The idea for this thread was spawned after I posted a few photo-related bits on Ceri's great "touching up" thread. Several people mentioned they appreciated the info and would take all they could get ... but because I don't want to corrupt his thread with my off-topic ramblings, and photos are such a big part of the forum, I thought it'd be a good idea to create a thread devoted solely to photo tips and techniques. Besides, I've learned a ton on here - 'bout time I give something back!

(disclaimer: This might get lengthy (and a bit boring at first). Despite what camera makers want you to believe, good photography is much more difficult than simply turning the dial to automatic. Photography is both art and science and you can't get to the art part without a little understanding of the science part. There's a lot to it and I have the (fairly worthless), Bachelor's degree to prove it! lol ...)

Here goes ...

Regardless of what you're taking a picture of ... photography is all about LIGHT. (The true definition of photography is literally, "drawing with light.") Light is actually MORE important than the subject of the photo because without it, well ... you wouldn't see anything. lol

I know that seems obvious but when someone says, "I suck at photography", what they really mean (whether they know it or not), is that they don't understand light or what happens when the light strikes a surface. However, since there are many more aspects of photography to understand, we'll address lighting after we get some other basics out of the way.

To start, there is a lot of MATH involved in photography (and I hate math!) The relationships between focal length, focus, aperture, shutter speed, ISO, and even lighting concepts are all based on math. Fortunately, today's cameras enable even the noob-iest of photographers to get a decently exposed, in-focus image in many caes. UNfortunately, the technology is stupid - meaning human intervention is often required to get a good result - a basic understanding of what's happening is helpful.

Whether an expensive DSLR or a point and shoot pocket camera, any of the "auto" settings, are going to assume you're taking a picture of an "average" scene.(scene = whatever is in the cameras viewfinder) A typical average scene would be outdoors on a sunny day ... lots of green grass, blue sky, trees, etc. However, if that same scene was covered in snow, especially on that same sunny day, the auto exposure would render an UNDERexposed image! Cameras are clueless about the subject in the scene - it only knows brightness values and it expects the scene to be "average". So it sees all that bright snow and thinks, "wow, this is really bright - I need to make a darker picture." It doesn't know that the snow is SUPPOSED to be bright, again (as if I haven't said it enough), it only knows "average".

Same thing applies to auto white balance. Set your camera to AWB, go outside and shoot that same average scene as above, no problem - color is fairly accurate. However, if you take your red Strat outside, and shoot a close up of the body, the color will be off. Same day, same light, same camera settings so why is the color off? It's because a close up of a red Strat is NOT an average scene. The auto white balance will try to take all that red color and make it ... you got it, "average". (However, if the red Strat is merely a PART of the scene, there likely won't be a problem because it's closer to average.)

The point of all this is to understand that "auto" is sometimes good, and sometimes, very, very bad. If you scratch your head about why some of your pictures look great and others ... not so much, "auto" is probably the culprit. You have to know when to take charge.

Some boring basics ...

EXPOSURE:
Any given exposure consists of three elements - ISO (light sensitivity), Aperture (lens opening), and shutter speed (time). You can alter any one of them to come up with the correct exposure but there are always pitfalls and tradeoffs to consider.

ISO - the sensitivity of the sensor to light. The higher the number, the more sensitive to light the sensor will be. Higher sensitivity is good because you can use a faster shutter speed to reduce camera shake, ands/or a smaller aperture so the depth of focus is greater. However, the downside is that the higher the ISO, the more noise will be present. Depending on the camera's sensor quality, this usually won't be a problem for small images headed to a website because the noise won't show.

Shutter Speed - the amount of time the shutter is open. Obviously, the longer the shutter is open, the more light that hits the sensor. You usually want a fast enough shutter speed to avoid camera shake, which really means shaky hands. You've all seen examples of it. The beauty of shutter speed is that it's entirely possible to create a landscape image at night that appears to be in the middle of the day with a long enough shutter speed. (several hours ... on a tripod, of course. digital noise issues notwithstanding - not a problem with film)

Related to the subject of shutter speed - anyone even remotely interested in getting good photos of your guits - invest in a tripod. Doesn't have to be expensive or even that good. A $20 Walmart special is better than nothing and will do for this purpose.

Aperture - the diameter of the lens opening. The bigger the aperture (smaller number), the more light hits the sensor and the smaller the depth of focus. Sometimes you want everything in perfect focus - sometimes you don't (in my day job, I often use a very shallow focus to eliminate distracting backgrounds in order to make my subject stand out more).

This gist is that all 3 of these aspects are separate, but are absolutely fully inter-related. For any given "correct exposure", if you change one aspect, you must change another to keep the exposure levels constant. If you set a low ISO to achieve the best quality, you would need a slower shutter speed, OR a larger aperture (smaller number), to make up for the lower sensitivity of the sensor. Need a faster shutter speed to avoid camera shake? Then you need a higher ISO, OR a larger aperture to counteract the lowered light level because of the reduced time for gathering light.

Anyway, I think that's it for now (need to practice and go to my guitar lesson IF I can get out of my snowed-in driveway). Rest assured future installments will show you how to get great images of your Strat with a few basic tools and a little bit of knowledge. (And of course, will include pictures!!)

In the meantime, feel free to ask any photo questions or post any "what went wrong" photos and I'll do my best to get you sorted.

-phil

_________________
Then again, what do I know ... I've only been playin' for 6 months ... !

Cool.

CC

_________________
Fender Stratocaster (parts build)
Fender Telecaster 72 Custom RI
Fender Telecoustic Deluxe
Gretsch Electromatic Pro-Jet
Gibson Les Paul Standard Plus
Gibson ES-135
Zenith Type-17
Marshall 70's JMP Superbass 100w
Blackstar HT-5

Time to dust off the old Pentax K-1000?

Dang... might still be some film in it!

Thanks!! Now this is a thread that we all (most) can definitely use. Me for sure!!

Very nice and helpful write-up. Thanks.
Whenever I photograph my basses, I use both a tripod and the timer function. The tripod gives me exactly the scene or angle that I may want, and the tripod helps eliminate any shake that may come from my pressing of the button.

StratShooter, that's all great information. I'm director of photography at a newspaper, and have been a newspaper photographer for 30 years. Over the years I have been amazed at how so many people think photography is simply "point and shoot." There are so many elements that go into creating a good shot. You covered it quite well. I would also add one more element to consider. While auto white balance is great, it has a hard time dealing with multiple light sources. Daylight is blue, light from a tungsten bulb is red, florecsent light is green (unless it is daylight balanced). There are other light sources, and each type of light has a different temperature, so it creates a different color of light. If you can, try to use one type of light instead of mixing light sources. But as in all "rules" of photography, there are numerous examples of great photos that break the rules. So play around with it. Maybe different types of light will create just the right shot for you!

More great information tominkansas!!

Great info stratshooter and tominkansas.Nice guitar shots pbassbob........ Mike

_________________
The blues ain't nothin but a good man feelin bad.

Great thread!! And great info. Thanks guys. i was hoping to se somehing like this after the comments in ceri's thread.

_________________
I'm not an expert, but I play one on the internet.

I think I will try to take some guitar pix tomorrow, great info guys.

Hey pbassbob, nice shots of those beautiful guitars. You did a good job of reducing the reflections, which is not always an easy task. Also, the color balance looks great, another area that can be tough. And yeah, aren't raw files nice to work with! There is so much information in raw files.

Thanks StratShooter, great infos.
Claude.

Great to see some photo savvy folks here - I'd better stay on my toes!!!


Ha-ha! If you have a Pentax K-1000 and have used it sucessfully, you already know the basics - that all-manual, all-the-time camera don't allow for none of them stinkin' cheatin' bells and whistles! I think there's a chance the film might be a bit out of date though!


Great tip! Even with a tripod, if you have a slow enough shutter speed, the mere act of pressing the shutter button can cause camera shake (especially if you're on a carpet). The self timer is a great way to avoid it - I use it all the time.


Same here - it's a constant struggle to educate those who request photos. "Can you get me a great mag cover image of so-and-so as heads out of the meeting for a bathroom break"? Uhm, well .... I haven't had that exact request - but close! Also amazing is how many "professional photographers" there are now. You just know if they had to shoot film, they wouldn't have the first clue. I haven't touched my 4x5 in years, but what I learned from it is used on a daily basis.

Thanks for pointing out color balance issues. I was planning on getting to it eventually, but that first post was reaching War and Peace proportions. lol


Hi Bob -
Are you sure you used bounce flash? It looks pretty direct to me. The hard-edged shadow from the neck/headstock and front-lit nature of the light suggests straight on flash. If it was bounced from the ceiling (or even behind you on a wall), the light would be much softer and you wouldn't have the shadow. If you did indeed bounce it, I'd say the majority of illumination still came from direct flash. It does look like it could be off-camera flash though. Seems to be a point light source which isn't consistent with bounced light. What camera and what flash? What did you bounce it against?

Nice Sienna! I have it's twin!

-phil

_________________
Then again, what do I know ... I've only been playin' for 6 months ... !

Back to business ...

Reflections aren't necessarily bad. In fact, they're absolutely necessary if you want to show the surface properties of the object. (glossy vs matte vs texture, etc). Reflections are your friend! The trick is knowing how to make them work FOR you instead of against you.

First -
A matte surface looks dull because the light reflected from it scatters in all directions. The visual clue is that the reflection on a matte surface will have a soft edge. A glossy surface looks shiny because the reflected light is not scattered - the light reflected from it travels in pretty much the same direction (although direct opposite angle) as before it hits the surface. In most cases, the reflection on a glossy surface will have a hard edge. (I say in most cases because it is possible to create a soft edge light source - thereby making a glossy surface appear less shiny or matte, but for this discussion - let's just say reflections are hard edged.)

Another important bit to know is that lighting the surface an object is a lot like playing pool - it's all about the angles! Doesn't matter if that surface is a shiny black Strat, or the bare bottom of a newborn baby - light will ALWAYS reflect off of a surface at the same exact angle it struck it - but in the opposite direction (hey, just like playing pool!)

The trick is to align all the angles (the angle of the object's surface and the angle of the light) in relation to the camera. You can move the camera, the object or the light - doesn't matter as long as all the angles come together so that reflections appear where you want them when looking through the camera.

This is not a great or even good image by any stretch. It was done pretty quickly and taken a few months ago for a CL listing, but it does nicely illustrate the lighting angle aspect I keep preaching about.



The setup was simple - my black MIM Strat on a white table with a good size window on the left, and a large (4x6 ft) white reflector on the right. When you have a big, shiny and more importantly, curved object like a Strat body, "big" light modifiers are your friend. Some would say the light source is the window light but they would be wrong - it's the reflector because the reflector is what's illuminating the part of the guitar we see. The window light in this case is more of a backlight because it's highlighting the edges of the body and neck.

Notice that the body is turned slightly counter clockwise. It's angled that way so that the shiny surfaces "sees" the big reflector instead of me and my camera.

On the black parts of the body, you notice two separate reflections. (more accurately, they're called diffused highlights but it's not important) The largest one is the reflection from the white reflector and the smaller one on the lower contour is a reflection of the table. Notice that the large one is curved on the left edge? The reflector isn't curved, but the body is! Also, the only reason the lower bout is reflecting the table is because it's angled downward - it's that great contour we all love. But to light, it's simply at a different angle than the flat part of the body.

A 4x8 piece of foamcore to use as a reflector (IMO, an essential piece of lighting equipment), costs about $20 or so. Should be available at any good size art store but not all carry that size - in that case get a couple of pieces of 30x40 in and tape together using white tape. It's very lightweight and easy to cut.

So ... you don't want to eliminate reflections - it's these reflections/highlights that show shape! (just get rid of the bad ones)

Note: If I were shooting this as a proper studio product shot, it would look very different because in that situation every minute detail is sweated and lighting is very exact. And of course, it wouldn't have the fugly stand included. I'll have to do some studio shooting soon. (just in case Fender corporate is listening and needs a photog in these parts.)

More later ...

-phil

_________________
Then again, what do I know ... I've only been playin' for 6 months ... !

Ah! That explains it. Bounce flash typically works great because it turns a small light source (camera flash), into a much larger light source (ceiling). However, with your low ceiling and tall stature, you're not getting that - your small light source is remaining a small light source. If the flash is only a couple of inches from the ceiling, there's no chance it can spread before it reaches the ceiling. Next time, you might try sitting on the floor to give the flash room to grow so it lights a larger part of the ceiling.

Capable hands? Not sure capable is the right word ... maybe loving hands!

_________________
Then again, what do I know ... I've only been playin' for 6 months ... !