Kiesel --- Never Again!

[A-Branger]

I'm not sure what to call it, but they're half-lies. All companies do it though, not just kiesel. Ibanez's website shows rosewood fretboards so dark they look like ebony, but in real life they're actually lighter than milk chocolate. It's not lying but it's certainly not honest.

yeah nah, you talking about a whole different thing bro.

the OP I quoted is calling about Charvel showing you a "mate" finish in their photos when its clearly shown as gloss, and Im explaining the "why"..... Theres no lie in there, they arent pulling up tricks or anything

Ibanez on the other hand thats a different story. You cant control nature and the way wood grain would come up, stock photos would always feature the best top/grain posible, and although yes, there would be color/grain variations, Ibanez tends to have a fully opposite variations. One thing is to have a little less than the stock photo, another is to have fully non-0-nope top compared. And thats something I never liked about Ibanez too.

Best example is anything with a burl top. Best ever was the limited run of Buckeye burl SR premium basses. Majority of the basses out there in the wild (or the ones I saw in "real webstore pics") had 0 burl on them, they pretty muhc looked like a plain maple top. I felt sorry for people who spend the ridiculous extra $$ they were asking for those

My BTB33 was featured in their site with a red-ish mahogany tint (something I HATE about ibanez, they keep doing that), but lucky for me my bass was an almost black tint. Mine bit more maroon, but I did saw couple on a store that they were black black

 

[spudmunkey]

the OP I quoted is calling about Charvel showing you a "mate" finish in their photos when its clearly shown as gloss, and Im explaining the "why"..... Theres no lie in there, they arent pulling up tricks or anything

This definitely comes up a lot. I'll see tons of people say, "Cool! I had no idea you could get it in satin!" when what they are seeing is a reflection of a soft box or difused light.

Here's a half-way decent example of this. It almost looks satin, until you see the sharper, non-diffused reflection in the contour on the top by the lower horn:

.
Satin looks satin because the microscopic texture in the surface diffuses the light. On photos like this, they use a pre-diffused light and it has a very very similar effect. Instead of being just a single small spot of light, the light source is several square feet of soft light.

 

[MatiasTolkki]

I'm not sure what to call it, but they're half-lies. All companies do it though, not just kiesel. Ibanez's website shows rosewood fretboards so dark they look like ebony, but in real life they're actually lighter than milk chocolate. It's not lying but it's certainly not honest.

Ibanez is a BAD example as their pictures are almost ALWAYS garbage. Even Ikebe's pictures are full of crap and give you zero idea of how it'll look. I learned to take Ibanez's official pics and any shop pics with a grain of bullshit.

 

[MaxOfMetal]

Ibanez is a BAD example as their pictures are almost ALWAYS garbage. Even Ikebe's pictures are full of crap and give you zero idea of how it'll look. I learned to take Ibanez's official pics and any shop pics with a grain of bullshit.

Most "pictures" from large brands aren't actually pictures of the guitars, but renders.

That's why you see the same patterns in the woods and reflections in the finish.

 

[A-Branger]

This definitely comes up a lot. I'll see tons of people say, "Cool! I had no idea you could get it in satin!" when what they are seeing is a reflection of a soft box or difused light.

Here's a half-way decent example of this. It almost looks satin, until you see the sharper, non-diffused reflection in the contour on the top by the lower horn:

.
Satin looks satin because the microscopic texture in the surface diffuses the light. On photos like this, they use a pre-diffused light and it has a very very similar effect. Instead of being just a single small spot of light, the light source is several square feet of soft light.

yes and no

yes, they use a diffused light, a big softbox. But that would only difuse the shadows that the hardware/body edges/ect would trow. Plus the light would be more even across the body

a gloss guitar would still reflect the light source. Inthis case a big rectangular box, its like you point a softbox to a mirror and see the reflection of the light in the mirror. So the white square on the gutiar body its a direct reflection of the softbox. See the gold chrome (or any normal chrome) pickups, they are almost a perfect mirror. What you see its not "chrome/gold" what you see its the white light hitting them. Put a guy in front of those lights and you would see his face on the pickups. You can tell the softbox shape on them, and even one leg of a light stand on the bridge pickup

example

what you see in the guitar bodies is those lights.

That white reflection on the bass photos I posted is like you pretty muhc are stearing directly into those flashes/lights

Now, gloss boddies are ideally perfectly smoot. So the reflection would be "perfect", in other words you would see a perfect white square with sharp edges. On a satin/matte boddy, the surface its irregular so the light bounces all over the place and only a little gets bounced perfectly to your eyes (or camera), so the lights reflections would look "softer" and the edges more diffused

That PRS you can tell the hard edges like you said on the lower horn, but also on the lower part of the body, next to the center line of the top. Now the difference in that beautiful pic is that the balance between the light on the let of the guitar (the one making the reflection in the body) and the "ambience light" of the guitar body (or other light sources), its really small. Reason why the two blend so perfect till the point you would think its a satin finish

Their photographer is amazing as you can tell from that pic. A more average person would have mroe contrast between the lights and that photo would look more like the basses I posted previusly were the left side of the guitar would be mroe washed out/white

 

[Jacksonluvr636]

yeah nah, you talking about a whole different thing bro.

the OP I quoted is calling about Charvel showing you a "mate" finish in their photos when its clearly shown as gloss, and Im explaining the "why"..... Theres no lie in there, they arent pulling up tricks or anything

Ibanez on the other hand thats a different story. You cant control nature and the way wood grain would come up, stock photos would always feature the best top/grain posible, and although yes, there would be color/grain variations, Ibanez tends to have a fully opposite variations. One thing is to have a little less than the stock photo, another is to have fully non-0-nope top compared. And thats something I never liked about Ibanez too.

Best example is anything with a burl top. Best ever was the limited run of Buckeye burl SR premium basses. Majority of the basses out there in the wild (or the ones I saw in "real webstore pics") had 0 burl on them, they pretty muhc looked like a plain maple top. I felt sorry for people who spend the ridiculous extra $$ they were asking for those

My BTB33 was featured in their site with a red-ish mahogany tint (something I HATE about ibanez, they keep doing that), but lucky for me my bass was an almost black tint. Mine bit more maroon, but I did saw couple on a store that they were black black

Completely disagree. No offense meant but as a photographer you're digging way too deep into this. I'm aware different lighting changes things, especially now. But the first pic did not look glossy at all to my eyes. And some of these pics look like a completely different color.

I am not sure if "matte" is the professional term I was looking for so I will just replace matte with non gloss.

The pictures look like two completely different tops and as I was saying to the previous OP, I can absolutely see why he would be unhappy and return the guitar based on getting a different shade than he was expecting (even though that wasnt the only reason for the return)

I won't be returning mine because it is what it is but at the same time I have no idea what I will actually be getting until I see it. You've already posted the sales pic which is what sold me and here are two more I've found. I just hope it doesnt come out looking like the bottom one lol.

 

[A-Branger]

yeah theres a difference in the color and grain of the top, which is fair enough. Specially on that second pic (which you can see the mahogany grain way more). Its the equivalent to Ibanez showing you a full-on burl top and then the guitar on the store only has 3 pimples on a plain mapple top.

Maybe the studio/promo pic need bit more contrast? to push the blacks of the photo a bit darker?

but again they are not lying to you on the "gloss" part of it. Those two pics you posted only look like gloss because of what?, the reflections. You can see the guy standiing next to it and the amp, and in the other you can see the floor. On dark guitar these elements are easy to see rather than if it was a white guitar.

On the studio theres no reflections as there are no elements to reflect. And IF there was a reflection of the floor (for example, because the guitar was on the floor) then thats something I would delete in photoshop, as its not a pro/studio/product shot. Again if they move the lights they have on the side to the front then you would see a big white square covering a big portion of the guitar, which is not desired on a flat top.

Maybe they do needed to add contrast, so the black burst looked more like "black" and not like "muted black", which mroe contrast (or richer colors) gives the ilusion of gloss too

You are perfectly allowed to be upset about the color of the guitar and the lack of grain ect. But you cant be mad at reciving a gloss guitar when the product description and the photo showed you a gloss guitar. There are no different level of glossiness, a gloss guitar its a gloss guitar and it would gloss and it would reflect everything like a gloss guitar does, including leaving fingerprints all over the place, which as always ther are far far eassier to spot ad see on a black (dark) guitar

they didnt cheat or lie to you on the gloss part of things. The color of the top its a different thing tho. The top looks a bit mutted, ITs not natural mahogany, so ti has some stain on it and that could be the issue at hand. Just like my Ibanez BTB33 where Ive seen them with the mahogany body in brown/red, maroon, and black... So they might have different consistency issues with the stain

I wish mroe companies would let mahogany be mahogany. The antural un-touched color of it tis great

 

[Jonathan20022]

I find it really hard to believe people are arguing about this when you can quite literally tell exactly what an instrument will look like in different lighting. This site is pretty much populated with pics in dozens of different setups and lighting. At some point you have to use your intelligence to assert how different an instrument will look like in your bedroom with your old amber tinted bedroom lamp from the manufacturer's pictures of it with the professional gear and setup.

All we want nowadays is thick maple tops with insanely vibrant colors thinking it'll look like that photo you've been lusting over while you wait. You can't take a phone pic in a dimly lit parking lot and turn it into a photo out of a professional shoot. It's extremely obvious to me when people actually edit their photos to make it look like something it is not, I'm not going to post an example because it'll be seen as me calling that person out. I take a lot of pride in not editing my guitar photos, I tried a de-saturated look early on but other than adjusting white balance/exposure after the fact I don't edit my photos. I'm going to post some examples of photos I recently took, I can pull the Lightroom sessions to prove my statement. Absolutely nothing was edited other than minor exposure and white balance changes to keep the photos more consistent color wise.

No editing, 7pm with 2 softbox lighting solutions, vs noon in natural light with no external lighting otherwise. My JP doesn't look like the last 3 photos when I pick it up in my dimly lit office to practice after work, it just feels like some people buy their gear to stare at it instead of play the damn things. There's no editing conspiracy and if you guys can't tell when someone is blatantly editing photos, or know what you can expect to see when you open it in your not as well lit home I'm not sure what to say. The pic of that Mahogany Jackson at the actual show floor was probably taken with a phone, and most phones need their default filters turned off. Phones edit photos more than professionals do, other than having better gear, any good photographer trying to depict something accurately will setup a shot so they don't have to go home and spend several hours working on their shots after the fact.

Completely disagree. No offense meant but as a photographer you're digging way too deep into this. I'm aware different lighting changes things, especially now. But the first pic did not look glossy at all to my eyes. And some of these pics look like a completely different color.

I am not sure if "matte" is the professional term I was looking for so I will just replace matte with non gloss.

There are several obvious signs that Jackson is gloss, the curved edges around the top having reflections. The trem bar having a perfect 1 to 1 reflection on the top of the body, which satin guitars diffuse heavily when the shadow lands on the satin body. And regardless of all this guitars typically state wether or not they are satin or gloss in the specifications, so some research could have probably done some good so you knew what to expect with your purchase.

 

[A-Branger]

cool pics bro, but your first two are a bit underexposed. Maybe your monitor is too bright?.... or maybe you work for another company as a inside agent in music man and you have a mission to make their guitars look too dark and muted so people buy them and get disappointed with them and have massive uprising against ErnieBall while you guys sip whisky and smoke cigars while petting a cat with an evil laugh

 

[Jonathan20022]

And on the real, yeah those first two shots were taken so late that even studio lighting wouldn't help. Even if I decided to "photoshop" them, they'd have massive glaring examples of grain so the shoot was pretty much salvageable. I think people have massively unrealistic ideas of just how far editing can go, that's why stacy with the crazy hips had conveniently bent bathroom towels and sinks

 

[A-Branger]

nah, lighting was perfect bro. only thing you needed was to up the ISO of the camera.

you can still recover the photo, just up the exposure in lightroom and happy days..... if you shoot them in RAW of course, if you went jpeg, then theres a limit o how much you can push it.

 

[Jonathan20022]

I'll give them a go in the morning, I just went ahead and reshot it when I had time and was home during the earlier hours of the day haha.

 

[DudeManBrother]

I heard that racing stripes on the lens increases shutter speed; any truth to that? Asking for a friend...

 

[MatiasTolkki]

I heard that racing stripes on the lens increases shutter speed; any truth to that? Asking for a friend...

 

[spudmunkey]

I heard that racing stripes on the lens increases shutter speed; any truth to that? Asking for a friend...

Nah, man. That's a myth. That only works on cars. What you need is to make sure everything's nice and clean.



Alternatively, "speed holes".

 

[Spaced Out Ace]

Uh, isn't that likely to damage your camera? Doesn't sound like a very good idea, but what do I know?

 

[spudmunkey]

Nah, I'm sure it's fine. They don't say they are dishwasher safe, and he's hand washing them to be safe.

 

[FitRocker33]

I heard babies and stray cats are dishwasher and microwave safe too. My two good buddies mr. Gacy and mr. Dahmer told me so. Google it.

 

[Jonathan20022]

That video hurt my soul

 

[A-Branger]

Uh, isn't that likely to damage your camera? Doesn't sound like a very good idea, but what do I know?

same cleaning method as