Official Luthiers Forum!

I've been struggling a bit but I'm seeing some improvement in the photo studio. Basically, it's about lighting now. Mostly, I've been reluctant to begin a project of making light stands and boxes and such until I'm pretty sure I know what will produce the best results.

This photo spread MUCH better reflects the actual color of this guitar. I Still have a ways to go but I'm getting something of a handle on it.

Also made some shots of the inside panels. Those shots are web ready, I'd say.

_________________
I read Emerson on the can. A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds...true...but a consistent reading of Emerson has its uses nevertheless.

StuMusic

and

_________________
I read Emerson on the can. A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds...true...but a consistent reading of Emerson has its uses nevertheless.

StuMusic

getting white balance to appear correct is always a challenge too...as you probably know incandescent(tungsten filament) produce yellow/orange light, and flourescent produces green light...commercial buildings are often lit with mercury vapor/metal halide/or sodium, which are all different spectrums too.
sometimes a blend of different bulbs works well. i also light up subjects with flashlights also, in long exposures, to illuminate shadows and such. some LED flashlights are very blue, some quite pure white.
nice pics. i have always thought red was one of the most difficult colors to faithfully depict in photos. i am not a pro though.

A few of the shots look underexposed to me by at least 2/3 of a stop; for a 'white background' type shoot, you tend to want to overexpose/add extra light/flash to the background while exposing the subject properly. I hope you're shooting in RAW? Makes getting color and lighting consistent a whole lot easier.

I dont know from white balance, but I know a nice looking guitar when I see one. I love the color Stuart. It looks much deeper red than in the first set you posted. Beautiful. My photography skills are sorely lacking but out of 100+ shots I take of each guitar I have completed, I usually get a few good ones.

_________________
http://www.CostaGuitars.com
PMoMC

So I hear...about shooting in RAW. No...I haven't been doing that. Since these turned out so much better than the first batch...I was celebrating at least some progress...but I'm discerning enough to see that there is quite a ways to go here.

I'll switch over to RAW on the next session.

In town here there's a photographer I can visit who will give me some pointers on lighting equipment. I will provide him these photos to have a point of reference. It's a good bet that after that session things will improve further.

_________________
I read Emerson on the can. A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds...true...but a consistent reading of Emerson has its uses nevertheless.

StuMusic

Thanks Tony.

Shots two and three from the top are the nicest shots by far....except they wash out the red. The underexposed shots capture the actual depth of color.

I'll eventually figure it out...but this is a lot harder than I thought it would be.

_________________
I read Emerson on the can. A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds...true...but a consistent reading of Emerson has its uses nevertheless.

StuMusic

Wow....that looks great. I love the color

Lookin' good, Stuart! It is harder than you'd think, ain't it. It's more about knowing how light behaves than using a camera, it seems. Gives me a new respect for studio photographers.

I built one softbox, but it wasn't worth the trouble and the savings were negligible (or less).

Shooting RAW does indeed give you a lot more latitude in post-processing, but I think jpg is fine while you're trying to figure it all out.

Pat

_________________
formerly known around here as burbank
_________________

http://www.patfosterguitars.com

I'm more of an available light photographer myself, but I've been doing a lot of reading and a little bit of experimenting with lighting; mostly natural light for the object and adding fill flash to the background to 'white out' the background without having to resort to too much photoshop.

The big advantage to RAW is the control you have over shot to shot color balance and the ability to make all shots consistent AFTER you've shot them.

Hi Stuart!
Shots are looking great - I will throw some suggestions your way as you do this, but I am assuming you are probably already on this - you have *quite* the mind - so, if anything, perhaps it could help others out there as well - I did a little better photo shoot on my last batch and one of the things I have taken advantage of is using info from the pictures I have taken - it will show up on your computer when you put it on there, meaning it will show you f-stop, exposure time iso, etc., which I am still amazed over, since I used to have a few camera setups back from the early 80's and since the price of film is so cheap these days, run through LOTS of settings with the lights set up one way - look at all photos on your computer(Remember though, colors will look different screen to screen, but you CAN do screen calibration as well these days). This is all about experimentation because evry camera is different, light setting, subject, backgrounds, etc. I am planning on getting some continuous lighting softboxes, which are great at diffusing and eliminating shadows.

The pics below used 1 light in my studio (At night, with all other lights off)




The 1st Photo was selected from about 10 photos I took - it STILL wasn't light enough on the headstock, but "passed". I also adjust things in Photoshop... I changed the backdrop from beige... here was the original shot:



I DO want to get some white background shots as well and keep us posted how they come out on your next round - thanks for posting this stuff - great chance to see your great builds as well!

_________________
"Talking about music is like dancing over architecture".
See the most insane first guitar build: http://www.virgilguitar.com
http://www.youtube.com/VirgilGuitar