CONCERT PHOTOGRAPHY help from OLD FARTS AND GEEZERS!
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 18 окт 2024
- Getting an education by learning from the masters is important. Yes I know concert photography has changed but the main concepts are the same. Younger concert photographers can learn a great deal from those that came before them. It's not too much different than landscape photographers learning from Ansel Adams, portrait photographers learning from Richard Avedon or street photographers from Henri Cartier-Bresson. Check out the links below!
www.animazing....
mankowitz.com/...
/ 533958099547587606
Welcome to my Concert Photography How To Series. Over the years I have photographed Queen, Bad Company, Van Halen, Ted Nugent, Charlie Daniels, Journey, Fleetwood Mac, The Moody Blues and many many others. In this series I will provide tips, tricks, stories and much more from my over 45 years of Music Photography Experience! There will be a lot of information that you just will not find anywhere else. Concert photography and music photography business and practices, concert photography gear with out breaking the bank, music photography must haves to name a few. My work has been published in newspapers, magazines and online world wide. Some of my latest work can be found at buddymagazine.... Last year we photographed 42 shows! Want to see some examples? Check out my music photography portfolio at robertcmaxfield.com, my instagram @robertc.maxfield and for more concert photography tips check out my RUclips Channel @robertc.maxfieldiiphotography and Subscribe! If your band is looking for photos we would love to talk with you! Send me a note at robert@robertcmaxfield.com
Check out my:
Website: robertcmaxfield.com
Instagram @robertc.maxfield
FaceBook / rmaxfieldii
When in the Dallas / Ft. Worth area and looking for concert or music photography drop us a note!
robert@robertcmaxfield.com
Got questions, comments or concerns drop them in the comments! We do respond!
Like and Subscribe!
Musical knowledge is important so that you will remember who you shot in 20 years time. Cataloguing is obviously also useful. But like sports photography, you should be passionate about it to be good. Your passion for your subjects should guide you and ideally, ultimately be identifiable in your images 🙏👍📸
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
So what is the book?
I agree with looking at great photographers from the past, even if I would do things a little differently.
Richard
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 colour. 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.
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
Kids today.
LOL Yup! -R