your mission - should you choose to accept: ideas for raising guitar off the floor for pictures...

[mistermikev]

9 hours ago, curtisa said:

FWIW, that same shot before and after:

So while the black background is mostly black-ish, it's still a fairly clean base to work with; no wrinkles, no fluff, no creases. There's a slight puckering visible where the lower horn is resting against the sofa seat, and a little at the top of the image above the upper waist of the body. But these get largely hidden with a little use of some contrast reduction after the shot is taken. You can see the underside of the roll of fabric at the extreme top of the original shot which was resting on top of the couch at the time and the whole thing is a little crooked, but these can be corrected later on by cropping and rotating respectively. The slight orange cast is still present in the orgininal shot and I really should have corrected this at the time, but I got lazy. I don't have any lights in use, just natural daylight filtered through the window blinds in the house which probably accounts for the orange tinge.

That's probably not such a bad idea if you're really wanting to do that 'dead-on' full instrument shot. If you can devise some way of shooting the guitar from above looking straight down with minimal shadows you'd probably get that 'guitar floating in inky black space' look with minimal fuss and no risk of the guitar falling from a some kind of jig or suspended thread. Just don't drop the camera

right on.  your first shot is much darker than mine.  as I suspected that'd be key.  I could probably do a replace color in mine but that has unnatural results esp if the black is not quite black enough.  

top down - yes, I'd like to be able to re-create that look.  the issue is cameras are much more prone to shake when held straight down... fortunately the tripod I got has a ball adjust that should let me do straight down shots with the tripod straddling the guitar so I guess I'll see how that goes.  I think all good points on getting the canvas smoothed out - would help a bit... would help more to just get a shot that the background is close to true black to begin with.  

very much appreciate the insight.

[mistermikev]

2 hours ago, Bizman62 said:

@curtisa already pretty much pointed out what I might have said, and a bit more. Creases in the background, direction of light etc.

What still puzzles me is that the focus still seems to be more on the backing fabric than on the actual guitar.

You said that there seems to be too much light. You can tame that down by shortening the exposure time and tightening the aperture. That will also somewhat help with focusing as the depth  of field will increase.

Here's how the exposure time works, taken against my office chair with only the light behind me on the ceiling. The aperture is f3.4 and the exposure times 1/30, 1/10, 1/4, 1/3, 1/2, and 1 seconds, supporting the camera on the hand rest. I was using a Canon Power Shot SX200IS which is a simple pocket size super zoom type camera, with the ISO value set to 200:

 

And here's how the aperture size works, all having been exposed for one second. The apertures used were 3,4, 5 and 8:

 

And finally one taken with the flash where you can clearly see the fabric. It didn't make much difference whether between 1/30, 1/250 and 1/500 seconds as the flash was so powerful to the close distance of about one foot.

for the record I found the long time exposure setting in my camera that you mentioned, and tried that out... but without a tripod it was blur city.  I guess that should have been pretty obvious going in but... will have to try again once I get a tripod again.  

too much light... well it just seems easier to me to adjust at the light.  my panels are dimmable and I think had i just set them about halway... and perhaps pointed them a bit more indirectly... would have had much better results but the real problem there is seeing it while taking the photo.  that lcd on my cannon is pretty small.  I understand one can buy a bigger lcd that you can have connect to the camera via usb and get a much better idea what the final result may be and while I have plenty of other things to spend money on... might not be a bad idea.  

thanks very much for the info and response.  very much appreciate.

[mistermikev]

looking into it... there is a mini hdmi out on my camera and with a mini hdmi to full hdmi I can hook to my wifes nearby work monitor... might have to try that!!

[Bizman62]

12 minutes ago, mistermikev said:

too much light... well it just seems easier to me to adjust at the light.

I'd say that's not the best option. My technically best shots have been taken in direct summer sunlight which is much brighter than most lamps. Light allows details to be seen, the exposure time and aperture size determine how much lit background you get.

Play with your lights! You said you have three of them so you should be able to lighten the shadows or illuminate to the sides or even back to your object. When you see no shadows the object will pop up from the backing canvas.

[mistermikev]

8 minutes ago, Bizman62 said:

I'd say that's not the best option. My technically best shots have been taken in direct summer sunlight which is much brighter than most lamps. Light allows details to be seen, the exposure time and aperture size determine how much lit background you get.

Play with your lights! You said you have three of them so you should be able to lighten the shadows or illuminate to the sides or even back to your object. When you see no shadows the object will pop up from the backing canvas.

well yeah, I think when I started this thread I mentioned how I was trying to get sunlight involved but this time of year, and given my house faces north/south... there is a very limited amount of sun coming in.  taking things outside or getting a sunlight - I think I could probably skip any other changes cause my best shots have all involved sunlight too.  makes it easy.  but just trying to give myself something that is easily repeatable regardless of time of year and consitions.  lams are only giving you a small amount of the sunlight spectrum and as such they tend to be 'too bright' but I think what we really mean in that regard is too much from that spectrum.  you can shoot with the sun blaring on something and it doesn't give that wash out nearly as easy.  further, given curtisa's results - they were clearly taken with less light.  the only way that background is going to be less bright is with more diffused light so I guess semantics... less direct light.  

anywho, was just connecting my canon to my phone... and it works great for taking remote pics... but for some reason I get about 1/4 of my galaxy's big screen.  lame.  will have to find a way around that or plug into the hdmi or snag an lcd monitor for the camera.  They have ones that sit right on top the camera and a 4" x 7" is only around $100 so... might be something to consider.

[Bizman62]

Regarding the amount of light, you most likely have either taken or at least seen photos taken with a flash in dim light. With the right aperture size and exposure time that makes the close up objects pop and makes the background dark similarly to Curtisa's photos or the Twangy videos. That means lots of light on the actual object and it's your task to control the amount that you get on the "film".

One of my best shots ever was a closeup of a girl in heavy stage makeup in a well lit hall, shot with a very cheap (<1% of my summer job monthly salary, a tenner in current money) camera and a flash cube. Her face filled most of the area, nothing was burned through and the background went all black. Lots of light on the object, that is.

@curtisa's pictures have very sufficient amount of lighting, they're not candlelight images despite the back being dark. With enough light you can get add contrast which you can control with the aperture size and the exposure time. You can also play with brightness and contrast afterwards but it helps a lot if your raw material already has what it takes. Look again at the collages in my earlier post. All of the images are "as is", they're taken in the same place under the same lighting conditions. The only difference is that one set has been shot using adjustable time and the other using adjustable aperture, the camera took care of the rest.

Post processing the images can make a big difference as well as you can see here: The brightness has been reduced by 20 and the contrast increased by 20 - guess they're percents as the scale goes to 100 both ways... It's not perfect by any means but you can see the difference:

 

[mistermikev]

6 minutes ago, Bizman62 said:

Regarding the amount of light, you most likely have either taken or at least seen photos taken with a flash in dim light. With the right aperture size and exposure time that makes the close up objects pop and makes the background dark similarly to Curtisa's photos or the Twangy videos. That means lots of light on the actual object and it's your task to control the amount that you get on the "film".

One of my best shots ever was a closeup of a girl in heavy stage makeup in a well lit hall, shot with a very cheap (<1% of my summer job monthly salary, a tenner in current money) camera and a flash cube. Her face filled most of the area, nothing was burned through and the background went all black. Lots of light on the object, that is.

@curtisa's pictures have very sufficient amount of lighting, they're not candlelight images despite the back being dark. With enough light you can get add contrast which you can control with the aperture size and the exposure time. You can also play with brightness and contrast afterwards but it helps a lot if your raw material already has what it takes. Look again at the collages in my earlier post. All of the images are "as is", they're taken in the same place under the same lighting conditions. The only difference is that one set has been shot using adjustable time and the other using adjustable aperture, the camera took care of the rest.

Post processing the images can make a big difference as well as you can see here: The brightness has been reduced by 20 and the contrast increased by 20 - guess they're percents as the scale goes to 100 both ways... It's not perfect by any means but you can see the difference:

 

well that shot below looks pretty unnatural.  trying to avoid that.  I think if the shot above had been taken with less light it would be easier to get the blackness you see in the bottom photo with less adjustment to brightness/contrast and hopefully a more natural look but I get your point.  further, the controlls... all that blurry-ness... still there in the second shot and I believe that needs to be reduced in the original shot.  when I get my tripod I'll try to play with aperture size and exposure and see what shakes.

thanks again for the reply.

[Bizman62]

44 minutes ago, mistermikev said:

that shot below looks pretty unnatural.  trying to avoid that. 

Yes, I exaggerated quite a bit and all that in purpose. My main goal was to hide the backing fabric as much as possible, yet maintaining the outlines of the guitar visible. As you saw it didn't fix the focus being off.

Check the autofocus settings of your camera! IIRC there was several focusing modes available, I suppose you'd want the focus being in the center rather than all around the place. Your pictures all look like the focus is in the wrinkles of the fabric - they actually work well for focusing but in this case that's not wanted.

Quote

For shooting through the viewfinder, the EOS Rebel T6i camera features an updated 19-point all cross-type AF system with improved tracking of moving subjects perfect for capturing action with accuracy. Cross-type AF points maintain accurate focus even if the camera is held vertically or horizontally, no matter where on the frame focus is first achieved. The EOS Rebel T6i also features three focusing area selection modes that make accurate focus even easier. Single point AF allows users to easily choose any one of the 19 focus points for precise focus. In Zone AF, one of 5 zones is selected and focus is locked within that area of the composition. With 19-point automatic selection AF, the camera detects the subject automatically. This is especially useful in shooting sports or other unpredictable motion.

 

[mistermikev]

2 minutes ago, Bizman62 said:

Yes, I exaggerated quite a bit and all that in purpose. My main goal was to hide the backing fabric as much as possible, yet maintaining the outlines of the guitar visible. As you saw it didn't fix the focus being off.

Check the autofocus settings of your camera! IIRC there was several focusing modes available, I suppose you'd want the focus being in the center rather than all around the place. Your pictures all look like the focus is in the wrinkles of the fabric - they actually work well for focusing but in this case that's not wanted.

 

right on thank you biz.  I will dig out the manual again and try to go further on focus.  admittedly I was so happy when I found the micro focus that I stopped reading right there.  this cam has so many features... it's gonna take some experience to get a handle on it.  my last fuji was/is a point and shoot and is easily the best I've found afa not having to change anything and getting decent pics.  this one takes better pictures, but is def not point and shoot in the sm sense.  just keep pluggin away at it and eventually get there.  thanks again for the reply.

[mistermikev]

45 minutes ago, Bizman62 said:

Yes, I exaggerated quite a bit and all that in purpose. My main goal was to hide the backing fabric as much as possible, yet maintaining the outlines of the guitar visible. As you saw it didn't fix the focus being off.

Check the autofocus settings of your camera! IIRC there was several focusing modes available, I suppose you'd want the focus being in the center rather than all around the place. Your pictures all look like the focus is in the wrinkles of the fabric - they actually work well for focusing but in this case that's not wanted.

 

oh shit... just realized you gave me the easy button there(quote at bottom).  you've read my manual more than me - thank you for that.  will try that asap.  

[Bizman62]

Yet another thing to check: Does your camera show green rectangles for the focus spots when you press the button halfway down? If it does, you can "lock" that spot by keeping the button halfway pressed and move the camera a bit for a better composition and the autofocus should keep that very spot focused. When all looks good on the viewfinder screen simply push the the button all the way down.

[mistermikev]

1 hour ago, Bizman62 said:

Yet another thing to check: Does your camera show green rectangles for the focus spots when you press the button halfway down? If it does, you can "lock" that spot by keeping the button halfway pressed and move the camera a bit for a better composition and the autofocus should keep that very spot focused. When all looks good on the viewfinder screen simply push the the button all the way down.

yes, it does when you have it in autofocus mode.  I've tried that quite a bit... you can move the rectangle around to where you want it and then snap but that is how my first two series of photos were done and well... you see where that got me!  I did find one interesting tid bit by reading the manual about that... apparently when you click on the zoom buttons after setting auto focus (green box) it zooms in on the green box area and allows you to further refine what is in focus... so will try that next time for sure.  

thanks again for the continued help/feedback/input biz - i appreciate it.

[Bizman62]

53 minutes ago, mistermikev said:

continued help/feedback/input

That's only because I'm sort of involved: I'm one who has to view your photos so this is just trying to make reading your pictorials more enjoyable

[mistermikev]

8 minutes ago, Bizman62 said:

That's only because I'm sort of involved: I'm one who has to view your photos so this is just trying to make reading your pictorials more enjoyable

r u saying my pictorals (or my pectorals for that matter) AREN'T enjoyable by themselves???  how dare u sir!  I am triggered.  jk.  ty.