 7500 shots on it. The camera came with the original box and stuff including the receipt from the first purchase. The original owner paid $2999.95 for the camera! I now use 2 D800's retiring my D7100. I love the Nikon vintage glass. Thanks for watching! -R