tele for a cop...

[Prostheta]

Great demo, and some lovely visceral dirt sounds with that guitar! I've been tempted to consider ("considering considering"!) P-90s in a future build, but given my woes with earthing noise, difficult to chance. That said, my '51 P-bass with the hybrid active circuit is pretty silent with a single coil, so why not?

"Enduring me". hahahaha

[mistermikev]

21 minutes ago, Prostheta said:

Great demo, and some lovely visceral dirt sounds with that guitar! I've been tempted to consider ("considering considering"!) P-90s in a future build, but given my woes with earthing noise, difficult to chance. That said, my '51 P-bass with the hybrid active circuit is pretty silent with a single coil, so why not?

"Enduring me". hahahaha

thank you thank you sir!  very much appreciate the feedback.  def keeping the seymour vintage stack on my list of fav pickups.  Going to try the hotter version for a bridge sometime in the near future - based on this experience. 

afa power - one thing I've heard of that could help... is running off a battery backup.  i don't really understand why this would decouple you from your home power source... unless they mean literally running on the battery... but I've heard several times -folks using it to fix power line noise issues.  that said, no single coil is ever going to be as quiet as an active pickup, and they certainly have their charms. 

[Prostheta]

I used to have a rack power conditioner that worked nicely in the UK but had terrible noise issues here. I know what you mean though. I might just pick up a basic wireless system at some point, because recording is damn near impossible.

[mistermikev]

1 minute ago, Prostheta said:

I used to have a rack power conditioner that worked nicely in the UK but had terrible noise issues here. I know what you mean though. I might just pick up a basic wireless system at some point, because recording is damn near impossible.

or perhaps that ebb tec hum eliminator?  essentially a filter so I imagine it's going to cause some loss of highs but folks seem to think they work good.  better yet... you need a gas generator!  lol.  

[Prostheta]

I'd think that a diesel jenny in an apartment would be only slightly less annoying than it powering a full stack. I miss those days.

<edit: full stack days, not diesel jenny days>

[mistermikev]

52 minutes ago, Prostheta said:

I'd think that a diesel jenny in an apartment would be only slightly less annoying than it powering a full stack. I miss those days.

<edit: full stack days, not diesel jenny days>

hmm, yeah... that might make a little noise lol!

[ScottR]

Might I interject a comment into this discussion of noise?

That guitar was generating some beautiful noise!

Very nice Mike!

SR

[mistermikev]

2 minutes ago, ScottR said:

Might I interject a comment into this discussion of noise?

That guitar was generating some beautiful noise!

Very nice Mike!

SR

thank you scott.  means a lot to me the encouragement I get in here routinely and 9/10 you are first in line for that.  very much means the world.

[mistermikev]

so took a stab at improving my ability with my camera today... eh... I think I got some really good color in a few shots and a good accurate depiction of the color but not really satisfied.  This camera (canon t6i) is way too complicated for me... and I just don't want to invest too much in learning it... other than just pointing and shooting!) 

I still feel like lighting is the issue.  I thought I was going to use the sun taday... but it's just not hitting well enough this time of year.  I have some light panels that I used but to get enough light out of them I get a lot of glare.  I think I would do better with just more light sources.  

might go to store today and try to get some better light bulbs for the a few spots... perhaps even some photo light bulbs. 

anywho, just wondered what y'all think in terms of evolution or devolution?  (I'm leaning devolution)  I would be very curious to note what anyone thinks is my 'best shot'... if you wouldn't be too bothered to tell me I would appreciate.

this shot here (below) is my best attempt at capturing the transition (or lack thereof) between the neck and neck pocket.  It has come to my attention lately that what feels good to me afa upper fret access is all about the thumb.  With that in mind... I carried the profile of the neck right up to hilt.  it looks like it would be less comfy as there is not much transition... but it actually feels really good and I think I'm going to expore this some more going fwd.

[ScottR]

Guitars are flippin' hard to photograph, especially figure under a glossy clear coat.

Which is probably why the shot of the back looks like the best photo to me. The preceding shot and the following shot probably tie for second place.

Man I love all the turquoise accents that tie to your dye job. Really nice attention to detail!

SR

[mistermikev]

4 minutes ago, ScottR said:

Guitars are flippin' hard to photograph, especially figure under a glossy clear coat.

Which is probably why the shot of the back looks like the best photo to me. The preceding shot and the following shot probably tie for second place.

Man I love all the turquoise accents that tie to your dye job. Really nice attention to detail!

SR

thank you scott.  I have to agree on a great observation there - flat top guitars are a lot easier to get a good photo of.  I feel like my shots of my early dano style guitar about the best I've done and it seems like it's not a coicidence it's flat top.  much less reflection to worry about.  

another good observation - the back shot is very well focused.  it's easier for the camera as the contrast between light and dark is so much more obvious.  

thank you very much on the turquoise... I tried hard to match that and in certain light (probably similar to the light I did my color tests in) it looks pretty close... other light "not so much".  in person it matches so much better... so with that in mind you are all invited over to look at it... and we will have 'old fashioneds' and discuss hehe.

seriously - thank you for the input!

[Bizman62]

4 hours ago, ScottR said:

the shot of the back looks like the best photo to me

Same here, that looks like the only one where the focus is on the guitar instead of the backing braid.

[mistermikev]

1 hour ago, Bizman62 said:

Same here, that looks like the only one where the focus is on the guitar instead of the backing braid.

right on... it's a concensus then lol!  

took another stab at it... and again I think I got some nice color... but just not quite satisfied - more exhausted from trying and giving up at this point!

 

[Bizman62]

Nothing wrong or odd with the colours. Of course it's hard to tell without actually seeing but knowing the looks of both maple and the turquoise stone it looks about right on my factory calibrated monitor.

Again the focus seems to be on that backing cloth, the guitar being ever so slightly off focus and thus blurry. Two inches can do that much! I can almost see individual yarns of the fabric while I struggle to read the letters on both the knobs and the headstock.

I took a quick look at the properties of the T6i and it really seems to have a ton of features.

If you have a tripod, use that. That will allow for a slower shutter speed which enables shooting in less light. That alone can help focusing. As I said previously, you can also increase the aperture value - the bigger the value the smaller the size! - to expand the range of sharp focus. And further, use the manual selection for autofocus to pinpoint what you think is the most important thing to show.

Ideally you most likely would like to have the backing fabric blurred and the guitar highlighted. That can be done with a large aperture (small f-value) and precise focusing.

[Prostheta]

Agreed on the slower shutter speed, slightly higher ISO and smaller aperture. It'll also reduce artifacts such as colour fringing. If the light doesn't change between shots you can always shoot RAW and take one photo with a grey card in shot. That allows you to produce a calibration profile in software which can subsequently be applied to the shot without the card in frame.

The shots I take (took, since I don't find time to drag it out these days) improved so much with better glass as well. The classic Canon 50mm/f1,8 coupled with a 24mm/f2,8 allow for a great variety of options over the crappy stock glass.

[mistermikev]

3 hours ago, Bizman62 said:

Nothing wrong or odd with the colours. Of course it's hard to tell without actually seeing but knowing the looks of both maple and the turquoise stone it looks about right on my factory calibrated monitor.

Again the focus seems to be on that backing cloth, the guitar being ever so slightly off focus and thus blurry. Two inches can do that much! I can almost see individual yarns of the fabric while I struggle to read the letters on both the knobs and the headstock.

I took a quick look at the properties of the T6i and it really seems to have a ton of features.

If you have a tripod, use that. That will allow for a slower shutter speed which enables shooting in less light. That alone can help focusing. As I said previously, you can also increase the aperture value - the bigger the value the smaller the size! - to expand the range of sharp focus. And further, use the manual selection for autofocus to pinpoint what you think is the most important thing to show.

Ideally you most likely would like to have the backing fabric blurred and the guitar highlighted. That can be done with a large aperture (small f-value) and precise focusing.

well, trying to take pictures without the flash... and imo yes a tripod would really help but I hate to use one as I like to move around an get several perspectives.  Generally, if you add more light you should eventually get more focus... and I even replaced some bulbs in the area with some better one's but nothing seems to come even close to what happens when you get some good sunlight in there.  I will try using manual focus... we'll see if that improves.  the other thing I haven't tried is the mode setting... I generally use auto for now and auto w/o flash... could use to expand my horizons.

[mistermikev]

2 hours ago, Prostheta said:

Agreed on the slower shutter speed, slightly higher ISO and smaller aperture. It'll also reduce artifacts such as colour fringing. If the light doesn't change between shots you can always shoot RAW and take one photo with a grey card in shot. That allows you to produce a calibration profile in software which can subsequently be applied to the shot without the card in frame.

The shots I take (took, since I don't find time to drag it out these days) improved so much with better glass as well. The classic Canon 50mm/f1,8 coupled with a 24mm/f2,8 allow for a great variety of options over the crappy stock glass.

- hmm, glass... I appreciate the recommendation.  just using the stock so... should probably pick up something and had considered it but was unsure what to get.  

the problem (as I understand it) with slower shutter speed - is it's much more prone to blur due to shake.  the whole reason I got a dslr is to be able to take photos in low light... but it turns out this one isn't much better than others I've tried afa that goes.  

as I understand, this camera has a feature where you can take a picture of a white wall and use that to automagically adjust settings - haven't tried that... as it requires me to figure out how to do it!  I think that is approx what you were describing with the 'grey card'.  I guess I have to bite the bullet and read the manual!

thank you both very much for enduring me and the thoughtful responses.  It is very helpful and I can't possibly convey how much I appreciate!!

[Bizman62]

27 minutes ago, mistermikev said:

a tripod would really help but I hate to use one as I like to move around an get several perspectives.

A monopod might be the solution. Your feet will make that as a tripod and it should stabilize the snap as we're not talking about super long times. 1/30 second is pretty long and should be enough under a good room light but it's almost impossible to do free hand. Longer times aren't needed.

I haven't done much photography but these are the basics I learned when I bought a decent full manual camera and thought I'd become an envied shooter (which I didn't):

• For a good picture you'll need enough light on the film
• For enough light you can either widen the aperture or lenghten the exposure time
• If you widen the aperture you'll also shorten the depth of the sharp area which requires on the spot focusing but when you manage to do that right the results are stunning
• There's several types of films, some are more sensitive to light than others. A more sensitive film requires less light with the cost of the images being more grainy. Same goes for digital cameras, you can add sensitivity but there'll be "noise" which makes the images blurry. Of course you can try to find a balance
• Summarized, it's all about balancing the triangle of exposure time, aperture size and light.

[mistermikev]

3 minutes ago, Bizman62 said:

A monopod might be the solution. Your feet will make that as a tripod and it should stabilize the snap as we're not talking about super long times. 1/30 second is pretty long and should be enough under a good room light but it's almost impossible to do free hand. Longer times aren't needed.

I haven't done much photography but these are the basics I learned when I bought a decent full manual camera and thought I'd become an envied shooter (which I didn't):

• For a good picture you'll need enough light on the film
• For enough light you can either widen the aperture or lenghten the exposure time
• If you widen the aperture you'll also shorten the depth of the sharp area which requires on the spot focusing but when you manage to do that right the results are stunning
• There's several types of films, some are more sensitive to light than others. A more sensitive film requires less light with the cost of the images being more grainy. Same goes for digital cameras, you can add sensitivity but there'll be "noise" which makes the images blurry. Of course you can try to find a balance
• Summarized, it's all about balancing the triangle of exposure time, aperture size and light.

monopod... i think I will give one of those a shot.  tired of trying to brace myself against something and hold still!  lookout amazon here I come!

very much appreciate the info... have never even tried to do manual mode... but between your and prosthetas advice I'm getting the impression I need to. 

[Bizman62]

7 minutes ago, mistermikev said:

have never even tried to do manual mode

You can also do a semi-manual mode. I have a lesser Canon which also allows that. You can e.g. choose the exposure time manually and let the camera choose the aperture or vice versa.

And I bet you didn't know this trick: If you set the exposure time to very long like a minute or several and work in a dark space, you can "paint" the object with a simple torch! That will leave the background dark and expose only the lit areas. It's somewhat similar to the "<city> by Night" photos with stripes of car lights marking the streets or rather like using flash in dim light. Even a small pen light will do as you don't need to illuminate the room, just the target. That will even enable several lit details in a single photo depending on the focus of your torch.

[mistermikev]

11 minutes ago, Bizman62 said:

You can also do a semi-manual mode. I have a lesser Canon which also allows that. You can e.g. choose the exposure time manually and let the camera choose the aperture or vice versa.

And I bet you didn't know this trick: If you set the exposure time to very long like a minute or several and work in a dark space, you can "paint" the object with a simple torch! That will leave the background dark and expose only the lit areas. It's somewhat similar to the "<city> by Night" photos with stripes of car lights marking the streets or rather like using flash in dim light. Even a small pen light will do as you don't need to illuminate the room, just the target. That will even enable several lit details in a single photo depending on the focus of your torch.

say whaaaaaaat?  torch - that sounds really cool... def did not know that.  will have to try that when feeling 'artsy'!  thanks for the tip!!

[Prostheta]

1 hour ago, Bizman62 said:

Summarized, it's all about balancing the triangle of exposure time, aperture size and light.

 

This is the key that makes everything fall into place. If one of those three is being a problem, the other two can be modified to compensate. Exposure time is on your side since the target isn't moving, however you need a stable camera. I'd opt for a tripod rather than a monopod, as it allows you to have hands available, say if you want to hold a card reflector out of shot to modify available light.

I like the idea of using a torch to artificially blow out certain areas during long exposures. I presume you are meaning what I imagine this to be, illuminating specific areas by waving a light over them?

[mistermikev]

20 minutes ago, Prostheta said:

 

This is the key that makes everything fall into place. If one of those three is being a problem, the other two can be modified to compensate. Exposure time is on your side since the target isn't moving, however you need a stable camera. I'd opt for a tripod rather than a monopod, as it allows you to have hands available, say if you want to hold a card reflector out of shot to modify available light.

I like the idea of using a torch to artificially blow out certain areas during long exposures. I presume you are meaning what I imagine this to be, illuminating specific areas by waving a light over them?

i appreciate the input.  interesting idea to hold out a reflector, had not thought of that.  I keep trying to reposition lights for each shot.  it is a lot of work!

[mistermikev]

over here reading the manual... just realized there is a manual focus switch on the lense... duh.  me to toopid.

[Bizman62]

1 hour ago, Prostheta said:

I presume you are meaning what I imagine this to be, illuminating specific areas by waving a light over them?

Exactly that. I haven't tried it myself as back in the day when I read about it we only had film cameras and having dozens of failed photos of random household objects wasn't something I would have liked to pay for.

With all the ultra powerful tiny led torches compared to the yellowish light bulbs we had thirty years ago I suppose that painting with light would be much easier and more versatile than it used to be. The tight beam of leds is definitely a bonus.