HOW DID THEY DO CONCERT PHOTOGRAPHY ISO in the past?

Рет қаралды 970

2 ай бұрын

CONCERT PHOTOGRAPHY in the past was very different than today. ISO and then known as ASA/DIN was a lot lower and more challenging! Today's concert photography cameras are capable of great ISO numbers, sometimes higher than 52,000 ISO. So how did Concert Photographers do it?
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.com/events/digf... 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 KZfaq 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!

Пікірлер: 13

@rakov1 Ай бұрын

This is the channel I have been waiting for.

@robertc.maxfieldiiphotography Ай бұрын

Thank you Rakov1! Thanks for watching! -R

@franktatom1837 Ай бұрын

In the 70's-80's, I used Tri-X (400 "speed") or on rare occasions 100 speed Kodak color negative film. I avoided transparency film because the subjects were typically in high light situations and they could be washed out if the exposure was off. Because stage lighting was varied during a show as to color and intensity, I often shot when the light was at its brightest. I ignored the in-camera meter and tried to slightly overexpose the film, which on negative film gave me a bit of leeway in the bright areas but also some shadow detail. I shot with a 50mm lens wide open or nearly so. For color film, the colored lights of that era wreaked havoc on the film of that era, so I normally waited until the lights were mainly white to make a photo. I rushed to the SRO front row barrier for photos back then. Some artists would notice me and gravitate over to me from time to time - Pat Travers saw me and got closer to me than my lens would focus! So I have a blurry close up of his face and a memory that's pretty funny. I occasionally pushed Tri-X to 1600 back then for really low-light events with fast action, like sports, by using a special developer. But that was a necessity and not a gimmick back then, when there were no 1600 or 3200 speed films. The craze for pushing film for more contrast or some "look" now is absurd - we controlled that in printing negatives back when and you can do it digitally now after scanning a negative. I shoot film and digital nowadays and 400 ISO is a psychological ISO barrier for me, even for digital, that I'll never lose.

@robertc.maxfieldiiphotography Ай бұрын

Hi Frank! You made the point of my video! During the 70's and 80's I shot a lot of Tri-X 400 for newspapers. I did shoot some Ektachrome 400 slide and you are right. The stage lights would raise a little havoc with the color films. I never shot any color negative films for concerts. I see a lot of people worried about high ISO's on digital and look back at my Tri-X negs. My lenses of choice were 2 primes. One a 135mm f2.5 and a 200mm f3.5. The metering in those days was useless. Center weighted metering would not work. LOL Sometimes artist would help you out a bit on stage. I have a shot of Brian may point at me from the News of the World tour in 77! But on the other end I was shooting Jeff Lynne and ELO and I'm looking through the viewfinder and 2 guys are running at me from behind the stage. I guess I was up about 15 rows of to the side. The chase was on. Back in those days you didn't need media passes unless you were backstage. Some artist just didn't like cameras. They started putting no cameras allowed markings on tickets about that time. I too still get a little weirded out by ISO's over 1600 and when I see people shooting at 32000 ISO it makes me think. How much technology is really needed to do the job? We actually got it done back in the day with what many people today would think impossible. Thanks for watching! -R

@nickfanzo Ай бұрын

I still use Tri x NOW

@robertc.maxfieldiiphotography Ай бұрын

Nick I used a lot of TRI-X but later switched to HP-5. I am going to start up again with TRI-X really soon!

@jamescaldwell5 Ай бұрын

So you explain that the max ISO was 400. I kept waiting for you to explain why that vintage camera you were holding was the key for shooting low light photography. Huge aperture? Larger film format?

@robertc.maxfieldiiphotography Ай бұрын

Thank you James for your comment. The vintage Exacta is a normal 35mm film camera with nothing special for a lens. The Exacta Model B was a 127 film camera. If I remember the lens is a 50mm f2 and I have a 35mm f2 Zeiss for it also. The point of the video was back in the 70's, 80's and 90's we used 400 ASA/ISO film with lenses that were f1.8 or slower at the time. Modern cameras now have an amazing ISO range and it is needed for really dark small clubs but concert photography was possible and performed as far back as 1954 with 400 ASA/ISO film and 50mm f1.8 lenses. The Exacta was one the the very first small SLR cameras that would allow you to do it. Back in the 70's there was no VR, Spot metering was not common, most people used 400 ISO film and maybe push processed it in the dark room. Anything above that was not common. There was no autofocusing. There were no cameras that to more than 5 frames per second and they were not common due to cost. In most places flashes were not allowed. Technology has come a long way but we still got the job done with out it. Thanks for watching! -R

@nickfanzo Ай бұрын

Larger format doesn’t change anything but make depth of field worse and require more gear to stabilize the camera

@jamescaldwell5 Ай бұрын

@@robertc.maxfieldiiphotography so no tricks, just skill. I do shoot with a modern full frame mirrorless camera, but I enjoy using fast manual lenses instead of auto focus. One of my favorites is a vintage Minolta 58mm 1.2

@robertc.maxfieldiiphotography Ай бұрын

James, Nope no tricks just a different mindset and knowing what they were doing for the time. I loved the Minolta lenses! I had 2 X-700's for a while. I wish my Sony lens for my video camera was as good :( Minolta lenses were very underrated. -R

@nickfanzo Ай бұрын

Push film Use a flash I still shoot film and use my darkroom. Wouldn’t have it any other day. Making photographs with your hands is much more satisfying than sitting on a computer. And all prints are one of a kind and galleries want that

@robertc.maxfieldiiphotography Ай бұрын

Hi Nick! I just bought an Olympus OM-4 to replace my OM-1n that needs to be repaired. I am going to start shooting film. The issue with flash is the range and the people in front of you. If you can get close enough and high enough it works great if allowed. I'm going to develop film in the bathroom of the studio and then scan it into digital. I haven't used my Omega enlarger in years and I don't have the space for a real darkroom. I never really saw the point in pushing film when I could get good results with standard development. There is something to be said for hand made prints! Thanks for watching! -R