Is this my equipment's fault, or mine?

I sell guitars on eBay and depend on high-quality photos to best represent my guitars - we all know that on eBay, sometimes the only thing that separates your item is very nice photos. So....

Here are two shots:

Byte size: ZERO | Content warning: NOT AN IMAGE

Byte size: ZERO | Content warning: NOT AN IMAGE

Probably not the camera's fault. My first guess would be camera shake, second guess would be missed focus point. You said it was on "automatic focus". Change it to center point focus, and aim closely. Use a tripod even, since you have time to set up the shot. Also, it looks like you're trying to be creative with the open case in the background, but you've taken the shot on ugly concrete. Maybe move to grass, or shoot from lower with a sky background. Nice looking guitar though. What brand?

John

johndevane wrote in post #6677355
Probably not the camera's fault. My first guess would be camera shake, second guess would be missed focus point. You said it was on "automatic focus". Change it to center point focus, and aim closely. Use a tripod even, since you have time to set up the shot. Also, it looks like you're trying to be creative with the open case in the background, but you've taken the shot on ugly concrete. Maybe move to grass, or shoot from lower with a sky background. Nice looking guitar though. What brand?

John

Camera shake, even at 1/500? It was on center point focus, with the center focal dot aimed on the heel (the triangle-shaped black part to the left of the black knobs). I meant AT as opposed to manual focus. While I'm certainly nowhere near a professional, I do think I have fairly steady hands.

The case was actually just a fluke - I don't normally pay much attention to the background. Honestly, I'm more concerned with getting optimal shots of the guitars themselves, rather than worrying about backgrounds and settings. If the background just happens to look good, then that's just a bonus.

Believe it or not, the concrete is the best place for these guitars. Many of them have very glossy finishes, which make reflections by far my biggest headache while shooting. Grass would make for horrible reflections, as would a lower angle with sky as a background.

What concerns me is that for the first shot, I took maybe 6 or 7 shots for that particular "pose," and as horrible as it is, that blurry one was the best of the bunch. However, with the second shot, most of the versions of that pose came out great.

It's a Taylor JDCM John Denver model. Yours for the low price of $3750

You're definitely right about one thing - I think a tripod would be a great investment for me. Any particular models you'd suggest? I'd like to spend under $100 if possible.

Before getting a tripod, you could just try pulling up a chair and a soft cushion. Get a stable platform and shoot it like that.

Then sell a guitar for $3750 and umm...by the best tripod money can buy!

A Walmart tripod will do the job. $20. SLIK is a good option at reasonable prices for more of a "pro" tripod.

Take out camera shake, and missed focus; maybe a heavy crop? Did you fill the frame when you took the shot?

Ooooh, Taylor. My beat to hell Austin guitar is feeling nervous that it might be replaced. It does know John Denver songs though!

Turn on image editing and I'll upload a sharpened version that looks much better.

You used an aperture of f/3.2 -- that will result in a very shallow depth of field for such a large object so it is not surprising that the whole thing is not in focus. Try f/8 or even f/11. Also, use ISO 100 instead of 400 for a much better quality image. All of these suggestions means that the shutter speed will be much lower which is even more reason to get a good tripod and a remote shutter release cable. Finally, I would suggest using a much better background than a sidewalk. For about $30 you can get a gray graduated background paper (actually plastic)that will help to make the images look much more professional. As it is, I would rate the images as being very ordinary.

These are just my opinions as always and as always should only be taken as such. As johndevane suggested, my guess here would be that it's NOT the camera's fault. Based on your response to john's comments I don't know if this is what you "want to hear" but unless there's something physically defective with your equipment, 9.5 out of 10 times where there are issues with sharpness, focus, color, composition...it's almost always user error.

Now I have to say here that the first thing that caught my attention wasn't the focus as much as the color of the image. Looking at it closely, the guitar stand looks "white" but the rest of the image looks to have a rather yellow or greenish tint to it...not sure if it was just the light you were shooting under or what. Looking at the concrete in the driveway for example, concrete is usually gray and not yellowish/green. If you use Photoshop, take a look at the color balance under "Info" and you'll see that your colors there are indeed out of whack.

Now as far as the focus goes, I'm tempted to agree with bill boehme here in that it could very well just be a DOF problem...as in too shallow. The focus isn't really that bad and probably could be sharpened enough for Ebay pics in PP, but as bill suggested, next time I'd use a smaller aperture for greater DOF so that all of the instrument is in focus.

Also as others have suggested, a tripod (or other stable platform) is pretty much essential for any work of this nature. Camera shake can and does occur at 1/500 of a sec and under the right circumstances, it can even occur at 1/1000 of a sec, 1/2000 of a sec and so on. Again here, it's simply a matter of using your tools correctly.

On top of that, I would also strongly suggest a better background if you are trying to sell these instruments "professionally". You said "Honestly, I'm more concerned with getting optimal shots of the guitars themselves, rather than worrying about backgrounds and settings. If the background just happens to look good, then that's just a bonus" but that is not a professional approach at all. Remember actual retailers will often spend a great deal of money on the photography for their advertising. As bill stated, these image really just look rather ordinary...like average snap shots of a guitar turned backwards on a stand taken in a driveway. Here I would suggest browsing images of guitars in magazines such as Musician's Friend, AMS, Carvin, etc., etc., for some inspiration. "Product photography" is a very different beast from fine art or photo journalism. It's a very different approach...and that's basically what you are doing here is product photography. -If it where me- and I didn't have access to a proper studio with several flashes, backgrounds, a large light tent, etc., I would get some paper or even some large pieces of construction board taped together (you could clone out any seems later) and shoot in Northern shadows for a simulated softbox look...it actually works very well if you do it right.

Considering your response to johndevine's comments appeared to be a bit defensive I'm not really sure how your going to take this so again please understand that this is just my opinion but again since you asked the question "Is this my equipment's fault, or mine?" again I have to say it's probably not your gear at all. Everything I'm seeing here appears to be user error either in the setup and taking of the shots or in pp.

Peace,
Jim

1/500s and f3.5? Is that right?

Then it is your fault for not reading up on depth of field and using the AV mode instead of Program.

All the above criticisms are valid, but this is the simple answer. Shoot every shot like you were firing a rifle--take a breath, let it half out, squeeze the trigger rather than snatch it. Use AV mode, select f8 or 11, depending on the light and let the camera choose the shutter speed. Just be aware of it, so you don't fall below 1/60s.

advaitin wrote in post #6678923
1/500s and f3.5? Is that right?

Then it is your fault for not reading up on depth of field and using the AV mode instead of Program.

All the above criticisms are valid, but this is the simple answer. Shoot every shot like you were firing a rifle--take a breath, let it half out, squeeze the trigger rather than snatch it. Use AV mode, select f8 or 11, depending on the light and let the camera choose the shutter speed. Just be aware of it, so you don't fall below 1/60s.

my advice exactly..

you used a shallower DOF and that looks like it caused some of the photo to be soft.

Hey jesse,

The tripod thing and slower shutterspeed / smaller aperture sounds great bud. I can bring my tripod up one weekend if you want to try that out before you throw out some money. If this is something you might be doing quite often, better get a nice one rather than a cheap walmart, b/c you'll regret it later (don't say you won't, Mr. 24-70f/2.8L & 40D).

good advice here, keep shooting

On the DOF issues - I had to use f/3.2 because of the relatively low lighting. If I had gone up to f/8 or f/11 or used ISO 100 as some had suggested, I would have been shooting at far too slow of a shutter speed for handheld. That's why I will probably get a tripod. I'm sure you all are right in that it was a DOF problem. The reason why I was asking about equipment malfunction is that there were 6 or 7 blurry shots in a row - surely one of them would have come out right.

Walczak: believe it or not, the concrete was very close to that color. It was late in the day, and it had just rained earlier in the day. My driveway is that color! I do try to adjust the color temp and tint to as close to real life as possible. If you looked at that photo and then at the guitar, they really are an almost exact match.

Bill: on a message board like this, those shots are definitely ordinary. But on eBay I'm practically a professional photographer

I don't think I explained myself very well on the background issue. I'm not going after "professional" shots of the guitars - as in, the glossy shots you see in Musician's Friend, etc. I want real photos that look like a real person took them, but as I said, I'm more concerned with getting quality shots of the guitars themselves. I'm quite happy with the "setting" of my shots. You guys are looking at it from a professional photographer standpoint, who's always thinking about framing the shot, thinking of the background, etc - and I understand that. However, no offense, but that aspect of the shots doesn't really matter to me as much as getting a crystal-clear shot of the guitar.

But, now I know that it was most likely a DOF issue, and that I was probably moving either slightly forward or backward after the camera focused. Next time I will either get a tripod or I will try to use a smaller aperture. Most of my photos are taken in brighter sunlight with more optimal lighting, so I don't usually have this issue.

Anyway, thanks to all for the suggestions.

stream41 wrote in post #6682540
..... Bill: on a message board like this, those shots are definitely ordinary. But on eBay I'm practically a professional photographer

I understand what you are saying -- I buy a lot of used stuff on the Industrial Power Equipment section of eBay and most of the photos there are beyond awful. Your images put a lot of the other photos on eBay to shame, big time. However, keep the idea of product photography that Jim Walczak discussed in the back of your mind as a future way to improve your business. While you have enough to do without taking up a second career in photography, quality product shots are really not very difficult nor do they involve much expense in equipment at the basic level ... and, the seemingly subtle difference in appearance can have a rather significant impact on how customers perceive your business.

bill boehme wrote in post #6682770
I understand what you are saying -- I buy a lot of used stuff on the Industrial Power Equipment section of eBay and most of the photos there are beyond awful. Your images put a lot of the other photos on eBay to shame, big time. However, keep the idea of product photography that Jim Walczak discussed in the back of your mind as a future way to improve your business. While you have enough to do without taking up a second career in photography, quality product shots are really not very difficult nor do they involve much expense in equipment at the basic level ... and, the seemingly subtle difference in appearance can have a rather significant impact on how customers perceive your business.

Good point. My buddy (who posted earlier in the thread) has tried to help me out with alternative backgrounds and lighting setups, but nothing seemed to work that well. The reflections were the main problem - the glossy surface of these guitars reflects everything.

Also, the only place I can take photos outside is in front of my house. If I tried to build some kind of home-made setup, I'd be spending half my time constructing and deconstructing that setup.

The guitars are selling - that's not the problem. Honestly I could probably go forever doing just fine with my current setup, such as it is. I'm just looking for ways to improve the photography without spending $2K on indoor studio lighting (which I don't have room for anyway).