|
Advice on shooting a Guitar
I'm wondering if any of you guys have some advice on how to shoot a guitar? You can take a look at my you tube below. I shot it on my XH-A1 with just Auto everything, I don't even recal; if I did a white balance.
I'm getting ready to shot another guitar and since then I downloaded all the custom presets. What preset would be better for shooting a guitar? And are there any tips you could suggest that might improve my videos? YouTube - Gary Stewart plays Bel raggio lusinghier from the opera Semiramide Giuliani/Rossini Thanks, michael |
Quote:
|
The thing that stands out for me is lighting - or the lack of it. Everything is very flat, and the almost guitar coloured background doesn't offer any scope for making the instrument stand out. The other thing is that shooting static objects needs solid camera movement, and the jerks spoil it. Don't zoom, move the camera in and out. Maybe a crane of some kind could be used, or a dolly of some kind so you can move. Alternatively, keep the camera still and move the instrument on wheels, or maybe bodge up a turntable. Watch How do they do this, or how does it work, type programmes to see how camera movement can be done. Don't move for the sake of movement, and resist the temptation to cut or mix between very similar shots. White balance would have been something to really sort out, as the entire thing has a sepia tone to it, which as an effect might be good, but looks a little odd. Some bits, like the intricate inlay were perhaps a little long, but for me, why the random shot of a unseen before lady at the end - why not somebody actually playing it?
Presets? It's not really presets or twiddles to the camera, it's a solid plan of action. Light the scene well, work out how to move the camera. if the floor's good then, a few castors and platforms will let the camera glide. Content wise - make sure each process has an end. So all that shaving the neck, showing it square, then rounder, could be finished off with the final sanding showing the hacking about really did work. How about inserting the frets - the really difficult bits. In general, people want to see the difficult bits. bend straight wood into curves, glue, clamps, saws and then delicate stuff - but they need to have it finished off by hearing and seeing it work - because it could sound like a Bontempi £15 guitar from toys r us. In terms of camera settings, it's usual to always state NO AUTO ANYTHING, but in your case, autofocus hasn't really caused a problem. It doesn't look bad at all, it looks a little unfinished, and because of the colour, a bit old. |
Nice video.
A lot of the pans and zooms could have been much smoother if you just used a hi-resolution digital still camera and did the simulated camera moves in post while editing. These moves could be mixed into live video that would show the 3D of the instrument better if the actual camera support was in motion via wheels or jib arm. I agree on using a different background colour and more dramatic lighting. |
Quote:
I have one question though why do you recommend not using the zoom? It seems like it does the "Ken Burns effect" nicely. Maybe not paning? I did a new shoot last night with the new back ground I'll post it when I edit it later today. Thanks for the help. |
Quote:
Yes the lighting is a problem, I need a couple of diffused lights ( soft boxes), I'm looking into some now. |
The thing with zooms is that on a 2D object, they look ok, so maps, charts etc work - but on 3D objects it's much more pleasing to track in. It's because as a person moves closer to an object, perpective changes. Zooming leave perspective unchanged, which make the brain think something is not quite right. The difference is quite interesting if you try it. Even a 3 ft crab sideways looks so good on static objects. With the camera on wide, sitting on a basic set of legs with some wheels - it looks amazing.
A turntable can be easily knocked up with a few DIY skills, if you plan on doing this a lot - and sitting the guitar on a stand, on the turntable, and then rotating it while you are moving looks fantastic. Camera movement on static subjects is the key to good images. Conventional panning and tilting with zoom isn't that common. For the actual process of manufacturing, then the usual trick in the 'informative' style is static shots and mixes to indicate time passed. I found this How It's Made : Videos : Science Channel go down to the violin clip - hardly any movement, but short, simple clips. The programmes usually finish with the arty stuff on the finished products as a contrast. |
Quote:
Also, I have a question about lighting, ( don't know if this is the right thread for this). My wife is taking a photography class at the local community Collage here in Santa Fe. In the fall, the class is on lighting, which I think I'll take as well. However, she mentioned to her instructor I was going to buy some lighting equipment and he said all I needed was one light. I thought this was strange, but another very well known photographer friend of ours also said all I need was one light, and volunteered to show me when he gets back to town. All the information I've seen has said, you need three point lighting. Do you or anyone know what this one light does everything is? Michael |
And all a painter needs is One colour and one brush. Lighting people call lights instruments (like in an orchestra) and they come in various sizes and capabilities. Perhaps if you could get by with supplementing the normal lights in the room with one very bright light that could be dimmed, gelled, diffused or focused, you could get by with only one light.
I've just started experimenting with a 7 watt standard based LED lightbulb. I'm trying to mount it in an old mini-par can to add the filter holder capabilities. It should be good for hilights but a large 1k Fresnel on a dimmer is always good to have around...but heavy, hot and not portable. |
If you use only one light, a portable reflector is a very hand item. It can be used to bounce light back into dark corners and give the impression of multiple lights without worrying too much about exact placement/strength to avoid extra shadows.
|
Hi Michael,
First, I'd like to know what the purpose of the video is. Is it suppose to be a narrative piece or are you going more for just a visual experience without any real story? Is it to show the making of the guitar? Or to show off the guitar itself? That will really help to shape the project and make it more visually interesting. Think of creating a story arc to your video. An example would be, if the piece was to highlight the process of making the guitar you could break it into small segments. When the gentleman is shaping the neck you might start with some close ups of the raw materials and then transition into him working his tools. An interesting shot might be to follow the blade as it shaves the wood. Then eventually show the finished neck. Another interesting shot might be of the body of the guitar, start with a static ECU of the strings and then have someone pluck one or two strings out of frame. Capture the vibrations and slowing pull back to show the intricate inlays in the the wood. That could be in either in the beginning or at the end o the segment where the inlays are being placed int eh opening of the body. At the end it would be nice to finish with someone playing the guitar. For technical aspects, as has already been mentioned lighting is key. Lighting for still photography is somewhat different than motion pictures. You us some of the same concepts but you have to remember that you will most likely be moving either your camera or the subject so your lighting will have to be able to handle the dynamics that will be involved. There really are no absolutes in lighting but one thing that a very accomplished cinematographer once told me was " you can never have too many lights at your disposal. Remember, you can always take away light if it's available, but you can't create light that doesn't exist." I don't think you'd be too please with just one light. That will either create some very harsh shadows or a very flat look. Think of watching the evening news. Not much creativity in the way the new people look. For some good quick examples of what different lighting set ups look like you could go to the Lowel web site under their EDU page: Lowel EDU - a Lighting Resource Center It has some good basic pointers. I would also have full manual on all settings. For instance at 2:11 you can see the camera flaring up the exposure. Those are the types of thing to really avoid. Around 7 minutes I like how you've got the two guitars in the background lit from the floor. A creep zoom in on those would have been a good opportunity to create a very pleasing transition. As I mentioned, the purpose for your video will really drive the style in which it is shot and things like the lighting and coloration (or in older terms the film stock used). Overall I think you've got an interesting subject visually and the music accompaniment is great too. -Garrett |
A photography class advocating using just one light source is rather scary!
One light will give illumination. It also creates hard shadows and lots of contrast. Something video cameras are not that good at recording. Shadows are good actually. they provide the brain with indications of depth. Imagine looking at the camera and the one and only light source is 45 degrees off to one side and 45 degrees above the horizontal. This gives good modelling light. You really can see that noses come out of the face and eye sockets go in. You can tell how big somebodies nose is, and all the clues the brain needs are there. trouble is it looks horrible, from the aesthetic point of view. You need to fill in these hard shadows to reduce the contrast to something the camera can cope with. So a softlight on the other side is the usual trick. This can be a hard source - as in a luminaire (we Brits have been Europeanised, so instrument is a term firmly on the US side of the water) with diffuser between lamp/reflector and the subject - I'm a firm believer in open face lights for video, and the barn doors have handy clips where I attach sheets of plastic diffuser (Rosco or Lee). I have some large Fresnel lensed theatre style TV lights too, and these are softish, but not quite enough. I'd imagine the local college would have this kind of kit plus photographic style softboxes to hand. Once you've filled in some of these shadows, then the next step would be to add a bit of back of the head lighting, to make the subject stand out from the background and give a lift to hair and shoulders. Because of my theatre background, I often experiment with coloured back light, and really like gold light on blonde hair. Only after I've done all this would I then consider lighting the background. There is no reason you cannot use just one light source - but when you see the pictures, you won't want to! |
Micheal,
To somewhat address your "one light" question. Three point lighting is a basic lighting setup, key, fill and back light. Those are the general locations of the light source. That doesn't mean there are there lights. You could create three point lighting with only one light if you could bounce it all around. Also, there are three point lighting situations where you would use more than three lights too. -Garrett |
The trouble with reflectors is direction of light. If you are forced to shoot outside with the sun behind, then a reflector can get light onto the subject, however, it's rare to find a set up where you have a key coming from the rght direction that can be reflected. It's going towards the subject, and the only place where a reflector would work, is where light is. Across the other side of the imaginary centre line where the fill is needed rarely has anything that can be reflected coming it's way.
In the case of the guitar we're talking about here, a mix of key/fill and fill/fill often works. To reveal some details - like when the curved parts are being made, shadows are useful. In other situations, especially where lots of edges are present that would create multiple shadows, then softer light works best. If you are into making things, then building a turntable that has a rotating swinging arm that you can attach a tripod head to is also pretty neat. The turntable can revolve, and the camera then rotates too, kind of in orbit around the centre. If you do lots of this kind of shooting, you could build some very specific aids. |
Hey Paul,
I wasn't really serious about the single light source. The only way you could do it was if you had an isolated source that you could reflect in a way that you would end up with various points. It is conceivable but not very practical. One think I would think about doing is using very little back lighting so that you really focus on the guitar. You could also think of using lighting similar to a museum when it is highlighting a single statue or gem. have a key slightly off of the camera and then just another from directly above the guitar. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
That being said I went out today to my local camera store and bought a soft box, I can't wait to start playing around with it. All of you guys have been very helpful thanks. |
Here is my latest video I shot a couple of days ago. What do you guys think. I'm going to do another shoot with the turntable effect this weekend.
YouTube - Guitar for sale as of july 23, 2009 |
Your pans seemed to fast to me - I wanted a longer look at some of the fancy working on the guitar. You took as much time going down the frets (nearly identical and hence boring) as on the much more interesting working around the pegs.
The lighting seemed very flat, and lacking in any highlights. I would shoot this like I would jewelry. I might make a 'ring light' around the lense using a string of incandescent Christmas tree lights, to make highlights and colored sparkles on the strings and other polished metal work, and to bring out depth in the wood grain. -Mike |
I also thought many of the pans were too fast, and also a bit jerky, though some of that might be due to the compression. I have a mechanical pan and tilt head - the kind that are used for surveillance cameras - which does quite smooth pans, both side to side and vertically.
Some of the zooms were also not quite smooth, again it may be the effect of compression. I use a beebob lanc control on which you can set the zoom speed - I think you can also do it through the camera menu, but the lanc is easier. That leaves the problem of zooming and panning and keeping in focus at the same time - and you're doing a much better job of it than I can. Lighting on the detail of the silver-work was a bit flat and dull. Some of the transitions were a bit abrupt for the subject and music. Apologies for sounding negative, I'm sure your next attempt with the turntable will show further improvements. It's probably not possible as the music is recorded, but it would have livened up the video if you could have included some close-ups of the guitar being played - eg fingers on the fretboard, fingers on the strings, even a finger caressing the curves of the soundbox. |
Annie and Mike thanks for your suggestions. I like the Christmas tree light idea. I just bought a soft box light as well as another light a few days ago, which I'm looking forward to trying out.
As far as the pans go I'll work on slowing them down. Annie could you post a link to the auto pan set up you have? This sounds very interesting. I didn't include myself playing the guitar because the sound track is different. I took that from a CD by Michael Chapdelaine called 'Mexico" and it didn't feel right to cut to me playing something in the middle of it. None the less I'll shoot myself playing it and see what I can do. It is difficult when one is both the subject and the guy behind the camera. |
The pan and tilt head came from Hague - it's a UK firm, which is why I didn't put the link on before. The only disadvantage of this head is that it has a 1/4 thread for attaching to the tripod, and all my tripods have 3/8 thread. However, I've just bought a Manfrotto 120 adaptor which is broader and more secure than the adapter I had before. You can also vary the speed of the pans with it. It just about copes with the XH-A1 - I had a Canon XM2 when I bought it a few years ago, and it's fine with my Sony A1.
Hague Remote Pan & Tilt Power Head Yes, I thought it would be difficult to include yourself, or someone else playing. One way of doing it would be to set the camera up to do a shot of your fingers on the fretboard (turn the LCD so you can see that you are lined up properly). Leave the camera running, turn yourself so that the fingers on the strings are being recorded (use a swivel stool). Record the whole piece, perhaps turning several times. It may take several attempts as you are concentrating not only on playing, but also checking what is on the LCD. Obviously you will have a lot of 'rubbish' in the video, but those are the bits that you cover with your clips showing off the guitar on its stand (use the 2nd video track in your NLE). This way, you get a continuous sound track, with the fingers working in the right places in between the straight guitar shots. I hate shots where the musician clearly isn't playing the soundtrack! |
I don't think I explained what I meant properly, so when I finished a session today, there was a guitar, a black swivel chair, and some microphone stands - so I attached a camera to it and recorded some examples.
No zooming whatsoever - just camera movement and the guitar moving on the swivel chair. Warnings - no care whatsoever was taken, so there are fast and slow movement, and some are even in focus! I totally ignored the background. So you can see how camera and subject movement can work. Many of the shots are pretty rubbish really, but should hopefully show how in a more controlled shoot, with more than 10 minutes to set up, and better kit than a swivel chair and an audio microphone stand you can get some interesting stuff. Note that some shots are actually upside down - with the camera hanging underneath the boom arm - a couple I flipped, the others I didn't. Some shots are just rotation of the chair, others are the boom arm swinging, some a lurchy version of the two at the same time. All clips simply have a disolve slapped over the join - nothing more - I did slow one down to see what would happen. Paul Guitar Test on Vimeo |
Michael -
A couple observations right off (as a fellow lutier, nice work BTW!). First, looks to me like you are leaving the camera on auto exposure - leaving the dark woods, well... DARK, so you're losing much of the detail and richness of the grain. After so much effort goes into finding the right wood, this shortchanges your work immensely. It also could mean you're going to have to really bump your studio lighting - think how bright pro photo shoots look when you see them - to "pop" the detail and depth of the image. Good wood has lots of DEPTH, you need to bring that out, and light is needed! Second, I think you need to think through your shots - story board it - how does a player approach a guitar... they start "wide" and go in from there - I'm sure you've seen it many times, you just have to capture it on video <wink>! SO, establish a full view of the instrument, then avoid unmotivated pans/zooms (don't move for the sake of "movement"). THEN, start going in to how a player would lustfully begin to take in the full richness and beauty of the instrument, sans the drooling <wink>. If they drool on their keyboard, that's OK... A handbuilt guitar is a sexy thing of beauty - it's like a beuatiful woman - take a bit of time to watch cosmetics advertisements, or Victoria's Secret commercials (this is strictly MARKET RESEARCH, mind you! OR if your significant other objects, you can watch some Billy Mays, he's pretty cool too with "visual selling"...), note how they cut/pan/zoom to establish the "big picture", then cut in to the "good stuff" - the pacing would obviously be different, but note the TECHNIQUE. You want to showcase those things that make your instrument(s) special, so you're spending time on binding, rosettes, bridge, frets, headstock, etc... but you want to do it in a way that moves the viewer logically around the instrument, almost as if they were walking in, having their eye "caught", picking up the instrument, holding it in their hands, realizing they can't live without this thing of beauty... inspecting it's every detail, realizing the intense love that went into it's crafting... Think "priceless" as another clever commercial example of how you want the player to realize what the true value of this guitar is! It is work to get everything set, but since you are apparently planning to use this to sell as you finish guitars, so having a "script" and technique that works will save you a LOT of time with subsequent instruments. Building videos are a whole other thing, been fiddling with those myself (more solidbody electric type stuff), and lighting a live shop shoot to look good is a bugger! I'm noticing that even the shows on the "big" cable channels sometimes have some really poor shop shots... Hope that will jump start you - don't normally hit this thread, but saw it and thought I could give you some tricks that might help a lot! PM me if you want. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
I'll try this technique this weekend, and post my next effort. |
Quote:
|
Forgot to mention about the lighting in that test. No video lighting - just 2 GU50 halogens overhead and a GU50 LED from one side. Dave mentions the craftsmanship and the actual wood - it does strike me that showing this off is pretty important. Curves are great because light reflects, and as the object moves the reflections show the gentle or radical curves. Flat lighting messes this up. You could also experiment a little with coloured light - not saturated stuff, but a subtle shift from open white - so maybe very pale golds, that will sparkle nicely on things like frets, and the tuning heads.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
I used 24p, but was told by Canon that the quality of my videos ( for the web) would improve if I shot in 30p. So I will try this next time. |
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:19 AM. |
DV Info Net -- Real Names, Real People, Real Info!
1998-2024 The Digital Video Information Network