Guitar: Gibson Les Paul Custom TAKE 2

[Mike Buckley]

When I photographed this guitar the first time in mid November, Simon (Ionian) noted that "The curved mahogany fascia to the body of the guitar is such a feature of these instruments...Your image here shows such a neutral black throughout the body that it looks flat." The first photo displayed below is the photo Simon described.

In that first thread I explained the reason I decided not to display the curvature in the body having to do with marks on it being the result of use. Even so, it has been bugging me ever since I made that decision. My friend who owns the guitar returned it to me so I could make a do-over, as I wanted to try to bring out the curvature Simon mentioned.

The curvature in the top of the body is so slight that it is difficult to see or feel even when you are aware of it. Indeed, the manufacturer's website displays that curvature in a style that is very unacceptable to me.

The second and third photos shown below are my do-over photos. I'm still not confident that these photos adequately display the curvature but I am sure that I like them more than the photo attempting to do that displayed at the manufacturer's website. I actually wonder whether trying to display such slight curvature is important.

Notice in the second and third photos, unlike the first photo, that all six strings are displayed throughout their entire length. That characteristic on its own makes the second and third photos preferable to me.

NOTE: If you are not using a calibrated monitor and a browser that effectively manages color, you may not be able to see that the images are grounded by tonal variation in the tabletop; instead, you may perceive that the subject is "floating."

Your thoughts?

Setup of the second and third photos
Second photo: The background and tabletop are a single piece of black velvet. A medium continuous-light lamp above the subject and a small lamp at the level of the body are on the right side of the scene. A circular white reflector on the left adds a reflection that displays the slightly curved shape of the top surface of the body. The camera is at a true vertical; the subject is tilted.

Third photo: The only exception to the second photo is that the medium light has been lowered to the level of the subject.




First photo made about six weeks ago



Do-over of the first photo



Increased magnification of the guitar's body using a longer focal length

[Mike Buckley]

Thanks for such detailed comments, Ted! I just wish they were more balanced, as explained at the end of my post.

1) Marks on guitars are cherished rather than to be hidden (unless the owner specifically asked for that).

The owner and I discussed that marks were not to be hidden. I didn't hide any, at least not knowingly. I might have accidentally hidden some tiny marks that I confused with dust on the surface and I have explained that to the owner.

2) I may be wrong but it looks like a Les Paul Custom.

You are correct. I mentioned that in the first thread, the second thread and in the title of this thread. Considering your interest in guitars, you might want to take a look at the metadata in one of the photos of this thread to learn more about this particular guitar and how it came to be owned.

witness the moiré which is a little disturbing.

When I post images here, I use an automated method of downsizing all images. The moiré doesn't exist in the full-size originals. Considering that I have no idea whether viewers are using a calibrated monitor or a browser that capably manages color, I don't concern myself with a detail such as moiré. That's true especially considering that so many people view images at the relatively tiny size displayed on their cell phone.

[3) I am bothered by the background being black for a black guitar.

That's your choice. I love it and so does the guitar's owner.

If the intention was to make it "float"

My comments in the first post of the thread indicate that that is not my intention.

the edges by the neck, on the horn and at the bottom need specular highlighting to complete the outline.

Agreed. It's not physically possible in the constraints of my makeshift studio to make that happen. I have explained those constraints many times throughout the 4 1/2 years I have been posting photos made in it. Though I understand that you may have missed those details, I don't want to bore people by constantly repeating them with every thread I post here.

4) For a black guitar, I find the lighting for the face too diffuse.

The light isn't the least bit diffuse.

Quite a task you've set yourself with that one - I do sympathize.

Especially true if you were aware of the constraints of my makeshift studio. Feel free to review my threads about photos made in it to learn about that.

You've been very frank and I appreciate that. In return, I hope you'll appreciate my frank response. I don't remember you ever mentioning anything positive about any photos displayed at CiC, though hopefully I'm wrong about that. You certainly didn't mention anything positive about any of the photos in this thread. In the future, if you can't find one thing worth mentioning of a positive nature about my or anybody's photos before going into the diatribe about all the things you dislike about a photo as you did with these photos, frankly, I won't pay any attention to your critiques; without the balance of expressing satisfaction and dissatisfaction in a photo, the dissatisfaction you express lacks credibility in my mind.

[xpatUSA]

Thanks for such detailed comments, Ted! I just wish they were more balanced, as explained at the end of my post.



The owner and I discussed that marks were not to be hidden. I didn't hide any, at least not knowingly. I might have accidentally hidden some tiny marks that I confused with dust on the surface and I have explained that to the owner.



You are correct. I mentioned that in the first thread, the second thread and in the title of this thread. Considering your interest in guitars, you might want to take a look at the metadata in one of the photos of this thread to learn more about this particular guitar and how it came to be owned.



When I post images here, I use an automated method of downsizing all images. The moiré doesn't exist in the full-size originals. Considering that I have no idea whether viewers are using a calibrated monitor or a browser that capably manages color, I don't concern myself with a detail such as moiré. That's true especially considering that so many people view images at the relatively tiny size displayed on their cell phone.



That's your choice. I love it and so does the guitar's owner.



My comments in the first post of the thread indicate that that is not my intention.



Agreed. It's not physically possible in the constraints of my makeshift studio to make that happen. I have explained those constraints many times throughout the 4 1/2 years I have been posting photos made in it. Though I understand that you may have missed those details, I don't want to bore people by constantly repeating them with every thread I post here.



The light isn't the least bit diffuse.



Especially true if you were aware of the constraints of my makeshift studio. Feel free to review my threads about photos made in it to learn about that.

You've been very frank and I appreciate that. In return, I hope you'll appreciate my frank response. I don't remember you ever mentioning anything positive about any photos displayed at CiC, though hopefully I'm wrong about that. You certainly didn't mention anything positive about any of the photos in this thread. In the future, if you can't find one thing worth mentioning of a positive nature about my or anybody's photos before going into the diatribe about all the things you dislike about a photo as you did with these photos, frankly, I won't pay any attention to your critiques; without the balance of expressing satisfaction and dissatisfaction in a photo, the dissatisfaction you express lacks credibility in my mind.

In view of your response, I withdraw all my comments and have deleted my post. Sorry to have caused offense.

[Stagecoach]

More good results Mike on a subject that is so difficult to photograph at full size.

Being a lover of craftsmanship, beauty and engineering all in one package I so want to see some closeups of details. Perhaps once you have finished reading that macro lens manual

[Mike Buckley]

Ted,

Please be assured that you caused no offense whatsoever. You politely stated your case and I politely (at least hopefully so) stated mine. There's nothing the least bit offensive about that in my mind.

[Mike Buckley]

Thanks, Grahame! For the detail shots (though none so detailed that they are macro images), see this thread posted awhile ago.

[Stagecoach]

Thanks, Grahame! For the detail shots (though none so detailed that they are macro images), see this thread posted awhile ago.

I had seen those one's Mike, I mean closer

[Mike Buckley]

I may become inspired to get closer, Grahame, but don't count on it, at least not when photographing a guitar.

[Shadowman]

Very classy looking captures.

[Dave Humphries]

The gentle curvature is an exceptionally difficult thing to capture and reveal to viewers, especially on a full length shot. While I am not familiar with this particular guitar, I think I can imagine it, so ...

I am reminded of your wine bottle shots, in some of those, I think you might have used a thin white reflector card to reveal shape in dark (tending to black) surfaces.

I wonder whether, if it can be fitted in your limited space (given the guitar is far bigger than a wine bottle), you could arrange something off to camera left to cause a subtle reflection of it in the black body, perhaps running between the pick up toggle switch and the strings, or elsewhere? I imagine, due to the size and convex surface, what you'd need to be reflected might be quite long, in the order of 5-6 feet

Anyways, it's just a thought, might be impractical, or not what you'd want to do even.

Cheers, Dave

[Mike Buckley]

That's an excellent idea, Dave, and the reflector would not have to be as large as you thought. When I tried a variation on your idea, the problem for me was that there was so little curvature in the guitar that the reflection only looked like a meaningless reflection rather than a reflection that implied shape.

I've never seen a photo of this guitar model that works really well for me in displaying the the curvature including the otherwise very nice one at the manufacturer's website. I can only be grateful that my friend didn't buy the white model, as I have no idea how one would photograph that one to display its shape. Indeed, the photo of it at the manufacturer's website doesn't even begin to try; it looks completely flat.

[Mike Buckley]

Thanks, John!

[xpatUSA]

Ted,

Please be assured that you caused no offense whatsoever. You politely stated your case and I politely (at least hopefully so) stated mine. There's nothing the least bit offensive about that in my mind.

OK

[madcrow]

Mike, brilliant, beautiful and images with fabulous detail. Very creative.

[bnnrcn]

The third image is my fav Mike , the others are nice too but this one with increased magnification is special for me

[Rob Ekins]

Awesome as usual Mike,
Could you create the reflection in post?

[Mike Buckley]

Thank you to Binnur and Robbie!

Robbie asked if I could create the reflection in post-processing. Yes, that could be done by someone with more talent than mine. I saw a photo of the guitar at a website that seemed to have been done that way and it appeared really fake. I often modify photographed reflections during post-processing and I did that in the last two images displayed above. But starting out from scratch is completely beyond my skill set. (This reminds me of the time I saw years ago a marvelous portrait created completely from scratch by an artist using Photoshop tools as if the work had instead been created beginning with a blank canvas on an easel.)