|
|
Joined:
May 2003
Posts: 4389
Location: Capital District, NY, USA Minor Outlying Islands | I put pictures of my guitars in the members area. My buddy at work digitized them for me. On the ovation he ran it thru some sort of filters. (I know nothing about how to do this). It reveals the bowing around the saddle, and the finish cracks from the saddle, the levelness of face around the sound hole and the dryness of the lower frets. Just some interesting observations that may be of use to somebody, like for when you look at a picture on ebay, for you techies, you can see how the guitar really looks. Take care. | |
| | |
Joined:
December 2001
Posts: 7236
Location: The Great Pacific Northwest | You have to start out with a picture tha has the right elements, and is high enough resolution to bring out those details. I would not rely on this at it can show things that aren't really there and are just shapows too. But if you can "sorta see something" in the picture, removing certain colors can really bring out whatever it is you are looking at.
Speaking of bowing at the bridge, I learned something at the tour that might be worth sharing at this point as your pictures elude to it.
I was concerned that on many new Ovations, especially black ones, the tops looked wavvvvy and the the bridge looked like it was pulling. Well I found out at the tour how really thin the tops are, and that upon closer inspection, the "waves" were actually the bracing I was seeing. It's not a good nor bad thing, just a fact of life that there is tension on the top. I look at guitars much closer now see if the bridge is just pulling, or is it lifted, and see if there are actual waves, and not just the bracing pattern. | |
| | |
Joined:
March 2002
Posts: 14842
Location: NJ | I agree with Miles.
I live and breathe PhotoShop everyday at work, and while it's a fabulous program that can do some amazing things, using it to convey structural integrity would be HIGHLY subjective.
As Miles stated, it's reliant upon the quality/resolution of the initial image, and even then it would be subject to glare, shadows, woodgrain, etc. You could theoretically apply the exact same filter to two exact images with the only difference being the angle of the light source and get two completely different results.
PhotoShop extrapilates the information from the image pixel by pixel. The filters allow you to play and tweak with that information using a variety of "sliders" (like an e.q.) that (dependant upon the specific filter) allow you to adjust brightness, contrast, hue, value, intensity, threshold, and numerous other parameters.
Given enough time (and applying enough filters), I could probably get the image of the Virgin Mary to appear on the top of an '89 Celebrity.
Doesn't mean she's there.
(. . . but'd probably getcha' a better price on eBay) ;) | |
| |
|
Photo shop as a diagnostic tool