Guitar photography

[Jonathan Levin]

Oldane- yes I am that Jonathan Levin.

mikesf- great stuff. Love the guitar stands!

[oldane]

The problem i have and why I haven't pulled the trigger on a new Mirror-less is because I want one that does Great stills and video.

The Sony A6000 is currently the best option but I will leave to buy a prime lens for it as a zoom from Sigma would be nearly twice the price of the camera. The sigma E-mount zoom is for Sony E-mount camera (incl A series).

So yeh I might bite the bullet and get the sony with one prime lens for now.

Would Prime lens do you think I should get for my type of shots at the moment.

I bought a Sony A7S a couple of months ago. I had some old Leica M lenses lying around from my film days and it hurt me every time my eye caught them idle in the closet. With a Novoflex adapter, focal lengths down to and including 35mm work great with the A7S body (the 35mm may give problems on sensors with higher pixel count). My 21mm is not great on the A7S - it shows severe vignetting and color shifts in the perifery of the frame. The Voigtlander 25mm Color Scopar is even worse - outright awful on the Sony. This is common when using rangefinder lenses on digital sensors (Leicas have the same problem but they have overcome it with corrections via the firmware in their cameras). Thus, I have bought a Sony 16-35mm zoom for the widest end. Having used dSLRs for many years, it's really great to get a small and light outfit once more. I can cover focal lengths from 16mm to 200mm (the 200 is an old Nikon 200/4 AI-S) and carry all the gear in a small Billingham Hadley bag. The video capabilities of the A7S is more than adequate - though I don't use it much. I still like the color rendering of my Nikon D700 a little better, but the mirrorless outfit is so much smaller and lighter.

If I was to choose prime lenses - for mirrorless and everything else - I'd choose a 35mm as the first (full frame equivalent that is, do the math yourself for cropped sensors). Some prefer 50mm instead but I find the 35 more versatile. Later I'd add a 85/90mm. Then something wider around 21/24mm. And finally a 180/200mm. The 35 + 90mm was the classic compact outfit for Leica M users back in the day. These two lenses and a Leica M4 followed me on many travels when I was younger. With the Sony E-mount almost any lens ever made can be fitted with an appropiate adapter - provided you can live with manual focus.

"Great photos is not about fancy gear. It's about being ressourceful with whatever gear you have." (Alfred Eisenstedt, famous Life photographer)

[rio]

Get a stand alone video camera on the cheap...or is this simply a generational thing to want one item to do it all?...I pulled the trigger on the Fuji X100T...I had to see what all the fuss was about with this rangefinder and it's about as good a place to begin as any.

The X100 series is awesome. I never upgraded from my original X100 because it is so good. For guitar photos though, the 35mm equivalent is wide and you have to be really careful with the perspective from which you shoot or else you will end up with an inaccurate representation of the guitar due to distortion.

A long (i.e. zoomed in) lens does make a nice looking shot, but I don't think it is essential. Just like in portraiture, you can get away with 50 or 35mm so long as you control your perspective. Harder to do well, but possible.

Re: Lightroom - I have thousands of hours in Lightroom and have used it from close to the beginning (I'm an amateur photographer who takes photo gigs when they come up) and yes, it is great. But honestly, you know what? I'll just shoot jpeg and get it right in camera, or do a quick edit if needed in the Apple Photos app. Spending so much time on editing, it is so nice to be able to shoot informally and just keep it simple. So while Lightroom is great (and fun to learn when dabbling), it is not needed and is probably overkill for most taking pictures of guitars.

Also if you are really going to town, remember to shoot raw for maximum editing flexibility.

[bmw2002]

If I was to choose prime lenses - for mirrorless and everything else - I'd choose a 35mm as the first (full frame equivalent that is, do the math yourself for cropped sensors). Some prefer 50mm instead but I find the 35 more versatile. Later I'd add a 85/90mm. Then something wider around 21/24mm. And finally a 180/200mm. The 35 + 90mm was the classic compact outfit for Leica M users back in the day. These two lenses and a Leica M4 followed me on many travels when I was younger. With the Sony E-mount almost any lens ever made can be fitted with an appropiate adapter - provided you can live with manual focus.

My main camera is a Leica M9, and these are pretty much the lenses I use all the time (other than the 180/200mm). The 35mm is my default lens. There really is something special about Leica glass.

[oldane]

My main camera is a Leica M9, and these are pretty much the lenses I use all the time (other than the 180/200mm). The 35mm is my default lens. There really is something special about Leica glass.

+1. Apart from the optical rendering, the feel of the well dampened and super smooth focusing of a Leica lens is sheer joy. The ergonomy of my 35mm non asph summicron with its focusing tab is superb despite the small size of the lens (that goes for the 50mm 'cron too).

One of the great things about using mirrorless (as opposed to rangefinder) is that one can use longer focal lengths and still have very precise focusing. It's only after I got the A7S that I realized what a super crisp lens my Leica M Tele Elmar 135/4 is. On the Leica M bodies, I could never get the focus nailed precisely enough to take advantage of its near apochromatic nature (it was never advertized as apochromatic though). OTOH, focusing with wide angle lenses are easier and faster with an optical rangefinder.

[Ol' Fret]

Longtime Leica-R user here: R6.2 (fully mechanical) with R-lenses, 35mm and 90mm still being my absolute favorites.

The focus of many old Leica lenses was on the optimal balance between micro-contrast and general contrast, what helps with the reproduction of the finest surface structures in an otherwise rather soft presentation, gives a degree of three-dimensionality and so-called liquid colors - and often a very pleasant bokeh.
Of course, modern Japanese lenses can also be great and reproduce sharper than old glass Leicas, but their overall impression, from an artistic viewpoint, is that something is left to be desired.

For being able to use the old R-lenses manually-digitally, I connect them (Novoflex adapter) to a mirrorless Fuji X-E2 body with digital viewfinder (even some pros find the latter on a par with the Leica M9 optical viewfinder - for foto shooting in low light conditions). R-lenses are generally a bit larger than M-lenses and are said to work hassle-free with APS-C sensors; I didn't notice any problems.

The Fuji software is amazing for available-light fotography (jazz venues are dark and often high in contrast), at the same time really useful for all who dislike digital postprocessing or think that postprocessing doesn't result in better photos. Not unlike the difference between analog and digital recording techniques...

If I had to go with more effort and some postprocessing after shooting musical instruments, I'd probably be tempted to try out HDR/HDRI (high-dynamic-range-imaging). HDR could be great for this purpose, if applied frugally. HDR pics of guitars on the web (usually solid bodies) look soso, at best; very often crappy artificial. HDRs of archtop guitars: negative report!

Fully agreed: the most expensive equipment cannot make good for imagination and good eyes.
Oh, foto shooting of guitars (including their players) can be fun, though scenery/people are preferable to me.

[oldane]

The focus of many old Leica lenses was on the optimal balance between micro-contrast and general contrast, what helps with the reproduction of the finest surface structures in an otherwise rather soft presentation, gives a degree of three-dimensionality and so-called liquid colors - and often a very pleasant bokeh.
Of course, modern Japanese lenses can also be great and reproduce sharper than old glass Leicas, but their overall impression, from an artistic viewpoint, is that something is left to be desired.

Exactly my experience with my Leica M lenses (which are from the older era of Mantler designs). They have that smoothness in color gradients which is so pleasing. Apart from the 35mm Summicron, I also have the Sony 16-35 and a Nikon 35/2.0 AI-S. The latter two are both plenty sharp but doesn't have the smoothness of the Leica lens - they are kind of more clinically clean and hard. As for the bokeh of the 35mm Summicron-M, it's adequate though not outstanding despite the nickname "bokeh king" of this version of the lens (never understood that nickname). I have an old first generation 50/1.4 Summilux which has a much better bokeh (and the typical Leica "glow" at f/1.4). It's my impression that Leica didn't have bokeh as the first priority when they designed the M lenses back then. In their newest 50/2.0 apo-summicron they have aimed at making a very sharp lens with a smooth bokeh where the out of focus areas have a less contrast than the in focus areas, thereby making the in focus area "pop out" more in the picture. And of course, being aspherical, it is sharp in the farest corners wide open. Wonderful lens, but outrageously expensive and out of reach for me and my wallet.

A few Nikon lenses have that same excellent sharpness/resolution and at the same time an overall impression of smoothness. I own a 50/1.2 AI-S and a 105/2.5 AI-S. They both have it. In addition the 105 has a wonderfully smooth bokeh. A 50/1.4 AF-D which I once owned didn't have it.

[mikeSF]

enjoying the Leica chat here. I've never experienced their legendary glass, but hope to one day.

[Archie]

enjoying the Leica chat here. I've never experienced their legendary glass, but hope to one day.

[Herbie]

Here is one way to better guitar photos.
Guitar Photography Tutorial - MyLesPaul.com

[spiral]

I owned a Leica M8 (used) for a few months. It was gorgeous and took amazing pictures. One thing I didn't anticipate was becoming a spectacle. Even non-techies would say "Wow, what is that camera?!" because it looked so different and I ended up having conversations about the camera—reluctantly. It ultimately became a distraction and I sold it for something nondescript. Just a weird non-technical thing I had never thought of, that had a real impact.

I don't miss it at all ... and like some of my "cheap" guitars, I'm much happier grabbing a "cheap" camera and just making pictures, vs. worrying about a piece of high end gear getting damaged / stolen / etc.

@Herbie. Cool exploration! It's nice to see someone's experiments and results.

[Eddie Lang]

Here is Frank Ford's (frets.com, Gryphon) low tech, low budget photo studio:
FRETS.COM

[mikeSF]

he's such a solution oriented guy, I just knew he was gonna have a souped up DIY rig like this.

[2bornot2bop]

2b's first legitimate camera arrived...pix taken by an iPhone6...of course!

I say legitimate because I couldn't capture the color with the Nikon D7000 that I've been able to with this simple 35mm equivalent lens.

[mikeSF]

congrats! That X100s has some killer retro vibe. Got any pics taken with it yet?

[2bornot2bop]

congrats! That X100s has some killer retro vibe. Got any pics taken with it yet?

thanks Mike!

Nothing other than experimental shots taken last night. word was that the small fuji absobs light from the smallest of sources. I took the camera with me on my nightly dog run...I've a couple boxers and we head to the school at midnight when no one else is around so we can own the place...there's a few street lamps on and one light on at the school. Aside from that light the place is the size of a dozen football fields and very dark...you'd not know it by these couple night shots I purposely attempted to see how the camera shot in the dark without a flash some 100 yards from the street lamp. Check out the pitch black night sky...I didn't expect to see this:



here's the single school halogen that was on...I used it to back light these few shots.







here's an indoor shot and an outdoor shot of the yard from indoors

[mikeSF]

man, you're gonna have fun with that. And I imagine we'll see some git-box pics very soon.

[Eddie Lang]

Congrats, 2b! A camera can be a beautiful thing!

Tripod and timer with those night shots? Do you know the exposure and the aperture?

[Archie]

Wow 2b didn't hang around

That look like a beast, the X-100, damn now you your fuju is better than mine :-(

[2bornot2bop]

Congrats, 2b! A camera can be a beautiful thing!

Tripod and timer with those night shots? Do you know the exposure and the aperture?

30 sec, f/2, ISO 100. No timer. The location at night is so pitch black I set the camera to a custom extended exposure thinking I had to compensate for not using a flash. I'd stuffed the camera into a pocket thinking I'd just take a few hand held shots. But while there and looking at the pitch black sky I had the idea to see if I could bring in the distant tall evergreens against the sky. I sat the camera atop the bleachers for the first pic. The others near the school the camera sat atop a stucco landscape wall. In the last night pic one of my boxers walked through near the end of the exposure, which I'm guessing is why only his back half was captured almost as a shadow or double exposure.

[Ol' Fret]

There was a time when SLRs were only slightly larger than rangefinder cameras; when people (musicians) had not yet been struggling in front of a lens with the sense, as if they were just in the sight of a Lobaev SVL sniper rifle, frozen in shock.




Outdoor photography of musical instruments could be really satisfying and refreshing. For more detailed and informative photos indoor shooting is much more suitable. In this matter the best photos I've seen by now originate (like so much related to archtop guitars) from the violin world, in books which offer fabulous full-size and detailed close-up color photographs. In addition, they offer description, precise measurements, outline and history of the instruments, also large section devoted to the making methods, consistencies, and idiosyncracies of the individual instruments (i.e., trying to extract some common threads from them all)...

Ok, these books are crazy expensive; you're gonna ask with good reason what are these good for. Well, hundreds of dedicated violin makers all over the world use them as a study source, for making better instruments in the future (which sometimes is not so far away from the past as you may think). IMO, this is good enough reason.

I wish we had such books in the guitar world also, a world which is still in puberty... in large part handmade guitars with idiosyncrasies are not so frequently found there.


Google is your friend, look after 'violin photography', Michael Darnton, and so on.
For amateurs: Frank Ford's approach looks great! Many small scale luthiers use such easy devices. You can find another one here: LED?s for violin makers ? four applications | Andrew Carruthers Violins (point three - scroll down).

[2bornot2bop]

Wow 2b didn't hang around

That look like a beast, the X-100, damn now you your fuju is better than mine :-(

Their low light sensitivity makes them an excellent indoor candidate without a flash. I've always preferred to shoot without artificial light. I bought the Fuji X100, then returned it to buy the Fuji X100S...each can be had used for a song on eBay. The lens alone is worth owning one.

[Archie]

Their low light sensitivity makes them an excellent indoor candidate without a flash. I've always preferred to shoot without artificial light. I bought the Fuji X100, then returned it to buy the Fuji X100S...each can be had used for a song on eBay. The lens alone is worth owning one.

You made the right choice. You are like me, I like natural light too. You should try a screen though, or reflector, it can bring out the shape of the curve more on both sides, if your hitting it with light at an opting angle across the body.

[2bornot2bop]

You made the right choice. You are like me, I like natural light too. You should try a screen though, or reflector, it can bring out the shape of the curve more on both sides, if your hitting it with light at an opting angle across the body.

In English please...I'm not a photographer!

I'm seeking more focus detail...this is the best I've captured thus far. Manual mode f/2, 1/8, 100

[mikeSF]

You're definitely on the right track!

Stop down more to get more depth of field, at least f/5.6- f/8 and you will see more overall sharpness.

Since it's a body shot, get in a little tighter and possibly show a bit of the side rim to imply the body depth.