Official Luthiers Forum!

Just got the camera in today, and snapped a few quick test pics. We have
a Polarizing filter on the way which will take out the glares/reflections,
but you can imagine it without the glares :) So far so good I think. Tell
me what you all think....remember these are just real quick test shots so
we did not mess with lighting, and such very much.

_________________
John Mayes
http://www.mayesluthier.com

Wow those look great. Hopefully I'll have guitars worth sending your way in the future.

John, someone stole 2 of the strings off your guitar.

Seriously though, the pics look very nice. Can't wait to see what you come up with once you get the lights and everything set up.

_________________
Dave Rector
Rector Guitars

Look good JM. What did you get for a camera. Santa brought me a digital EOS and I'm starting to shoot as well. Pretty fun. If I might make a couple of suggestions:
Lower the depth of field so the background isn't in as tight of focus. That will make the guitar pop more.
And a polorizing filter will help too but I sort of like a few specular highlights if they are not over the top distraction.
Good job. P

[QUOTE=Pwoolson] Look good JM. What did you get for a camera. Santa
brought me a digital EOS and I'm starting to shoot as well. Pretty fun. If I
might make a couple of suggestions:
Lower the depth of field so the background isn't in as tight of focus. That
will make the guitar pop more.
And a polorizing filter will help too but I sort of like a few specular
highlights if they are not over the top distraction.
Good job. P[/QUOTE]

Yeah I did that in the first pic, as you can see. I was just testing some
stuff out, but thanks for the tips.

The camera is a Olympus E-500 that came with two different lens

_________________
John Mayes
http://www.mayesluthier.com

Kind of makes the guitar look tiny, like a uke or something

_________________
http://www.NewYorkGuitarRepair.com

Nice Pics, do you have any DVD's on how to run a digital camera? Great pics by the way! And the Uke ain't bad either!

Sweet! Two more DSLR owners joining the club. Both systems (Canon and Olympus) get solid reviews. Like Paul said, knock back the depth of field; I like to shoot in aperture priority mode, maybe f2.8@50mm for decent DoF on guitarish work (might be too shallow, depending on focal length; should work for a 50mm or so, might want a touch smaller aperture (larger F number) for something in the tele range; remember the longer lenses have smaller depths of field than the wideangles, and shoot accordingly). Have fun!

John,

Honestly, I think the background is just too visually busy, even in soft focus. Too close in value, as well--needs to be lighter or darker.

[QUOTE=CarltonM] John,

Honestly, I think the background is just too visually busy, even in soft
focus. Too close in value, as well--needs to be lighter or darker.[/
QUOTE]

agreed that It can be. That is why I also have some pure white BG's as
well as Pure Black, as well as some other sold, and muslin colors on the
way too.

_________________
John Mayes
http://www.mayesluthier.com

one with a black background

_________________
John Mayes
http://www.mayesluthier.com

Wow, thats a tiny bass guitar!!

_________________
Anderson Guitars
Clearwater,Fl. 33755

and one with white

John Mayes38742.0515856482

_________________
John Mayes
http://www.mayesluthier.com

and yes..I know the inlay job isn't that great, but dang-nabbit it's hard to
make a tiny inlay look clean in mahogany!!

_________________
John Mayes
http://www.mayesluthier.com

John--a voice here from the world of dial-up:
Even though they are smallish in footprint, those pix are taking forever to download on my screen.
I don't understand all that voodoo, but whatever resolution you're shooting seems perhaps excessive for the internet?

By the way--that's a beautiful uke!

Steve

_________________
From Nacogdoches...the oldest town in Texas.

http://www.stephenkinnaird.com

John,

I'd say the black/white extremes are too severe. They don't detract from the instrument, but they don't enhance it either. The things that bother me most about your original backdrop are the random-paint-splash and crushed-paper-bag looks. They both draw the eye away from your instrument. I'd suggest something more visually neutral--though some texture could be good--and a bit lighter in value, especially with dark woods/finishes. You might want a darker backdrop for blonde woods. It would be advantageous, too, to be able to move your subject farther away from the backdrop. That way, you can use spotlight and shade on the background to make the instrument really stand out. I bet there's a book somewhere that will tell you exactly what you need to know about lighting, value and color (Great! Another learning-curve! ). A local photography supply store would be a good place to start. I think your ideas are good, but consulting the experts always speeds things up.

John,

You're off to a good start here. Please take this (or don't) as constructive criticism. The lighting seems harsh, needing a softbox to diffuse the light source. Your use of multiple sources does help in softening shadows, but this would take care of the hot spots that catch those strong specular reflections. You could experiment with anything, paper towels, sheets, etc. to soften the pinpoint light sources. You might look at Frank Ford's bit on his "photo studio" to see about his softening rig. Also, there's a site, I don't recall whose, put up by a woman who has a lot of info on lighting for photographing guitars. I think she builds bass guitars.
You're definitely onto something! burbank38742.784212963

_________________
now known around here as Pat Foster
_________________
http://www.patfosterguitars.com

[QUOTE=CarltonM] John,

I'd say the black/white extremes are too severe. They don't detract from
the instrument, but they don't enhance it either. The things that bother
me most about your original backdrop are the random-paint-splash and
crushed-paper-bag looks. They both draw the eye away from your
instrument. I'd suggest something more visually neutral--though some
texture could be good--and a bit lighter in value, especially with dark
woods/finishes. You might want a darker backdrop for blonde woods. It
would be advantageous, too, to be able to move your subject farther away
from the backdrop. That way, you can use spotlight and shade on the
background to make the instrument really stand out. I bet there's a book
somewhere that will tell you exactly what you need to know about
lighting, value and color (Great! Another learning-curve! ). A local
photography supply store would be a good place to start. I think your
ideas are good, but consulting the experts always speeds things up.[/
QUOTE]

I actually like the black one pretty well. I guess that that part (the
background as long as done correctly) is just preference to a large
degree. And the white one is used a lot of places..like take a look at
Taylors site. It gives the look of the guitar alone on a white screen..just
like the headstock looks like it's suspended there with no background,
although there is quite a bit. But your point of different backgrounds for
different guitars is well taken, which is, again, why I'm going to have quite
a few to choose from (seamless paper is nice with abundance of choices!).

_________________
John Mayes
http://www.mayesluthier.com

[QUOTE=Steve Kinnaird] John--a voice here from the world of dial-up:
Even though they are smallish in footprint, those pix are taking forever to
download on my screen.
I don't understand all that voodoo, but whatever resolution you're
shooting seems perhaps excessive for the internet?

By the way--that's a beautiful uke!

Steve[/QUOTE]

Yeah I could've lessened the resolution, but I felt like kicking it up at
100% quality :) I could post some small (in resolution) size if you like :)

Thanks for the nice words..

_________________
John Mayes
http://www.mayesluthier.com

I have some white translucent photo umbrellas, but I did not use em.. they are made to be shot through like a sofbox so I am aware of that, and I'll have to give that a go too. Still in the experimenting/refining stage at this point...I'll have some of my guitars to shoot in a month or so which I'll really try hard to get really nice....

And I'm up for any constructive criticism. I've got a good start, but I wanna make the shots really nice. Heck at this point they are already nicer than what I see on half (or more) of luthiers websites out there...including my old one (which the pictures sucked)

_________________
John Mayes
http://www.mayesluthier.com

John,

As a former industrial photographer (catalog and product work using 4x5 and 8x10 view cameras), I think that you are doing really well. I would pay careful attention to the angles that you are using when photographing guitars - try from different vantage points and you will see the different perspective distortions that occur. The trick is to make the instrument look as natural as possible - for example, the higher the angle, the longer the neck will appear, etc. Remember, the only person you really have to please is yourself (unless you are selling services of course).

If you use shoot through umbrellas or a soft box, this will have a subtle change in the appearance of your instruments - making them appear "more rounded", as the light will "wrap" around. Again, you may or may not like this.

The use of a polarizer often requires a little "warming up" of the photo to make it look right. Everything is so much easier now with the use of programs like the Gimp or Photoshop to help. Makes us old "silver based" photographers archaic.

Thanks for the comments Ray. It's good to hear from a pro that, at least,
I'm on the right track. Would you mind terribly if I were to send you some
pictures in the future for some critique?

_________________
John Mayes
http://www.mayesluthier.com

John, Great photos. Nice Instruments. Great quality, ten times larger than a normal net photo though. My first time to view this page, I had to pass. This time it loaded in the background and was fine.

Lance shared with me a quickie pic reduction which works inside of Windows. It gives you four choices and takes just seconds to do, right within the folder view. You can find it at Microsoft's website. Use it all the time to put wood up on Ebay and for resizing pics for the OLF. Forget the name, but I never forget to use it, because it's now part of Windows.

You might like it if you try it. Keep up the good work. Could you put up a video from one of your CD's of you dancing during the "How to make a Guitar Videos"? I'd like a little craziness on the OLF today.

Bruce Dickey wrote :

                    I'd like a little craziness on the OLF today.

What Bruce, were you afraid that your fuzzy bear wouldn't show up?


John, your pics look great and i wish you and your wife all the best with your new project!

Serge, Serge Poirier38743.3032175926

[QUOTE=Dickey] John, Great photos. Nice Instruments. Great quality,
ten times larger than a normal net photo though. My first time to view
this page, I had to pass. This time it loaded in the background and was
fine.

Lance shared with me a quickie pic reduction which works inside of
Windows. It gives you four choices and takes just seconds to do, right
within the folder view. You can find it at Microsoft's website. Use it all
the time to put wood up on Ebay and for resizing pics for the OLF. Forget
the name, but I never forget to use it, because it's now part of Windows.

You might like it if you try it. Keep up the good work. Could you put up
a video from one of your CD's of you dancing during the "How to make a
Guitar Videos"? I'd like a little craziness on the OLF today.[/QUOTE]

I actually have Photoshop CS on my mac, but I intentionally left the full
quality. They load really fast on my DSL connection. Of course when
people put stuff on their personal websites they can resize to whatever to
keep the loading time down.

Dancing eh? I'll see what I can do....

_________________
John Mayes
http://www.mayesluthier.com