Guitar photography

[nickyboy]

Ok, I'm a keen amateur photographer as well as a guitarist - so I've got a decent dslr, couple of choice lenses, a tripod.

Any tips for guitar photography? Archtopheaven - you always do a cracking job of taking pics of your guitars.

I generally take pics of my guitars outdoors.

[barrymclark]

Jack Zucker too. He is a photographer and his pictures turn out rather nicely a well.

Always fascinated by a good picture.

[Archie]

Ok, I'm a keen amateur photographer as well as a guitarist - so I've got a decent dslr, couple of choice lenses, a tripod.

Any tips for guitar photography? Archtopheaven - you always do a cracking job of taking pics of your guitars.

I generally take pics of my guitars outdoors.

Hey Nick,

Well I don't have any lights and I use a £200 DSLR hybrid (called the Fuji X-10).

I know that taking pics outdoors is not a good idea depending on the day. Never take pics in sunshine etc, unless you are pleased with the results. This is because the sun light is the wrong type of light, its too yellow and too strong. The best outdoor shots are on cloudy greyish days. I take all my pics indoors on grey days.

I'm sure there are more reasons why taking studio pics outdoors generally doesn't work but I know those two. I guess you will also have trouble controlling shadows etc.

Another thing I find is greys or light blue's or greens (I mean very light) make great background colours and can add a sense of mood that works really well.

In regards to what pics to take, well I find you need to make them centred, you need to use the rule of 3rds if you can. Try not to look down on the body, unless showing the neck join. Its better to almost look up, gives the guitar more presence.

Really the art is to make artistic shots that give enough information. Matter of fact shots are by and large not exciting but they do detail the guitar, which is important. If the shots are too arty, you wont get the detail you need from the pics which leaves people feeling dissatisfied. A balance between the two is good but I lean toward artistic if pos.

The last part is the editing software. This is actually the most important bit. Its not because you are going to air brush, never change the way a guitar looks or hide things this way, always better to change the shot in the 1st phase of taking it. I use Lightroom which has made the difference in my pics from being ok to looking reasonably professional. The difference was stunning. All the pro's use it but its highly accessible to the laymen like me.

I've only been taking pics for 2 years and basically teaching myself as I go. I only take pics to advertise guitars, i'm not a photographer and never use a camera for anything (which is kinda weird cause I seem to have a good eye). Once I have lights and proper backdrops, then the pics will look properly professional.

Sorry if much of this you already know, I assume since you have a good camera and some lenses etc that you are already reasonably knowledgeable. Just thought i would cover all bases.

Again I am an amateur and only really just started but the two most important things are, your eye when framing the guitar, the software you use in editing.

I will show you two examples.

Before Lightroom









lastly, the other pic (Guild X-175) has reflections on the pickup and top. This is so hard to cure with archtops but I found that if you make your tripod stand as narrow as possible, almost so you cant keep it stood up, that gets lost on the tail piece so it cures that. Also make sure unlike me, you don't have a radiator giving off a reflection. I should have covered that with a white towel or something.

Reflections on archtops are a nightmare but avoidable with some care. I always set my cam on a two second timer and then jump out the way once I press the button. Obviously I didn't do that in the last shot cause you can see the top of my head in the pup.

[2bornot2bop]

Ok, I'm a keen amateur photographer as well as a guitarist - so I've got a decent dslr, couple of choice lenses, a tripod.

Any tips for guitar photography? Archtopheaven - you always do a cracking job of taking pics of your guitars.

I generally take pics of my guitars outdoors.

Light reflection, to the guitars surface, is tougher to control outdoors. It's reflection that often destroys an otherwise good shot. Not only that anything in the shot besides the guitar, even indoors, creates busyness, distracting from your shot. I'd suggest start indoors, by creating a backdrop of your choice, and then experiment by controlling your rooms lighting. Basics. On eBay there are superb 5 piece lighting kits, including diffusers and or umbrellas, for as low as $100.

Some of us prefer to explore the guitar from various angles as opposed to rectangular shots. Experiment, it's fun. One of these days I'll have to get another dslr.

[2bornot2bop]

Hey Nick,

Well I don't have any lights and I use a £200 DSLR hybrid (called the Fuji X-10).

I know that taking pics outdoors is not a good idea depending on the day. Never take pics in sunshine etc, unless you are pleased with the results. This is because the sun light is the wrong type of light, its too yellow and too strong. The best outdoor shots are on cloudy greyish days. I take all my pics indoors on grey days.

I'm sure there are more reasons why taking studio pics outdoors generally doesn't work but I know those two. I guess you will also have trouble controlling shadows etc.

Another thing I find is greys or light blue's or greens (I mean very light) make great background colours and can add a sense of mood that works really well.

In regards to what pics to take, well I find you need to make them centred, you need to use the rule of 3rds if you can. Try not to look down on the body, unless showing the neck join. Its better to almost look up, gives the guitar more presence.

Really the art is to make artistic shots that give enough information. Matter of fact shots are by and large not exciting but they do detail the guitar, which is important. If the shots are too arty, you wont get the detail you need from the pics which leaves people feeling dissatisfied. A balance between the two is good but I lean toward artistic if pos.

The last part is the editing software. This is actually the most important bit. Its not because you are going to air brush, never change the way a guitar looks or hide things this way, always better to change the shot in the 1st phase of taking it. I use Lightroom which has made the difference in my pics from being ok to looking reasonably professional. The difference was stunning. All the pro's use it but its highly accessible to the laymen like me.

I've only been taking pics for 2 years and basically teaching myself as I go. I only take pics to advertise guitars, i'm not a photographer and never use a camera for anything (which is kinda weird cause I seem to have a good eye). Once I have lights and proper backdrops, then the pics will look properly professional.

Sorry if much of this you already know, I assume since you have a good camera and some lenses etc that you are already reasonably knowledgeable. Just thought i would cover all bases.

Again I am an amateur and only really just started but the two most important things are, your eye when framing the guitar, the software you use in editing.

I will show you two examples.

Before Lightroom









lastly, the other pic (Guild X-175) has reflections on the pickup and top. This is so hard to cure with archtops but I found that if you make your tripod stand as narrow as possible, almost so you cant keep it stood up, that gets lost on the tail piece so it cures that. Also make sure unlike me, you don't have a radiator giving off a reflection. I should have covered that with a white towel or something.

Reflections on archtops are a nightmare but avoidable with some care. I always set my cam on a two second timer and then jump out the way once I press the button. Obviously I didn't do that in the last shot cause you can see the top of my head in the pup.

AH, you get better indoor shots from you Fugi X10 than I got from my Nikon D7000...which is why I've been using an iPhone

[Archie]

Light reflection, to the guitars surface, is tougher to control outdoors. It's reflection that often destroys an otherwise good shot. Not only that anything in the shot besides the guitar, even indoors, creates busyness, distracting from your shot. I'd suggest start indoors, by creating a backdrop of your choice, and then experiment by controlling your rooms lighting. Basics. On eBay there are superb 5 piece lighting kits, including diffusers and or umbrellas, for as low as $100.

Some of us prefer to explore the guitar from various angles as opposed to rectangular shots. Experiment, it's fun. One of these days I'll have to get another dslr.

Exactly good advie there 2b. Also Sunshine can remove detail in things like flamed maple, which you want to show off.

In regards to framing as 2b said interesting angles can really work. Something that is at a slight angle actually draws the eye in to the picture.

[Archie]

AH, you get better indoor shots from you Fugi X10 than I got from my Nikon D7000...which is why I've been using an iPhone

haha sorry I'm just giggling at you looking at your SLR and then going "nahh" then grabbing the iPhone.

Well tbh 2b your shots are fine, definitely shows that you have a keen eye. I think the only difference between us is the editing.

You can get Lightroom on a monthly sub for I think $10 a month. Worth it depending on how many pics you take and the great thing is, you just need to frame the originals and get the levels ruffly right. Then you can use lightroom to make them look pro and go back through all your old photos and boost those too.

[2bornot2bop]

haha sorry I'm just giggling at you looking at your SLR and then going "nahh" then grabbing the iPhone.

Well tbh 2b your shots are fine, definitely shows that you have a keen eye. I think the only difference between us is the editing.

You can get Lightroom on a monthly sub for I think $10 a month. Worth it depending on how many pics you take and the great thing is, you just need to frame the originals and get the levels ruffly right. Then you can use lightroom to make them look pro and go back through all your old photos and boost those too.

No, your shots are far closer and display greater detail and size than mine. The limitations with the phone is trying to get closeups while retaining focus, OR, get size without having to stand too far back to get all of the subject in. That's the advantage of having an adjustable lens. I scrapped the D7000 after one day grabbing my phone to see if it captured greater color, and to my surprise, it did...okay, I was too lazy to learn how to use the Nikon properly....whatever...I'm impressed with your camera's detail. Are those Fuji X-10's still available, or were they for the Japan only market?

Thanks for the assist AH!

edit - is it this Fuji? A "fixed lens?" I'm shocked!

http://www.amazon.com/Fujifilm-X10-D.../dp/B005KBB79C

[Archie]

No, your shots are far closer and display greater detail and size than mine. The limitations with the phone is trying to get closeups while retaining focus, OR, get size without having to stand too far back to get all of the subject in. That's the advantage of having an adjustable lens. I scrapped the D7000 after one day grabbing my phone to see if it captured greater color, and to my surprise, it did...okay, I was too lazy to learn how to use the Nikon properly....whatever...I'm impressed with your camera's detail. Are those Fuji X-10's still available, or were they for the Japan only market?

Thanks for the assist AH!

edit - is it this Fuji? A "fixed lens?" I'm shocked!

http://www.amazon.com/Fujifilm-X10-D.../dp/B005KBB79C

Yeh its no SLR in the real sense. You can pick them up for about $300 second hand I would guess but then i would probably go for the X-1 if you could get one cheap enough.

Its such a simple camera to use. I just sling it in Aperture priority and then there is a wheel to control the depth of field. The camera lens is a zoom too so not a prime lens (fixed).

If you can pick one up for cheap, it will be an easier way to get into SLR photography. even i would pick up a Cannon or nikon and feel really intimidated.

You know the camera to get? The Sony A6000, it does good video too and is considered the best DSLR on the market in its price range. It also has the same size sensor as your Cannon ;-)

[helios]

Hi,
A few suggestions:
Crop photo to show area of interest
Have a backdrop, or neutral area without distracting elements (Car photo next to rusty barrel = ruined photo)
Use a tripod and set timer on camera (camera shake = blurry outcome)
Cloudy days in general are best for outdoor photos (to avoid harsh lighting)

Sample photo:

[Archie]

Hi,
A few suggestions:
Crop photo to show area of interest
Have a backdrop, or neutral area without distracting elements (Car photo next to rusty barrel = ruined photo)
Use a tripod and set timer on camera (camera shake = blurry outcome)
Cloudy days in general are best for outdoor photos (to avoid harsh lighting)

Sample photo:

I agree with all that except the cropping bit. Cropping never looks right if you have to do too much of it. Just take the time to set the shot up properly as you want to see it.

[2bornot2bop]

Yeh its no SLR in the real sense. You can pick them up for about $300 second hand I would guess but then i would probably go for the X-1 if you could get one cheap enough.

Its such a simple camera to use. I just sling it in Aperture priority and then there is a wheel to control the depth of field. The camera lens is a zoom too so not a prime lens (fixed).

If you can pick one up for cheap, it will be an easier way to get into SLR photography. even i would pick up a Cannon or nikon and feel really intimidated.

You know the camera to get? The Sony A6000, it does good video too and is considered the best DSLR on the market in its price range. It also has the same size sensor as your Cannon ;-)

By "video" do you mean recording your playing for the purposes of uploading it to youtube?

I couldn't find a fuji "X1." I see a fuji "XE2."

[spiral]

The most important thing, for any product photography, is light—amount, type, and location. You can take better pictures with your cellphone and awesome lighting, than you can with crappy lighting and the best camera money can buy.

Amount
You ideally need lots of it so the camera sensor doesn't have to work so hard. You also want enough light that your aperture can be small so you can a larger depth of focus.

Type
You generally want a softened light, something that is being diffused through a material or bounced from a wall. This softens shadows. Conversely if you use a "hard" source such as the sun or bare bulb, your shadows will be hard, less appealing, very contrasty, and less natural. This is the reason shots in direct sun look bad.

Location
This is very basic as there is too much to cover in one post but you generally want to light for two sides of the object, or 1 side and then "bounce" light onto the other side using a reflector (this can be a white board, tinfoil, a wall, etc.) This helps to light the whole object evenly and gives them depth. If you see pictures taken with a flash on a camera, it looks harsh because it is a hard light (see above), straight on the object which causes extreme shadows and flattens the subject.

Shiny surfaces on objects is a whole other ball of wax that I recommend you read about on some photo sites.

There are some great blog posts / articles about lighting guitars, either with strobes, or things you have around the house, if you just do a quick search. Here are some good ones:

• http://www.nichebooks.com/guitarpix.pdf (Great resource, on the cheap, all you need to know)
• Tabletop Studio - Everything you want to know about staging heavy objects in product photography
• Photographing guitars light source | The Gear Page

[Archie]

By "video" do you mean recording your playing for the purposes of uploading it to youtube?

I couldn't find a fuji "X1." I see a fuji "XE2."

Yeh thats what I meant for video. I guess you will only need a good camera for stills.

Well I've been studying the 'mirror less market' intensely for the last year, until I gave it a rest and carried on with the fuji for the last couple of months.

I wish I could have come to a firm conclusion but the truth is, I couldn't. The Sony A6000 came out best but has the worst kit lenses. However if you threw a Sigma zoom on there, you've probably then got the best mirror less camera for taking stills on the market. It has been compared in image quality to the Cannon MK5 III which is the industry standard SLR for pro's, so the Sony is immense.

The only issue I had is that the Sigma zoom lens is about $1200 which then makes the whole camera quite expensive, although still rated the best in its class.

On the other hand, going for a cheaper option like the older Fuji X-E1 (sorry thats what I meant by X1) will still produce amazing results at probably 1/3rd the price.

What I have out grown though on my Fuji X-10 is the image quality. Can be soft around the edges and I would want better low light performance as we both shoot indoors and without studio lighting. I get natural vinyeting? (dark patches in the corners). I also would want a tillable screen on the back as I'm tired of having to lie on the floor to take some shots.

So with that in mind, this is where the Sony A6000 comes into play again. Sony also do another model called the A5100 which is the model down but still has the same sensor and image quality, so the saving there could make adding the Sigma e mount zoom more affordable as an over all package.

If you need more info, go to the 'camera store' channel on youtube. great reviews and all the models we talked about.

https://www.youtube.com/user/TheCameraStoreTV

I suspect the best thing for you to do would be to go for the older Fuji X-E1 which does take amazing stills, can be had very cheap as its now 3 years old. If you dont like it you can sell it back for what you payed pretty much.

Its a hard market but the mirror-less camera is the way forward. Easy to use, takes just as good stills as a full top spec SLR, they are usually cheap and small.

If you like the results Im getting from my Fuji x-10 then go for that. For around $300 its a no brainer and if you outgrow it in a year or two, then move up but at least you will have got an easy road into taking great stills with a better camera then your iPhone.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Fujifilm-Fuj...item1c56219a36

Go on, your guitars deserve it. You've definitely got the eye, just not the quality of shots. I'm always a little frustrated by the quality of your pics because the framing is great and your guitars are lovely.

So there's about a year of heavy research there. You owe me a beer

BUT you'll still need to get a copy of Lightroom by Adobe. Thats where the real magic happens.

[Archie]

The most important thing, for any product photography, is light—amount, type, and location. You can take better pictures with your cellphone and awesome lighting, than you can with crappy lighting and the best camera money can buy.

Amount
You ideally need lots of it so the camera sensor doesn't have to work so hard. You also want enough light that your aperture can be small so you can a larger depth of focus.

Type
You generally want a softened light, something that is being diffused through a material or bounced from a wall. This softens shadows. Conversely if you use a "hard" source such as the sun or bare bulb, your shadows will be hard, less appealing, very contrasty, and less natural. This is the reason shots in direct sun look bad.

Location
This is very basic as there is too much to cover in one post but you generally want to light for two sides of the object, or 1 side and then "bounce" light onto the other side using a reflector (this can be a white board, tinfoil, a wall, etc.) This helps to light the whole object evenly and gives them depth. If you see pictures taken with a flash on a camera, it looks harsh because it is a hard light (see above), straight on the object which causes extreme shadows and flattens the subject.

Shiny surfaces on objects is a whole other ball of wax that I recommend you read about on some photo sites.

There are some great blog posts / articles about lighting guitars, either with strobes, or things you have around the house, if you just do a quick search. Here are some good ones:

• http://www.nichebooks.com/guitarpix.pdf (Great resource, on the cheap, all you need to know)
• Tabletop Studio - Everything you want to know about staging heavy objects in product photography
• Photographing guitars light source | The Gear Page

Bingo

Although depth of field is not just controlled by light. Sensor size, plus the quality of the firmware, the speed of your lense and stop size (2.8 preferable). If you use a tripod and put the shutter on a timer, you can work in pretty low light.

[Archie]

Before off to bed I would say to 2b, you might just want to try lightroom first before buying another camera.

Send me your original files (zipped) in jpeg from your phone. I will fiddle with them in Lightroom and we can see what results we get. The ability to add sharpness and clarity, along with being able to add colour and white balance etc makes a flat picture really sing.

I think thats the only thing your shots need 2b, added sharpness, clarity and colour to make the really pop.

[2bornot2bop]

Yeh thats what I meant for video. I guess you will only need a good camera for stills.

Well I've been studying the 'mirror less market' intensely for the last year, until I gave it a rest and carried on with the fuji for the last couple of months.

I wish I could have come to a firm conclusion but the truth is, I couldn't. The Sony A6000 came out best but has the worst kit lenses. However if you threw a Sigma zoom on there, you've probably then got the best mirror less camera for taking stills on the market. It has been compared in image quality to the Cannon MK5 III which is the industry standard SLR for pro's, so the Sony is immense.

The only issue I had is that the Sigma zoom lens is about $1200 which then makes the whole camera quite expensive, although still rated the best in its class.

On the other hand, going for a cheaper option like the older Fuji X-E1 (sorry thats what I meant by X1) will still produce amazing results at probably 1/3rd the price.

What I have out grown though on my Fuji X-10 is the image quality. Can be soft around the edges and I would want better low light performance as we both shoot indoors and without studio lighting. I get natural vinyeting? (dark patches in the corners). I also would want a tillable screen on the back as I'm tired of having to lie on the floor to take some shots.

So with that in mind, this is where the Sony A6000 comes into play again. Sony also do another model called the A5100 which is the model down but still has the same sensor and image quality, so the saving there could make adding the Sigma e mount zoom more affordable as an over all package.

If you need more info, go to the 'camera store' channel on youtube. great reviews and all the models we talked about.

https://www.youtube.com/user/TheCameraStoreTV

I suspect the best thing for you to do would be to go for the older Fuji X-E1 which does take amazing stills, can be had very cheap as its now 3 years old. If you dont like it you can sell it back for what you payed pretty much.

Its a hard market but the mirror-less camera is the way forward. Easy to use, takes just as good stills as a full top spec SLR, they are usually cheap and small.

If you like the results Im getting from my Fuji x-10 then go for that. For around $300 its a no brainer and if you outgrow it in a year or two, then move up but at least you will have got an easy road into taking great stills with a better camera then your iPhone.

Fujifilm Fuji x10 12 0 MP Digital Camera w Box EXTRAS Black | eBay

Go on, your guitars deserve it. You've definitely got the eye, just not the quality of shots. I'm always a little frustrated by the quality of your pics because the framing is great and your guitars are lovely.

So there's about a year of heavy research there. You owe me a beer

BUT you'll still need to get a copy of Lightroom by Adobe. Thats where the real magic happens.

I owe you a beer! Thanks for taking the time AH! Time to investigate mirrorless! I'm an old dinosaur with a Nikon SLR film camera and lenses I need to donate to a photography studio.

[spiral]

Although depth of field is not just controlled by light. Sensor size, plus the quality of the firmware, the speed of your lense and stop size (2.8 preferable). If you use a tripod and put the shutter on a timer, you can work in pretty low light.

Depth of field is controlled by the aperture of your lens. How much will be in focus will depend on the f-stop and distance from the subject—that's what he handy little distance scale is on the top of lenses. Usually "lens speed" refers to the f-stop size (aperture).

I used to own the Fujifilm XE-1. It was ok. You have to decide what system you are going to buy into and I think micro four thirds offers more/better lens options, and they are cheaper. I wouldn't get too hung up on gear. Nearly any modern enthusiast camera—ie. one that lets you have manual control over aperture, shutter speed, ISO, and white balance—will let you take professional photos with good lighting and practice ... guitar parallels anyone?

[2bornot2bop]

Depth of field is controlled by the aperture of your lens. How much will be in focus will depend on the f-stop and distance from the subject—that's what he handy little distance scale is on the top of lenses. Usually "lens speed" refers to the f-stop size (aperture).

I used to own the Fujifilm XE-1. It was ok. You have to decide what system you are going to buy into and I think micro four thirds offers more/better lens options, and they are cheaper. I wouldn't get too hung up on gear. Nearly any modern enthusiast camera—ie. one that lets you have manual control over aperture, shutter speed, ISO, and white balance—will let you take professional photos with good lighting and practice ... guitar parallels anyone?

Okay then...$500, and it's got to be new, and a current model. Is anything worthy? It appears that "mirror less" is not an option for body and lens kit below $500

[travisty]

Two things...

1) PHOTOS. Strong diffuse light is key. If you have a flash on your camera, use it, but stick a little diffuser over it (you could actually make one using a large paperclip, a little tape, and a cutout piece of a thin white plastic bag - one which is thin enough to let the light from the flash go through). If you have a DSLR with large flash you mount on top, point the flash to the wall or ceiling to bounce the light off the flat/light surface to reflect back down to your object.

2) CAMERA
I am a long-time photog with experience using high end SLRs, DLSRs, medium-format cameras for close on three decades. I have broken with that (for the most part). If you have a newer smartphone, and you want a DSLR-quality photograph but don't need the "speed" of a DSLR I can highly recommend the SONY QX100 lens (there is a QX10 and a QX30 with a lesser quality lens) as long as you don't need instant-on-instant-great high-speed photos. There is a lag to turning on and taking pics. When I am setting up to take photos, it takes about 20 seconds to put on the lens and turn on the lens, link to it, and start the app to take the first photo. There is also a lag when taking pics (this can be reduced by optimizing settings but is still slightly longer). More recent versions may do this better than the first one (which I have).




It is a small cylinder half the size of a 12oz coke can. The right hand picture is of the lens with an iPhone 4. I use mine on my iPhone 6 Plus. It works on any Android or iOS device (phone, iPad). The clip is large enough to use with a 5.5" camera but might not stretch to anything larger. It is basically a SONY RX100 digital camera built into a smaller body. It has a great Zeiss lens with zoom. Takes fantastic pictures (BIG sensor (same as top consumer DSLRs) and 1080/30p video.

It has a wifi chip in it creating a wifi network with your phone/device = device is the viewfinder. There is a SONY app for your device which is the camera/vid app. Lens clips on for convenience' sake but you don't need to clip it on (if you want, you can face one way, hold the lens in the other direction, and take photos facing behind you).

Takes fantastic pictures. Auto or manual focus, ISO/aperture/shutter speed selection if you want. Color balance as well on the QX100. Leaves a decent copy on your phone and a raw file copy on the MicroSD card in the lens body.

Issues/Weaknesses I wish SONY would deal with...
1) You have to use their app. I would love to be able to use other camera apps.
2) Low light photos are excellent, but there is no flash or flash sync. I expect they will eventually figure out how to use the iPhone flash. Camera/lens updates are possible through USB port on lens.
3) Because of lag, it is not great for shooting sports photos - there is a lag between taking the photo when it is ready to take the next because it is saving. High end DSLRs are better at this. If you choose your mode (i.e. don't review pic, save only on card not phone, it goes quite a bit faster - but isn't as fast as a good DSLR).
4) If you have an iPhone4 or old iPad, the wifi chip in your phone is a bit slow so the image from your lens to camera has a lag. If you have a 5 or 6, it is almost perfect. Even with a 6, there is a very slight lag compared to using a DSLR (which moves as fast as you change direction).

But I find quality/convenience (size, etc) trumps the other problems. If you are patient enough to try to take a decent still photo, it takes photos in medium-good light as good as you will get without a pro camera.

I bought mine for a bit under $400. Think Street price in the US is a bit over $400 now. Because of the currency move since these were released, if you were to buy from Amazon Japan, you could probably get one for $320-340.

[mikeSF]

I shoot guitars and would agree that the brightest diffuse light you can put on the subject, the better. Lately, I will use an off camera flash, but still get agreeable results outdoors on a cloudy day. Sometimes indoors placing the guitar between a large window on one side and a white wall on the other will bounce enough light to control shadows and get a great pic. Even a simple piece of white posterboard can be an effective enough reflector to fill up a shot well.

I also recommend moving back a bit and using a longer focal length, such as a portrait lens, in order to reduce the wide angle distortion, just as a portrait photographer flatters the subject by not stretching out faces or bodies of people.

The reflections on the finish of a high gloss instrument are the biggest challenge, IMO and can be distracting in some cases. I may move the light source around to place the glare on a matte area such as the finger rest or tailpiece, for example.

Here are some examples, the first two using a handheld flash and the second two use natural available light.


Sakashta Opera Custom 7

Mark of a Master


Benedetto (Explore #53)


Benedetto Guitars

[nickyboy]

Awesome advice folks - many thanks!

Tonight/after work - It's on! Archtop photography!!
I'll post my work asap.

[Archie]

I shoot guitars and would agree that the brightest diffuse light you can put on the subject, the better. Lately, I will use an off camera flash, but still get agreeable results outdoors on a cloudy day. Sometimes indoors placing the guitar between a large window on one side and a white wall on the other will bounce enough light to control shadows and get a great pic. Even a simple piece of white posterboard can be an effective enough reflector to fill up a shot well.

I also recommend moving back a bit and using a longer focal length, such as a portrait lens, in order to reduce the wide angle distortion, just as a portrait photographer flatters the subject by not stretching out faces or bodies of people.

The reflections on the finish of a high gloss instrument are the biggest challenge, IMO and can be distracting in some cases. I may move the light source around to place the glare on a matte area such as the finger rest or tailpiece, for example.

Here are some examples, the first two using a handheld flash and the second two use natural available light.


Sakashta Opera Custom 7

Mark of a Master


Benedetto (Explore #53)


Benedetto Guitars

Now thats pro guitar photography. Makes mine look amateur but it is so thats cool. Thanks for sharing.

What are your thought s on the crop of the beny?
What kit were you using (lens especially)

The reason I did so much gear research is because I knew nothing about cameras, I mean nothing.
Plus I get a bit locked into stuff like that . Same with guitars but unfortunately not practicing :-)))

[eblydian]

You can get Lightroom on a monthly sub for I think $10 a month. Worth it depending on how many pics you take and the great thing is, you just need to frame the originals and get the levels ruffly right. Then you can use lightroom to make them look pro and go back through all your old photos and boost those too.

IMHO The $10-a-month Lightroom subscription may be good for pros but not for occasional users. It took me a long search but I finally found a way to purchase the stand-alone version for roughly $120. A bit of a learning curve but a great post-processing software.

Btw, congrats on your great pictures!

[Jonathan Levin]

I'll add a few things here if that helps. I was the main photographer for Bob Benedetto's book "Building and Archtop Guitar. (Even a a nice picture of me when I was handsome and happy!) And have been doing this for for a way to long 35+ years. Time flies when you are in debt, and really involved with video as well.

Lots of great info. I would like to add that a highlight on guitars, especially AT's is not necessarily a bad thing. It's is more where you "place" that highlight by moving your key (main) light around, without sacrificing something else getting to dark. If you think about how you normally see instruments, they always have some kind of highlight. It just gives depth.

I always add a "hair light" that I direct at an angle and up higher, 5' to 10' above and aim that at the shoulder of the guitar closest to that light. If it is to harsh, defuse it. I also like to get use out of the many color gels I've accumulated over the years to add character that way. Usually just a slight warm or what they used to call a "Straw" filter.

Filters like these are avaiable at places that sell to theatre companies or try a decent camera store. Sometimes you can even procure a swatch sample booklet from a company like Roscoe. Not sure if they do that anymore though.

It was probably mentioned, but if you are serious about this I'd recommend finding full sheets of 1/4" 4' x 8' white/black foam core. Or in a pinch a roll of 4 foot wide white seamless (and black) and rig up something to make it rigid.

Black absorbs light, which is sometimes something you want. Don't use your camera's Auto White balance if you can. Set up a gray card, or what I do is set up a white card so I can see whats happening, and do a Custom WB, per your cameras manual. Save that setting as "Guitar" if you plan to use the same rigging another time, or just do a new WB.

Main (key) light: I've always used a medium size light box from Plume, Chimera or whomever is making those now.

You don't need to spend a lot of money to light something well. Just practice and patience. Back in the day, all of us working pros would have to send a film test to the photo lab, what 1-4 hours (depending on if you wanted to pay additional rush charges) for that to come back. Look at how fucked it is, adjust everything, rinse, repeat, you get the idea. Digital thankfully eliminated all that. So the next time you think it is taking a long time, it would sometimes take me three days just to get everything right. Most of it waiting for the film delivery guy. I digress.

Mike Oria's photos are stunning! Notice that he keeps the background soft (out of focus, called boka in my line of work) and not everything has to be in sharp focus.

Sometimes a nice shot is just that. A nice shot.

To ArchtopHeaven: I'm not sure if you are actually Mike, but nice stuff. How much "retouching" did you have to do on any of the shots. Obviously a good job, because I have to ask.

And this brings me to another point: don't go balls out with Photoshop or other image editing software right away. If I had students, I would direct them to get perfect color and tone, and THEN experiment. PS can be a big help but alos a weak crutch. Use caution, but be creative.

Finally, the ubiquitous guitar stand in the shot syndrome. I built a wooded thing-a-ma-jig that sort of balanced the guitar on it's end. And a litle jig out of picture for the back to rest against. A little scarey when you have a $60,000.00 Benedetto or gazzilion dollar Hauser balancing. No one breathe, just needs to stand for a 250th of a second ;-} I always had an assistant with soft hands and good nerves just stage right, always reading to catch a toppling treasure.

I suppose now you could do something like monofilament (fishing line) and if you background is simple, just knock out the "wires" in post production.

Hope this helps. Sorry for the long-ness.

Jonathan