Guitar: National Resonator Electric Guitar -- CLOSE UPS

[Mike Buckley]

A single photo displaying the entire guitar can be found in my first thread. The photos displayed below are my close-up images of the same guitar.

Please click an image to examine the details of all of them at a larger size in the Lytebox.

NOTES ABOUT THE GUITAR: The official name of the model is National Reso-phonic Style "0" Delphi. It is a single-cone resonator. It recreates the look and feel of the single-cone guitars first made in the 1930s. The neck is made of mahogany and the fret board is rosewood. The cross-grained binding is a made of ivory. The dark part of the body is steel covered with a highly textured black, baked finish.

This guitar was purchased new in 2002 but is no longer being manufactured. The style was popular in the early 2000s among blues bands. My friend replaced the original resonator and cover plate (the shiny area of the body) with a nickel finish electronic version called a "Hot Plate." That modification allowed him to electronically amplify the sound and to alter the tone to be more like traditional blues styles.


Photo 1 Setup
The background and tabletop are different kinds of black velvet. Two medium continuous-light lamps and a small continuous-light lamp are on the right side in a vertical formation that lights the scene and especially brightly lights the six strings as much as possible throughout the entire image. A 32" x 44" piece of white foam core was opposite the lamps on the left side of the guitar. It is reflected in the circular chrome piece to make it appear mostly bright and shiny and to define the shape of the chrome. Even though the chrome is only about 10" in diameter, the reflection of a smaller piece of white foam core would not have filled the chrome thanks to the chrome's convex shape.




Photo 2 Setup
The background and tabletop are a single sheet of black velvet. Two medium continuous-light lamps positioned side by side are above the top left area and light the entire scene. One was not enough to brightly light the entire length of the two smallest strings on the camera right. A piece of white foam core is held above the guitar by resting its top end on the medium lamps on the left side and by placing its bottom end on the tabletop on the other side of the guitar. The board is reflected in the chrome to make it appear mostly bright and shiny but allowing some grey tones to help define its shape. A white reflector laid flat on the left side of the tabletop next to the guitar lights the vertical side of the guitar. It was changed to black during post-processing.




Photo 3 Setup
The tabletop is black velvet. Two medium continuous-light lamps positioned on the left and right sides of the guitar are pointing upward at a 45-degree angle. The far end of a 32" x 44" sheet of white foam core is resting on the head of the guitar (not displayed in the photo) and the near end is resting on the two medium lamps. The white foam core is reflected in the chrome to display it mostly bright and shiny but the grey tones help define the chrome's shape. Even though the chrome is only about 10" in diameter, the reflection of a smaller piece of white foam core would not have filled the chrome thanks to the chrome's convex shape. A small continuous-light lamp pointing upward toward the white foam core was placed on the tabletop above the far end of the body. Without that lamp, the two smallest strings would have been invisible in the upper half of the image.




Photo 4 Setup
The background is black velvet. A small continuous-light lamp on the lower right side is the main light and ensures that all six strings are brightly lit as much as possible throughout the scene. A piece of white foam core on the left side is reflected in the chrome to make it appear mostly bright and shiny. A small continuous-light lamp lights the upper area of both sides of the head. A medium continuous-light lamp behind and below the scene lights the dark metal screws and the near, bottom edge of the head to provide separation between those dark areas of the subject and the background. A polarizer eliminated glare on the neck.

[mugge]

Mike, looking with great attention as you try to nut this out. Tis aint easy, I can see.
Cheers Ole

[Shadowman]

1, 3, and 4 really work for me especially when viewed at a distance. Surface texture of #2 has too much of a foam like appearance; the string detail however is spot on.

[Wavelength]

I see professionalism !!!

[bje07]

I see professionalism !!!

+ 1
Wonderful angles, no bad reflections, Wow!!

[Mike Buckley]

Thanks, everyone!

I have been struggling to get all six guitar strings of my friend's guitars evenly lit especially in the tiny constraints of my makeshift studio. A discussion about that occurred in this thread and perhaps in other threads about photos of the guitars.

Chapter 6 of of my lighting bible, Light: Science & Magic, is about photographing metal. (The guitar's strings are made of metal.) I just now remembered that the full-page photo at the beginning of the chapter was changed in the book's fifth edition to an image of a six-string guitar. I feel quite a bit better to see that the photo in the book, which was made by pros surely using an ideal studio, doesn't display all six strings evenly throughout the image. If you have the book, turn to page 132 and notice that the three smallest strings in that photo are bright on one side of the bridge and dark on the other side.

It comes as no surprise to me that this happened, as I am regularly experiencing similar oddities when creating setups to photograph my friend's guitars. I am surprised that the pro photographers working in an ideal studio to make that photo didn't solve the issue. Perhaps they felt it is an interesting characteristic that is likeable as is.

Even so, for the life of me I can't figure out an issue I experienced while making one of the photos displayed above. (Sorry that I can't remember which one.) Prior to correcting the lighting, the four strings on the left and the sixth string on the far right were brightly lit but the fifth string was dark. How is it possible that the light source was in the family of angles of the fourth and sixth strings (making them appear bright) but was not in the family of angles of the fifth string (making it appear dark)?

[xpatUSA]

Thanks, everyone!

Even so, for the life of me I can't figure out an issue I experienced while making one of the photos displayed above. (Sorry that I can't remember which one.) Prior to correcting the lighting, the four strings on the left and the sixth string on the far right were brightly lit but the fifth string was dark. How is it possible that the light source was in the family of angles of the fourth and sixth strings (making them appear bright) but was not in the family of angles of the fifth string (making it appear dark)?

Sorry, but I've never been comfortable with the "family of angles" concept when it is applied to a highly reflective (specular?) cylindrical or highly curved object. I can see that a mirror might have such a family as explained here and here but not a guitar string. In fact, round objects seemed almost to be carefully avoided!

[Mike Buckley]

Thanks for the tip about the numbering of the strings, Ted.

The family of angles has to do with the type of reflection (direct and/or diffuse) and I don't remember ever seeing an explanation of why that would not hold true for all shapes. Just the opposite, I have seen explanations of why it does hold true for all shapes. Consider that a flat object that creates mostly direct reflections, such as a mirror, has one family of angles. A cylindrical object has an infinite number of family of angles because its curves are essentially made of an infinite number of tiny, tiny flat surfaces, each with its own family of angles. Moreover, I have photographed lots and lots of curved glass displayed at my website in just about every shape. That practical experience proves to me that using the family of angles to intentionally define the edges of transparent glass in either bright or dark tones always works exactly as one would expect.

EDIT:

In fact, round objects seemed almost to be carefully avoided!

Not at all avoided by the authors of Light: Science & Magic. See the discussion about using the family of angles to photograph round metal beginning on page 169 of the fifth edition.

[xpatUSA]

Thanks for the tip about the numbering of the strings, Ted.

The family of angles has to do with the type of reflection (direct and/or diffuse) and I don't remember ever seeing an explanation of why that would not hold true for all shapes. Just the opposite, I have seen explanations of why it does hold true for all shapes. Consider that a flat object that creates mostly direct reflections, such as a mirror, has one family of angles. A cylindrical object has an infinite number of family of angles because its curves are essentially made of an infinite number of tiny, tiny flat surfaces, each with its own family of angles. Moreover, I have photographed lots and lots of curved glass displayed at my website in just about every shape. That practical experience proves to me that using the family of angles to intentionally define the edges of transparent glass in either bright or dark tones always works exactly as one would expect.

Yes, I was reflecting (!) more on the subject and drawing round things with light rays and stuff as you were typing.

Seems that a cylinder illuminated by a point source at some distance has a family of angles (FOA) of about 180 degs. And probably a cosine response for the brightness of the reflection as seen by the camera i.e. 0 at 90 degs and 1 at 0 degs. If the source is wider and closer to the cylinder the FOA increases to more than 180 degrees and the reflection becomes broader for what that's worth.

So I'm thinking that the strings would be best lit by a strip light such as a fluorescent tube mounted behind and slightly to one side of the camera. The tube would be parallel to the strings and aligned with them. A slot in a dark board with a bright lamp behind would do the same thing.

The reflection from the 'top' strings themselves would apparently be bright but the additional lighting on the other parts of the guitar, esp. flat surfaces, would not be that much because of the inverse square law which applies as much to "line sources" as it does to point sources. There would be a trade-off involved. The 'line source' at a distance will appear as a thin reflection on the string, maybe less than 1 pixel but the addtional light on the guitar will be negligible. On the other hand, a broad or closer line source would give a broader reflection from the string but at the expense of additional lighting on the guitar.

However, the family of angles would apply in the vertical plane, so to speak, which could explain the difference each side of the bridge that you mentioned. Shame on them.

What do you think?

[Mike Buckley]

I added a note to my previous post that you might not have seen.

Seems that a cylinder illuminated by a point source at some distance has a family of angles (FOA) of about 180 degs.

As a comparative example, the family of angles of a sphere is far greater, perhaps about 300 degrees.

If the source is wider and closer to the cylinder the FOA increases to more than 180 degrees.

The distance between subject and light source doesn't affect the size of the family of angles. It only affects the brightness of the light falling on the subject and the quality of shadows (hard or soft) that are produced. However, changing the distance between the camera and the subject does affect the size of the family of angles. See pages 153 and 155 of the "bible."

So I'm thinking that the strings would be best lit by a strip light such as a fluorescent tube mounted behind and slightly to one side of the camera. The tube would be parallel to the strings and aligned with them.

I have no idea if that setup would produce the desired results. I tried using an LED light in the shape of a long narrow rectangle but, unfortunately, that light source wasn't bright enough to make a difference when placed in the setup using other much more powerful light sources.

However, I do know that in a lot of setups it would be physically impossible to position the tube parallel to the strings and slightly to the side of the camera. It will always be possible to accomplish one of those relationships but often not both.

However, the family of angles would apply in the vertical plane, so to speak, which would explain the difference each side of the bridge that you mentioned.

I assume the plane is different on the two sides of the bridge, so, yes, the difference in the brightness of the reflected light could be different. However, the different plane applies to all six strings crossing the bridge. Yet only three of the six strings are dark on one side of the bridge in the photo displayed in Light: Science & Magic.

[Mike Buckley]

Note to Ted: If I don't get my Christmas cards done today, I'm gonna blame you!

[xpatUSA]

I added a note to my previous post that you might not have seen.

As a comparative example, the family of angles of a sphere is far greater, perhaps about 300 degrees.

The distance between subject and light source doesn't affect the size of the family of angles. It only affects the brightness of the light falling on the subject and the quality of shadows (hard or soft) that are produced. However, changing the distance between the camera and the subject does affect the size of the family of angles. See pages 153 and 155 of the "bible."

<>

I assume the plane is different on the two sides of the bridge, so, yes, the difference in the brightness of the reflected light could be different. However, the different plane applies to all six strings crossing the bridge. Yet only three of the six strings are dark on one side of the bridge.

Yes, I missed the note, was busy editing my post.

I don't have the book, so unfortunately the references were wasted but I do see the 300 degrees now.

The lower three strings are usually wrapped with fine round wire, usually nickel or stainless steel, sometimes bronze. If they were 'flat-wound', you'd probably see the same difference.

[madcrow]

Detail and sharpness on all images outstanding.

[Mike Buckley]

Thanks, Maurice!

Consider that with regard to the sharpness of a static scene using a camera mounted on a tripod, shame on me if the images aren't sharp.

[NorthernFocus]

This is an awesome set, Mike. I really like this approach of capturing intimate details as opposed to simply the entire instrument on a stand. Well done.

[Mike Buckley]

Thanks, Dan!

I really like this approach of capturing intimate details as opposed to simply the entire instrument on a stand.

I feel that capturing the entire guitar in one image is a documentary necessity but that the most creativity and viewer enjoyment happens with the detail shots. My friend who owns the guitars really likes that the shot that displays the entire guitar is done in a vertical position, so I'll always be compelled to make it that way. However, that orientation displays the instrument at the smallest magnification because that's the short dimension when using a computer monitor or a television. I have to admit that when he put the vertical, complete shot of the first guitar on his cell phone's wall paper, it looked great because the default position when using a cell phone is the vertical orientation.

[xpatUSA]

Thanks, Dan!

I feel that capturing the entire guitar in one image is a documentary necessity but that the most creativity and viewer enjoyment happens with the detail shots. My friend who owns the guitars really likes that the shot that displays the entire guitar is done in a vertical position, so I'll always be compelled to make it that way.

I prefer close-up shot #1 to the original post and feel that a full version of that could be more 'arty' than the full frontal view. Shot #1 is more how one often sees big fiddles depicted in old paintings . . .

[Mike Buckley]

I prefer close-up shot #1 to the original post and feel that a full version of that could be more 'arty' than the full frontal view.

It would not be physically possible in the constraints of my makeshift studio to use the same perspective in close-up #1 that displays the entire guitar.

I'm not sure what you mean by the full frontal view, but the image in the other thread that displays the entire guitar from top to bottom also displays the side of the guitar. Anyone not displaying the photo at a larger magnification in the Lytebox, not viewing it on a monitor that is profiled and calibrated, and/or not using a browser with excellent color-management capabilities understandably may not be able to distinguish the side of the guitar from the background and/or tabletop.

[Mike Buckley]

My friend who owns the guitar has now provided information about it that I added to the first post in the thread.