Martin Acoustic Guitar

[Mike Buckley]

My friend who owns a bunch of guitars loans them to me so I can photograph them. This one is his Martin acoustic guitar, which he plays while his wife cooks dinner. That's because, of all his guitars, this one has her favorite sound.

The biggest difficulty by far, especially in the constraints of my tiny makeshift studio, is to light all the strings so their entire length appears bright. I had a really tough time doing that with Photo #4, so much so that I photographed it three times before I was finally satisfied. When making Photo #1, it was physically impossible to make that happen with one capture, so I merged two shots. Even so, when viewing that photo here in the thread, the upper area of the far right string disappears. That's not because it's not bright (it's very bright in the full-size file). That's because at the small magnification displayed here, it's just not possible to see that part of the tiny string.

Note: The moire that appears in the first photo is not in the full-size image file.

Photo #1 Setup
The background and tabletop are a single sheet of black velvet. First capture: Two medium continuous-light lamps in the top left area light everything except the tuning knobs on the right side and the strings where they cross the sound hole. A small continuous-light lamp on the right, which is flagged to prevent light from falling on the guitar below the head stock, lights the tuning knobs not lit by the medium lamps. Second capture: One medium continuous-light lamp on the left side of the body lights the strings where they cross the sound hole. The sound hole and the strings crossing it were merged with the first capture.

Photo #2 Setup
The background is light brown art paper. A small continuous-light lamp on the right side lights the subject and adds a highlight on the right edge of the head stock. Another one, which is flagged to prevent too much light from falling on the background, lights the background and adds the highlight on the left edge of the head stock. A reflector in the right front area below the subject lights the two far right strings. A reflector handheld above the subject and camera tilted at about a 45-degree angle to the floor lights the tuning pegs.

Photo #3 Setup
The foreground tabletop is rumpled black velvet and the rear tabletop is black presentation paper. A medium continuous-light lamp lights the top side of the guitar and the tabletop. A small continuous-light lamp lights the side of the guitar and the neck. A flashlight lights the area where where the neck joins the side of the guitar.

Photo #4 Setup
The background is black presentation paper and the tabletop is black velvet. Two small continuous-light lamps, one above the other, are at the rear and above the subject to ensure that all the strings are brightly lit throughout their length. The bottom lamp is flagged to prevent too much light from falling on the background. A medium continuous-light lamp in the right, lower area brightens the side of the guitar and creates a reflection on the right end of the bridge to help define its shape. A reflector behind the bridge brightens the near side of the string pegs and the saddle.

Photo #5 Setup
A medium continuous-light lamp is on the left side. Black presentation paper with a hole cut in it hangs on the lens to prevent the tripod and camera from being reflected in the shiny pick guard.



Photo #1



Photo #2



Photo #3



Photo #4



Photo #5

[Dave Humphries]

Another example to us all in how to do this Mike, thanks.

I particularly like the mono, #5.

Can I ask a couple of questions:

In #1; are they dents and dings in the soundbox surface from so much use over the years?
In #3; is the rear of the sound box is flat, or is there some angle between the three different grains we see?

TIA, Dave

[Mike Buckley]

Thanks, Dave!

Photo #1: My hunch is that you're referring to the lower right area of the guitar. Those highlights are in the grain of the wood, which is perfectly smooth and has no dings or dents.

Photo #3: The rear of the sound box is flat enough that most people would think it's flat after casually looking at it. However, the center is about 1/2" higher than at the ends and about 1/4" higher than at the sides.

[Dave Humphries]

Thanks, Dave!

Photo #1: My hunch is that you're referring to the lower right area of the guitar. Those highlights are in the grain of the wood, which is perfectly smooth and has no dings or dents.

Photo #3: The rear of the sound box is flat enough that most people would think it's flat after casually looking at it. However, the center is about 1/2" higher than at the ends and about 1/4" higher than at the sides.

Thanks, now I understand both aspects, particularly the grain in #1 after another close look.

Cheers, Dave

[Chrisclick]

Much better, Mike! The photos are quite good, too!

Just a couple of questions though:

You have chosen to include a lot of information about how the shots were setup and made, without anyone making an enquiry or asking you to provide details of how the shots were achieved.

Is this something that you do because you believe that your photography skills are at a level where it is assumed that other photographers would, of course, want to know how you achieved these results and, you are saving them the effort of enquiring?

If so, do you also believe that having attained such a level of accomplishment, that it entitles you to abandon acceptable social
etiquette or, is that just something that you feel that you can do with impunity within the bounds of these forums?

Lastly, is this something that all of us should be doing with each image that we upload or, is this behaviour reserved only for you and other individuals that have a high post count on these forums?

I hope you don't mind me making this enquiry, Mike. I would have sent a PM for this, however, I know how much you dislike PM's and so, didn't want to bother you. At least this way, more people can learn from you exactly what we should be doing when posting our images.

[Shadowman]

Nice series.

[JBW]

Much better, Mike! The photos are quite good, too!

Just a couple of questions though:

You have chosen to include a lot of information about how the shots were setup and made, without anyone making an enquiry or asking you to provide details of how the shots were achieved.

Is this something that you do because you believe that your photography skills are at a level where it is assumed that other photographers would, of course, want to know how you achieved these results and, you are saving them the effort of enquiring?

If so, do you also believe that having attained such a level of accomplishment, that it entitles you to abandon acceptable social
etiquette or, is that just something that you feel that you can do with impunity within the bounds of these forums?

Lastly, is this something that all of us should be doing with each image that we upload or, is this behaviour reserved only for you and other individuals that have a high post count on these forums?

I hope you don't mind me making this enquiry, Mike. I would have sent a PM for this, however, I know how much you dislike PM's and so, didn't want to bother you. At least this way, more people can learn from you exactly what we should be doing when posting our images.

Why are you picking on Mike. Mike includes how he sets up his shot because inquiring minds want to know.

[Chrisclick]

Why are you picking on Mike. Mike includes how he sets up his shot because inquiring minds want to know.

Not picking on anyone, Brian.

I don't think Mike would appreciate you answering one of the questions for him, Brian, you have no right. How do you know that's why he includes the information? Can you read his mind?

If it's O.K. with you, Brian, I might let Mike answer the questions I have asked, not you.

[JBW]

Not picking on anyone, Brian.

I don't think Mike would appreciate you answering one of the questions for him, Brian, you have no right. How do you know that's why he includes the information? Can you read his mind?

If it's O.K. with you, Brian, I might let Mike answer the questions I have asked, not you.

Newbees can be such a bother.

[Donald]

Much better, Mike! The photos are quite good, too!

Just a couple of questions though:

You have chosen to include a lot of information about how the shots were setup and made, without anyone making an enquiry or asking you to provide details of how the shots were achieved.

Is this something that you do because you believe that your photography skills are at a level where it is assumed that other photographers would, of course, want to know how you achieved these results and, you are saving them the effort of enquiring?

If so, do you also believe that having attained such a level of accomplishment, that it entitles you to abandon acceptable social
etiquette or, is that just something that you feel that you can do with impunity within the bounds of these forums?

Lastly, is this something that all of us should be doing with each image that we upload or, is this behaviour reserved only for you and other individuals that have a high post count on these forums?

I hope you don't mind me making this enquiry, Mike. I would have sent a PM for this, however, I know how much you dislike PM's and so, didn't want to bother you. At least this way, more people can learn from you exactly what we should be doing when posting our images.

As a Moderator on the forum, I will answer this post.

The purpose of this forum is as a place for learning. That is why is was established, that is what it says its purpose is and that what its purpose remains.

In order to learn, we have to be provided with information in one way or another. Members are always encouraged not to merely post images, but to provide a commentary themselves. That might include a critique from the member setting out what they consider to be the strengths and weaknesses of the image. It might include a specific set of questions that the creator of the image wants members to answer or give an opinion upon, or it might include detailed information about how the member set up, composed, exposed or lit the image. All contribute to learning.

Similarly, in response, the hope is that fellow members will offer constructive criticism that provides learning not only for themselves and the person whose image is being commented upon, but for the wider CiC community as well.

What this forum does not need and will not accept are messages that use the tone of the message to which I am responding. I believe that there are fora out there in which this type of exchange happens regularly and/or frequently. CiC is not one of those. If any member thinks that it is right and proper to post such a message on this forum, then it's time for them to leave CiC and find a place where their contributions will be more at home. If a person continues to post messages like this, their account will be closed without any further notice.

Now, can we please return to learning about and improving our photography.

[Rob Ekins]

You have chosen to include a lot of information about how the shots were setup and made, without anyone making an enquiry or asking you to provide details of how the shots were achieved.

Actually, I think I asked Mike a while ago if he could add the detail that he does. I don't always comment on his posts but I certainly read and breakdown every one I see.

[pnodrog]

Much better, Mike! The photos are quite good, too!

Just a couple of questions though:

You have chosen to include a lot of information about how the shots were setup and made, without anyone making an enquiry or asking you to provide details of how the shots were achieved.

Is this something that you do because you believe that your photography skills are at a level where it is assumed that other photographers would, of course, want to know how you achieved these results and, you are saving them the effort of enquiring?

If so, do you also believe that having attained such a level of accomplishment, that it entitles you to abandon acceptable social
etiquette or, is that just something that you feel that you can do with impunity within the bounds of these forums?

Lastly, is this something that all of us should be doing with each image that we upload or, is this behaviour reserved only for you and other individuals that have a high post count on these forums?

I hope you don't mind me making this enquiry, Mike. I would have sent a PM for this, however, I know how much you dislike PM's and so, didn't want to bother you. At least this way, more people can learn from you exactly what we should be doing when posting our images.

I looked at the photographs first ( I once had a similar Martin ) and then had a quick look at some of the shot details. As I seldom do studio photography it was interesting to read the background information. Personally I seldom have the dedication or patience to explain how I produce/edit any photograph I put up but I am sure this sort of information is helpful to some viewers. Just ignore it if it is not applicable or of no interest to you.

[Chrisclick]

I wasn't concerned that the information was included. I, too have included lots of info about how a particular shot was made. The difference is: I waited to be asked!

[Donald]

I wasn't concerned that the information was included. I, too have included lots of info about how a particular shot was made. The difference is: I waited to be asked!

I very rarely ever respond to posts that only include an image and no text to help oneself and others learn. I wonder what the point of such postings are on this forum. If that's all people want to do, then the competition threads are perhaps where they should be posting.

[Chrisclick]

I very rarely ever respond to posts that only include an image and no text to help oneself and others learn. I wonder what the point of such postings are on this forum.

Me either, Donald. Always give an introduction to the shot(s). However, for lengthy, detailed descriptions, I wait to be asked.

Example: Nightmoves - Dancing in the Light
In response to Daves enquiry.

Example: First B&W
In response to your enquiry, Donald.

[bje07]

Mike I like the way you took details of the instrument.
B&W works as an abstract.
One improvement: erase blue detail in # 3

[Dave A]

#3 has amazing color and lighting, and #5 is near perfect IMO.

Dave

[Mike Buckley]

Thank you to John, Brian, Donald, Robbie, Paul, Jean and Dave A!

Dave: Considering that you like #3, you might appreciate that the owner of the guitar also especially likes that one. That's because this particular guitar model is apparently different from other similar models made by the manufacturer in that the guitar's back is made of three pieces of wood.

Jean: I like the texture of the tabletop in Photo #3, so I won't eliminate it. However, a lot of people would certainly go for a solid black tone in that area as you suggest and I agree that that would also look fine.

[bje07]

Thank you to John, Brian, Donald, Robbie, Paul, Jean and Dave A!

Dave: Considering that you like #3, you might appreciate that the owner of the guitar also especially likes that one. That's because this particular guitar model is apparently different from other similar models made by the manufacturer in that the guitar's back is made of three pieces of wood.

Jean: I like the texture of the tabletop in Photo #3, so I won't eliminate it. However, a lot of people would certainly go for a solid black tone in that area as you suggest and I agree that that would also look fine.

Mike, I like too but for me it's a little bit distracting so I mentioned it, the blue matches well with the rest of the picture.

[Mike Buckley]

For the record...

Brian correctly explained that the reason I post setup information is because, as he put it, inquiring minds want to know. I especially appreciate that he answered the question about that. Anyone is welcome to answer any question directed toward me, as there are benefits to everyone when people join in on a discussion.

To expand on Brian's helpful response, when I first began doing serious tabletop photography and posting it here several years ago, it seemed that almost invariably someone would ask for the setup information. Some even asked that I post it routinely without waiting to be asked. (I think Robbie is correct that he is one of those people.) So, I post it every time I post a photo made in my makeshift studio. People occasionally thank me for posting it, especially newcomers who aren't aware I have now been posting that information a rather long time.

This is the first time anyone has indicated that I should not have posted the setup information without first being asked on a photo-by-photo basis to do so.

I will ignore that objection and will continue to post the setup information as in the past. That's for three reasons: Donald explained one of them better than I could. The other two reasons are that it is easier for me to provide the information upfront and because common sense indicates to me that people who aren't interested in it will simply not read it. Indeed, people are understandably free not to read any of the text I or anyone provides, as Paul has explained.

Paul also mentioned the dedication and patience required to post the setup information. Though that's very kind of him, I already have an abbreviated description of my setup in the metadata of all of the photos I make in my makeshift studio. I record that information there because it is extremely helpful occasionally when I begin to think about how to make other photos. My point is that I only have to tidy that information up a bit for presentation here in the threads.

Occasionally someone also asks for a photo of my setup. When that happens, I explain that that is not practical due to the limitations and characteristics of my makeshift studio. Otherwise, I would be happy to provide a photo of every setup without being asked.

Last, Chris mentioned that I don't like PMs. Factually not true. I like almost all PMs, and indeed, I have enjoyed interaction by PM with some of the people who have already participated in this thread among many others over the years. However, it is true that I don't like certain kinds of PMs. To the best of my knowledge, I have disliked PMs sent only by one person in my years of participating here. I have not and will not respond to PMs sent by that person. Otherwise, I welcome and look forward to all other PMs.