วีดีโอ

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! th-cam.com/video/5Nd7EZ3k39s/w-d-xo.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

Hi Michael! I am familiar with David. He photographed Bon Jovi and for Sports Illustrated. We have corresponded back and forth a few times. What do you think the best parts of his courses would be for me? Thanks for watching! -R

Hi Account! I prefer not to use auto ISO. I like the total control I get and I like to make the decision rather than the camera doing it. There are times I intentionally like to under expose. The auto ISO would fight me by trying to make a decision I wouldn't want. With the ISO set to a specific setting I only need to worry about 2 things as far as exposure . I will admit that I use lower ISO settings than a lot of modern photographers. With the ISO set I can determine the shutter speed depending on the focal length of the lens I am using and using spot metering I get my exposure off the face most of the time. If the auto ISO misreads the exposure it would end up being a mess. I know some people use it and like it. It's a personal preference. The only auto settings I use are focusing and white balance. Thanks for watching! -R

@@robertc.maxfieldiiphotography You can set a min and a max range. I like to think I am quick on my fingers to change settings but I will never be as quick as my camera to adjust for changing lights back and forth. You also pretty much do not touch the other settings for exposure, ISO for the most part should be all that changes no? Shooting pretty much wide open all the time and setting shutter speed based on how much the artist is moving to freeze it. ISO really is the only setting you change for exposure in concerts. You might adjust shutter speed slightly up or down for a talking segment vs high energy stage and you might stop down for a wider group shot but not often. You set your shutter speed based on your focal length? I understand the whole wider has less shake side of things but usually you still want to be fast enough that if someone suddenly moves you can freeze everything. So sitting somewhere over 1/640 all the time. Especially with RAW if you are +/- 1 or 2 stops it's usually not even noticeable once corrected in post. Just wondering because with setting shutter speed and aperture and using auto ISO you pretty much do not have to think about exposure at all and can focus on other things. You also mentioned in one video you usually sit around 1600 ISO or lower. That would be only in decent lighting conditions yeah? Cause even at 2.8 and 1600 ISO you are really limiting your shutter speed to being very slow.

Jeb, The way I shoot I never or rarely have to worry about it. I was shooting a festival and another photographer asked me how I was handling auto ISO and I told him I wasn't. I leave mine set at 1600 and never move it unless I need to bump to 2000 in rare occasions. I am quick enough to be able to handle shutterspeed and aperture and even focus point and spot metering. I know it gives some Canon shooters fits because the metering and focusing are different from Nikon to Canon in the way they work. Sony's work like Canon's until you set to the proper firmware update. Basically it is the exact same way I photographed concerts in the 70's and 80's using film. The film was a constant ASA/ISO 400 and the ISO never changed. We didn't use metering in some cases unless the camera had spot metering. What you did was to set the shutterspeed the same as the focal length of the lens and then decided on the aperture by how bright the stage lighting was. If you use this system there is no need at all for auto ISO. The system has been used for concert photography since the late 1960's. -R

Jeb, I have been shooting concerts for nearly 50 years in all kinds of conditions, stadiums,, arenas, small and large clubs, extreme heat and cold and even rain. Major touring legendary bands such as Fleetwood Mac, Journey, Van Halen and so on. I have photographed for magazines and newspapers. I am very well versed in handling my cameras. You might look at my website at www.robertcmaxfield.com AND look at my historical archives. Many of which were shot on TRI-X 400 ISO black and white film OR Ektachrome 400 slide film. The historical archive most were done with an Olympus OM-1N manual camera with a 200mm f3.5 lens no auto focus no auto anything. ISO does not change on film at all. Take a look at the whole site. 40 years or more ago photographers did not have many of the features some people depend on today. We got the job done. Music photography did not start in the year 2000.

@@robertc.maxfieldiiphotography I just cannot see that actually working, shutter speed matching focal length will very frequently lead to motion blur if not most almost always. You cannot freeze a person moving around on stage at 1/60th. Am sure with experience you can move focus point and change a setting or 2 quick-ish but no human will be able to keep up with the camera using auto ISO. 1600 is also going to be way too low if you have a fast enough shutter speed to freeze a moving person even when wide open. ISO is also the best setting to change for exposure since it is the only one that can be 'corrected' in post. If you have motion blur or wrong DoF you cannot recover that but you can fix a good amount of noise after the fact. ISO is the only one of the 3 that doesn't have a creative impact which makes it best for using as the exposure dial and given how fast the camera can change it letting it decide between 100-12800 itself is always going to be the best bet.

It's a very nice place and the food is awesome. The service is superb. The stage is smaller than I thought. For us it is a lot easier to get to than we thought. It was our first time to shoot there. Look him up if you get the chance. The only thing I knew before doing my research was that Pat Green was part owner. I had heard he had a couple partners in the venue. The list of artist that are going to appear there is probably one of the best in the area. Thanks for watching! -R

@@robertc.maxfieldiiphotography - I’m not surprised to hear about the food, Kyle ran part of a pretty good restaurant up here. It’s been a while since I’ve been in Dallas other than transferring flights but I’ll definitely stop in there next time.

Now if he served Chicago Italian then they would need to get me out of there with a crow bar! It's mostly Mexican food. :) -R

I have a Canon Pixma Pro-100 printer. It was like $399.99 with a $200 rebate and a pack of 13X19 paper. It's extremely heavy and does a good job. A little expensive to refill with ink and you have to order the ink even in a city as big as Dallas sometimes. -R

Zoe I am the same way. We did a shoot in south downtown and when we went in it was daylight. The club was crowded in the parking lot. When we left after dark it was flat scary. There looked to be a vast array of illegal activities going on. One of the best reasons to work as a team. I am starting to do more video. I just bought another camera body for the task. Video is a whole different world for me than stills. -R

Thanks for the feedback! We watch the videos during and after we make them and they look good. Then we will watch them on a 65 inch tv and they look and sound bad. I couldn't tell if it's the cameras, the software, the playback device or what. Frustrating! We're hoping to really improve our videos! Thanks again! -R

@@robertc.maxfieldiiphotography I tend to watch a lot of videos on my phone with headphones on.

Naruitus LOL been there! My girlfriends back in the day carried larger purses with false bottoms. No one wanted to dig thru what they thought was snot rags t to search a purse to hard. Now metal detectors solve that issue. I remember photographing ELO in the early 80's and looking thru my viewfinder. A couple guys started towards me from the back area. The chase was on! They never caught me and the photos I have of Jeff Lynne are priceless! Give them your gear??? Not going to happen! I'd love to have that Nikon F black body! Thanks for watching! -R

Resco thanks for the response. There are a number of ways things can work and it sounds like you did it the old school way. Back in the day we would show up and just do it. You could walk into even arena shows with a camera and no one would bother you. Today at least where I am it's not the case. Even small clubs are very touchy about anyone taking photo gear in. The public festivals and concerts can even be a problem. Confidence is a big key along with networking. Getting yourself known and recognized helps a lot. I have a couple venues that are run by the city that the mayor of the city recognizes me and says hi. The next video is going to be about once you get to the point of having some shots, how to get to the organizers, managers, venues and artist to become their go to guy! Letting your work speak for itself. My portfolio is constantly evolving along with my contact list. Thanks for watching! -R

@robertc.maxfieldiiphotography everything photography wise I do it the old school, way, old camera , old lenses, I still shoot doing the old focus and recompose method and only shoot full manual, my lenses are also things like the classic 50 1.8 D lens and a Tamron 70 300 VC USD which I will replace with a 80 200 2.8 D also

LOL I relate! I just bought another D800! Replacing my D7100 backup camera. Still use the D7100 small things.

@robertc.maxfieldiiphotography where I live when it comes to primes it's not a big pice difference when it comes to the older D lenses bs the newer G lenses but I prefer the older ones fir their overall built quality and aesthetics, also the sound and feel of that mechanical aperture ring is unbeatable for me

Resco you and I are in total agreement! On my 3 main Nikon bodies you will find the 28-105mm f3.5/4.5 AF Nikkor D, the 50mm f1.8 AF Nikkor D or the Nikon 80-200mm f/2.8 AF-D NIKKOR ED at 99% of the time. When I was shooting Olympus cameras I shot with primes but found the Nikon zooms sharper and more convenient. I have a Nikon F100 that I used the 28-105mm on and I just kept using it. I found no reason to change. They are the most bang for the buck. I paid $400 dollars for the 80-200mm refurbished by Nikon added a 3 year warranty for another $79. The 70-200mm f2.8 was $2000! -R

Typically what I have experienced. I will underexpose the shot and kick the exposure up in camera raw. The noise seems to be a lot less in post than when done in camera. I actually found this out a couple years ago when shooting people inside a bowling center. Really bad lighting in the bowlers areas next to the ball returns. I made the best guess without jamming the ISO in the camera and pushed up the exposure by 3 or 4 stops. The noise was minimal to my surprise! Thanks for watching! -R

Hi Zoe! and you hit the nail on the head on the next video i will be making! I got into photography when my grandparents bought me a Kodak Hawkeye Instamatic II for Christmas. I think they were always looking for something productive for me to do even at a young age. I traveled around the country and eventually the Far East as a tourist with my camera. So one day I went to a concert with a friend and I thought it was to coolest thing ever. I had to bring my camera to the next show. Just so happens that show was Queen's News of the World Tour. We will Rock You and We Are the Champions. I knew fairly quick I need a better camera. So for Christmas I asked for a Minolta 110 zoom. What I got was a Petri Compact 35 SLR with a 2x converter and a 135mm lens and of course the usual 50mm lens. The camera was full manual and I had no idea what to do with it. So I read the owners manual and figured out how to work it. It came with a case and a little flash. I was hooked!

Thanks for the topic! I think I will cover education and camera selection next week. Thanks for watching! -R

Thank you! She's intense and a lot of fun to photograph! Thanks for watching! -R

Food photographers are awesome. Me I can do it if needed. I redid my Commercial photography class in college a couple years ago and my instructor is one of the nations best food photographers. Nothing but pure respect for Greg! Shooting food is tough. Very tough and Greg Milano is incredible! Thanks for watching! -R Oh and I was poking more at me than the food photographers! :)

Sure I can do that! Things have changed radically since I started. I did have to restart a few years back. I was lucky in that I already had a portfolio. I changed genres from Rock to more Country and Blues. I keep a journal of video ideas and I just added it to the list. Be on the look out! Thanks for watching! -R

Marty thanks for watching! I am learning video and it is a lot tougher than it looks. I did some sports video in the past but that's not even close. Hopefully I will get better at it. Every time I go out now days I carry my Sony ZV-E10 with me and shoot some video. I need some things to do better video. Sound is a beast I am trying to tame! Thanks for the comment and watching! -R

Awesome Steve! Let me know how it works out and thanks for watching! -R

Blues, You can ask the publication you are shooting for if they have someone. Sometimes you can ask a friend or someone that wants to learn how to do things. Julie is one of my room mates and Rusty is a friend of my sister. We will sit down at breakfast before a show and go over thing. Julie is learning photography by being a second shooter. -R

Thanks Nik! The temptation sometimes is strong. Kind of reminds me of the movie Roadhouse! Be Nice! Thanks for watching! -R

Hi Zoe! My roommate started a channel and in order to figure out what she was doing I started one. It kind of seemed natural. Also no one in my family knows or has any real interest in doing this sort of thing. That is concert photography. So to keep it alive I started this. We're going to have to get together and do something soon. That is besides DIGF. I have some things coming up fairly soon and I will give you a yell -R

@@robertc.maxfieldiiphotography Sounds good! If you ever need someone to edit footage too I can help out. I’m familiar with editing as I have two TH-cam channels I frequently post on

Thanks Zoe! I might just take you up on that. I am going to switch over video editing software soon. I think the software I use is not very good and may need some help with the new stuff. Julie B and I have 3 TH-cam channels between us. We each have our own channels and we share one together just for the heck of it. She actually got me into doing this. We do things so differently on our individual channels it' not even funny. We might even could do some live chats. Tag team an event with our combined experiences. -R

I just got a pair of new mics yesterday. I think it is the software I am using and not the mics. Everything sounds great when I create the videos but once it gets to TH-cam it's all over the place. The next video the sound will be a little weird I know for sure because of where and how it was recorded. I am working on the sound trust me. It's frustrating! Thanks for watching -R

Thanks Bill for watching! I will admit that I am not perfect by any means and sometimes I get in a rut. I have to force myself to change. While I may not completely agree with someone online or in person I will take a look at what they are saying. Being open minded and getting another viewpoint is sometimes good. There are people though that do come across in a bad way. Social media is horrible on top of that in that you can not properly feel emotion or intent. LOL at the last show another photographer that I have worked with for a while came up to me and asked "hey you know that guy?" Nope, "He's rude". All I can say is let your work speak for itself, have a think skin and be open minded. Thanks again! -R

Thanks Milton! It's fairly easy to do. They are made in Adobe Express and many of the backgrounds are AI generated. Some of the backgrounds are cropped shots that I have taken. AND others are clip art found on the web. The photographs of me are taken with a Panasonic DMC-FH25 pocket camera that is in the "It's A Bad Little Camera" video. in fact they are taken in a little cafe we eat breakfast at and the backgrounds are removed in the Adobe software. Check out Adobe Express and I think they have a free version. Thanks for watching! -R

Hi Bill! The Nikon D800 is a 36.3 megapixel camera. Each photograph in raw takes up 74.4 to 80 megabytes of storage. The Sony floppy disk camera the entire disk hold 1.44 megabytes of data. So what I did was divide 80mb by 1.44mb and you get 55.5555 times the size. So 1 shot is 55.5555 time the size of the entire capacity of the floppy disk. The Sony mvc-fd85 is a 1.3 megapixel camera and the Nikon D800 is a 36.3 megapixel camera. So megapixel wise the Nikon D800 has roughly 28 times the megapixels. Thanks for watching! -R