New, Live & Rare pics - DS 14th June 1979

[Simon]

I was asked a long time ago on here if I could scan the pictures I took at the Newcastle City Hall in June 1979 of DS in concert. Well I finally got round to it and I have 10 available (a combination of Mark and David Knopfler) and wondered if it was possible to post them on this site somehow. Can anyone assist?

Thanks

[ds1984]

May I suggest using http://www.flickr.com/ host site?

[Simon]

Nice idea and thank you but I have filled that many registrations with so much information that I don't think i could manage another and i also don't have the info required to sign up (i.e. yahoo ID etc). I hadn't considered uploading them somewhere like that so I may consider that avenue - thanks for the advice.

[Simon]

Anyone interested try this and let me know if it works.

The pics are not fab - they were taken using a cheap 'instamatic' with built in flash.

http://s1117.photobucket.com/albums/k595/brandondeashe/

[Simon]

Thanks for the advice DS.

[Best Brown Baggies]

Thanks for those. Always great to see unseen pics!
I so wish I'd seen them in 79.
I was a fan of them already, but only 11 years old.
Anyone got a time machine??

Cheers. BBB

[Waterline Man]

Thanks for those. Always great to see unseen pics!
I so wish I'd seen them in 79.
I was a fan of them already, but only 11 years old.
Anyone got a time machine??

Cheers. BBB

Thanks Simon cool pics,they really give you an insight of how much photography has evolved in the past 30 yrs when you compare them with the ones today - man we were really in the dark ages

BBB, I had to laugh when you mentioned the time machiene, all I could picture was you & me in the De Lorean in Back To The future & we punch in City Hall Newcastle June 1979 - which one of us would be Michael J Fox  

[dmg]

Wheter or not photography has moved on or not is certainly a matter for debate because I use a 1967 Leica M4 and a 1991 M6 with lenses ranging from the 50s to early 90s and they are IMO far superior to any digital camera.  Digital photography is dishonest photography;  pic taken then made to look good via a photoshop program.  A major step backwards.  It's also just made up of blocks which lack the character of film.

Anyway I rather guess the flash was used in these pics which wasn't needed due to the stage lighting.  This accounts for the poor quality.

[dustyvalentino]

Fantastic, thanks so much for taking the effort to share.

Although you do seem a bit obsessed by David's arse.     

[Simon]

No Dusty that is an example of how fast the shutters where on cameras in those days. You line up a great pic, press the button and your subject (in this case DK) decides to turn round! :-)

[Simon]

DMG - there is nothing to stop a normal photographer from taking their print, scanning it and then submitting it to Photoshop for processing. Therefore digitals are not really that evil. They are just a quicker way of getting them to the processing lab.

And I don't think you can complain when photographers have used all sorts of effects to con us into thinking they have taken great shots. Think how much filters are used, or slow shutter speeds, or tripods or fast film or developing room 'techniques' to make the print something it isn't. I am not for or against progression but in any walk of life we have used methods to produce something  that is not real - sound for example. Processing started in the 50s and has evloved to what we hear, play and love today.

[Simon]

Wheter or not photography has moved on or not is certainly a matter for debate because I use a 1967 Leica M4 and a 1991 M6 with lenses ranging from the 50s to early 90s and they are IMO far superior to any digital camera.  Digital photography is dishonest photography;  pic taken then made to look good via a photoshop program.  A major step backwards.  It's also just made up of blocks which lack the character of film.

Anyway I rather guess the flash was used in these pics which wasn't needed due to the stage lighting.  This accounts for the poor quality.

The flash was needed unfortunately - i took some pics without it and they turned out very dark. The lighting in those days was fine for SLRs with  a fast film but not for cheap instamatics:-)

[dmg]

DMG - there is nothing to stop a normal photographer from taking their print, scanning it and then submitting it to Photoshop for processing. Therefore digitals are not really that evil. They are just a quicker way of getting them to the processing lab.

And I don't think you can complain when photographers have used all sorts of effects to con us into thinking they have taken great shots. Think how much filters are used, or slow shutter speeds, or tripods or fast film or developing room 'techniques' to make the print something it isn't. I am not for or against progression but in any walk of life we have used methods to produce something  that is not real - sound for example. Processing started in the 50s and has evloved to what we hear, play and love today.

Filters, slow shutter speeds etc are used "at the moment" and not later after the photo was taken therefore require more thought and skill on part of the photographer and they also cannot be undone.

[Simon]

DMG - there is nothing to stop a normal photographer from taking their print, scanning it and then submitting it to Photoshop for processing. Therefore digitals are not really that evil. They are just a quicker way of getting them to the processing lab.

And I don't think you can complain when photographers have used all sorts of effects to con us into thinking they have taken great shots. Think how much filters are used, or slow shutter speeds, or tripods or fast film or developing room 'techniques' to make the print something it isn't. I am not for or against progression but in any walk of life we have used methods to produce something  that is not real - sound for example. Processing started in the 50s and has evloved to what we hear, play and love today.

Filters, slow shutter speeds etc are used "at the moment" and not later after the photo was taken therefore require more thought and skill on part of the photographer and they also cannot be undone.

I agree but why would a photographer want to 'fool' someone into thinking  a pic was taken in full sun or in moonlight when that clearly is not the case? And the array of effects that can be added with filters 'at the moment' that make the sky look like the northern lights on speed purely shows something unnatural yet the majority of people are taken in by it as if it were real. And where did the process of airbrushing originate? Yes, photography - not digital photography but 'pure' photography:-)

You can't have it both ways. You either take a picture with no artificial effects  and you develop it naturally and make do with the result or you attempt to embellish (i.e.fake) it. There really is no middle ground:-)

[Rollergirl]

Fantastic, thanks so much for taking the effort to share.

Although you do seem a bit obsessed by David's arse.     

That hardly qualifies as arse now, does it? It's just the top of his legs