I shoot a single image - what you see in every photo presented for catalogs is authentic.
I did ONE photo of a WCR NS-4 in layers to eliminate the reflections of the studio lights for Stuart to see the wood.
The key to these shots is light and exposure.
I shoot them in a completely controlled environment. A black box room (a room with black a floor and ceiling and black walls). The only lights that are used are the ones I choose. No other light sources are allowed.
This helps control the way light plays off the instrument's surface.
Light has what we refer to as an "Incidence of angle" and a "critical angle". The key to shooting these guitars in particular is to put enough light on the guitar that you expose the wood at an angle (with enough light to capture the details - AKA Critical) while minimizing the size of the reflection caused by the light (AKA - incidence). With instruments like the NS - there's nearly zero flat surfaces - so the angle of incidence varies across the length of the instrument. It makes for honestly the most difficult shooting conditions.
In the photo of The Blue Dream that was in question - which ironically is how I found this post (a client was searching for examples of my work and told me there was a whole discussion about my methods and sent me the link) - you see the slight white reflection from the studio lights on the horns and body - this photo is real.
If you see a photo with a guitar exposed with zero light reflections - it has most likely been doctored.
I'm attaching before and after shots of that WCR in question (NS-4 #713).
What I did for the WCR photo was shoot multiple photos with the camera and guitar fixed in the same location, then I moved the lights so that in each photo the reflection was in a different place. I then created a composite image in Photoshop where each layer I removed the reflection. Then when flattened you had a perfect representation of the guitar's grain without any reflection.
After looking at it Stuart and I both felt the image was somewhat weird looking. Without that reflection to show the curve of the instrument it somehow looked odd and flat - it looked boring to me. That light reflection adds depth to the image.
The Black Pearl was sold to a private party and in regards to a bass that looks just like it (similar wings, etc...) There's only one "The Black Pearl" and the headstock clearly says "The Black Pearl" across the top on the back. The serial number is 739, dated 6/6/11 - If the wood in the wings looks identical it's purely coincidence. Any gloss black maple necked Spector without "The Black Pearl" written on the back of the headstock is simply another bass.
The photo of The Blue Dream in question is 100% real. In post (Photoshop) I simply play with levels and contrast. It makes the variations pop - but anyone who ever saw this guitar in person would tell you that it's one of the most striking finishes Jimmy Eppard ever created.
I'm attaching the RAW unedited version of that photo next to the final version. And a cell phone photo of the Blue Dream in a rack next to some other guitars - to show you how vibrant that guitar really is. I did NOTHING to the cell photo. It's 100% unedited.
I see the main trick I did use for The Blue Dream photo - I added a little blue to the grey/black of the background. This does make the color pop. But it in no way changes the contrast between the wood grain and the stain of the bass.
Thanks for this discussion. I have spent years perfecting my studio shoots for musical instruments and appreciate a healthy discussion of techniques. I'm currently shooting a private collection of amazing vintage guitars and antique classical instruments - which is fun. Playing with 1950's Les Pauls and 1960's Fenders is a lot of fun.
Best regards everyone!
JP
Attached Files:
