McGuinn Publicity Photo Guitar

[firstbassman]

I can't put my finger on it but the guitar in this commonly used photo always looks a little odd to me. It looks huge next to Roger's body and the horns don't look exactly like a typical "360" shape to me.

Am I crazy or is this guitar a little different?

[shamustwin]

Looks like they might have used a slightly fish-eyed lens.
Paging Jeffery Scott!

[jps]

You rang?

What I see interesting is the roundover on the front of the body looks minimized with a very small radius almost like it could be a WB but with no binding on the front. That in itself makes the guitar look bigger.

No fisheye lens here, just a moderate wide angle. Given that the image is square I will assume a Hasselblad or equivalent camera with a 50mm to 60mm lens; the low camera angle contributes to the look of the photo.

[firstbassman]

Thanks guys. Just always looked odd to me.

Jeff, I cropped it. The original is not square.

[jps]

Can you post the full image?

[firstbassman]

Just do a Google search. That photo is all over the Internet.

Here:

http://digitalmedia.oreilly.com/2005/03/02/mcguinn.html

...and here...

http://nonotes.wordpress.com/2006/04/03 ... s-version/

...and here...

http://www.midsussex.gov.uk/page.cfm?pageID=5530


...

[jps]

Ok, so cropped just a little bit from a 6x7 image, I still stand by the moderate wide angle lens, 50 mm - 65 mm.

[teb]

Maybe it's a faker......Oh the humanity!

[mcd220]

Good one Todd!

I see what you guys mean though; it doesn't look "Quite" 360.

Christian

[jimk]

I thought it was a 370 RM.

JimK

[JakeK]

Probably is. To me, I think they distorted the pic the same way they distorted the pic for "Rubber Soul" by the Beatles.

[manta]

As a photo pro who very frequently uses wide angle lenses, I would say that its just lens distortion. It may have been shots with a 14mm or a FE zoom as both Tokina and Sigma make 10-17 and 1-20 zooms now that are pro grade and sharp. The Nikon 18mm is also a favorite for these kind of shots. The WA lens allows you to get close and helps in balancing natural lighting with the flash but does add distortion. That why the RIC head seems a bit smaller. It also makes Roger a bit thinner. I need someone to take a picture of me like that (or maybe I need to lose weight)!

Tim (Manta)

[gibsonlp]

Any ultra wide lens (like my Canon 10-22) will distort the proportion of the image, especially if you tilt it a little bit and stand close to the subject.

[manta]

Yup. that lens (Canon 10-22) would be a good choice for this kind of photo and would create this kind of shot. Above I meant to say Tokina 10-17 byw.

Best,

Manta

[jps]

AS far as I can tell from the various posting of this photo the original was made with a square format camera such as, and most likely, a Hasselblad. Given that, I still say the distortion isn't bad enough to be a 30 mm fisheye Distagon or the 40 mm Distagon, most likely it was shot with a 50 mm Distagon lens, a very common lens that this photographer, John Chiasson, would have in his bag. If the lens were wider the headstock would be a lot smaller than it is, and the neck taper would a lot more severe. Bob Atherton, where are you to help with this analysis?

Mark, if you study those three image links you posted you will see that the other two are cropped from the full image.