Photographing Ricks

stubby · Post by **stubby** » Fri Dec 16, 2005 8:10 pm

I've heard lots of allusions to this on this forum but I am not sure what is happening-why are Rick finishes so tough to photograph? I understand that they have reflective finishes which distort photography but the differences, even amongst one set of photos of the same guitar vary so profoundly, that I wonder what's going on? Why is their true image so difficult to capture?

admin · Post by **admin** » Fri Dec 16, 2005 11:56 pm

Bill: Without a doubt, there are some finishes that are more difficult to photograph than others.

In the end, this is really all about lighting, taking the time to set things up just right. You have raised a most interesting question, however. So let's hear it, how do you get the best results when photographing a Rickenbacker.

For me, natural lighting is the best and except for close ups, the background is critical.

dswp · Post by **dswp** » Sat Dec 17, 2005 2:12 am

It took me a year to figure out how to take half decent pictures. No flash, tripod, and timed shutter release.I found that for me, my lights in my music room. (MR16 halogen flood lights) look better on my Canon A510, than a flooded room of natural daylight.

dswp · Post by **dswp** » Sat Dec 17, 2005 2:18 am

Whoops, this is the guitar section, not bass.
Here' another..

tomg · Post by **tomg** » Sat Dec 17, 2005 5:02 am

When I take pics of my gear, I bounce the flash off of the (white) ceiling in my bedroom. Here are some examples:

http://www.tomgallo.net/fdp/blueboy/
http://www.tomgallo.net/fdp/cij62ri/

sowhat · Post by **sowhat** » Sat Dec 17, 2005 5:28 am

The pictures look really cool guys! Especially liked your "green boy", Tom!
(anyway, since it's RICs, it's not surprising)

jingle_jangle · Post by **jingle_jangle** » Sat Dec 17, 2005 5:49 am

Tom, send me a few of the Green Boy on disc, please, for possible inclusion in the 2006 calendar!

EVERYBODY, please, send in pics. Peter? You've posted some honeys over the last year. How's chances?

phlemmy · Post by **phlemmy** » Sat Dec 17, 2005 6:11 am

paul, i'm trying to get a good shot of this one to send you:

steve_hershberger · Post by **steve_hershberger** » Sat Dec 17, 2005 8:05 am

Oh man, I'd LOVE to be able to get some "actual" color (meaning "accurate") shots of my fireglo but it seems impossible to me. Mostly because I don't fully know how to work the new camera.

Another, maybe more important, factor is our place is so cluttered it'd be impossible to set up a clean neutral background anywhere in here.

But I sure love seeing all the pics posted here though. Paul, what's the deadline and requirements on your calendar? I might be able to luck out and get something decent one of these days.

stubby · Post by **stubby** » Sat Dec 17, 2005 9:01 am

Are the "burst" guitars more difficult to capture? I seem to recall someone saying that Midnight Blue is tough too?

valenti · Post by **valenti** » Sat Dec 17, 2005 9:35 am

Reflections are the enemy of any photographer (ask someone who tries to shoot custom cars in bright sunlight). Rics have such a high-gloss finish, that they're quite a challenge to photograph!

Key points are to:
disable the built-in flash, if your camera has it;
use reflective lighting, either pole-mounted or ambient, or bounced;
use a slow shutter speeds with a tripod to prevent motion blurring;
correct the exposure for "type" of lighting, if your lights are "warm" (they'll make the guitar reddish-orange)Filters can do this and so can the internals of most digital cameras;
select the smallest arperature that your camera has (highest number f-stop) for better depth of field and focus, but remember to remove background distractions;

teb · Post by **teb** » Sat Dec 17, 2005 9:53 am

Perhaps due to my lack of photographic skills, I seem to get my best pictures by accident. Most of the photos which I take thinking "this is going to be a great shot" get deleted in the end. So I shoot far more photos that I think I'll need and once you see them on the computer screen the choice ones clearly stand out above the rest, planned or not.

http://webpages.charter.net/tbradshaw/360-12%2000x%20copy.jpg

http://webpages.charter.net/tbradshaw/360-12%20008.jpg

Peter's point about background is also quite important. I've taken a few where I was totally zoned-in on the guitar and lighting, but didn't pay attention to the whole scene. This one, for example, was one of a bunch of random shots where the guitar and highlights are gorgeous, but the junk in the background detracts.

http://webpages.charter.net/tbradshaw/360-12%20002%20copy.jpg

8mileshigh · Post by **8mileshigh** » Sat Dec 17, 2005 10:55 am

"I seem to get my best pictures by accident"..............those are great looking accidents Todd, beautiful! I seem to have the same technique.

scott_s · Post by **scott_s** » Sat Dec 17, 2005 1:02 pm

The main problem is that Rickenbacker finishes are made from the same material as the monoliths in "2001" -- therefore, what your eye sees is just the edge of an interdimensional presence that just happens to "poke" into ours.

It's really best not to think about it.

jingle_jangle · Post by **jingle_jangle** » Sat Dec 17, 2005 2:31 pm

Har.

Deadline for the calendar is January 15.

Graham, that is heartachingly gorgeous.

Please see my long post in "Reflections" under the topic of the calendar, for lots more details.

Graham, mail me some of your accidents, PLEEZ!

I have begun to realize that, in general, photos of whole guitars are pretty boring, compared to pictures of just the body, or just the headstock, or closeups of various yummy details. Remember the cool stuff that came out of Peter's request for pickup photos a few months back?

Still, I don't want to be prejudiced or to color anybody else's ideas. So, just send pics, OK?