Beautiful. Simple. Great.

Best wishes- Andy

ps. Usually I hate these frames, but in your work they consistently add to the picture, making the contents 'glow' or come alive. Whatever. I love this.

Nice, classsic shot Clive.

well, i totaly agree with Andy...great shot,Clive.

Hi Clive, I like this photo but to be quit honest with you, I don't think it is an extraordinary photo.

Now to the ones who have rated this photo: I am sincere when I say that I really don't want to offend anyone, but I'm puzzled. Why? I see three 10's here and with no explanation whatsoever as to why, either then 'nice, superb etc.

There are 2 things at stake: the contents and the quality. The content: it's an ordinary subject, presented in a way that I have seen in the catalogue of just about every instrument shop or maker. The quality: I believe this a good average quality photograph.

Of course I recognize and support the right of everyone to rate however they want to rate, so no lectures about that, please.

If someone has an explanation, I would like to hear it.

In the end, I don't think that anyone can really justify why they think any picture, sculpture, poem, whatever is superb. Either it resonates with you or it doesn't.

Sometimes it doesn't for technical reasons, in which case maybe the odd suggestion may help. For me, that is rare. A picture or photo doesn't have to be technically perfect for me to love it (although this does look perfect to my mind). By the same token, I will award 10s to pictures that aren't entirely my cup of tea, but where I can appreciate the skill and ability of the photographer. Some of Jen's bird pictures fall into that category as far as I am concerned. He has produced some stunning work that I wouldn't neccassarily hang on my wall, but which I most certainly do admire and respect a great deal.

For me this picture is superb. Here is why I like it so much;

1. Composition; very bold indeed, Clive has caught that sinuous curve superbly well. I think that the inky black emphasises this sexiness extremely well. It also has a picasso sort of quality in that the black flattens everything yet the wood textures give depth. It looks like two perspectives. Ok, maybe stretching it, but that is what I like compositionally here.

2. Colour. Simple, bold colour.

3. These two elements just add up to, what is for me, an extremely well balanced whole. Ying and Yang even.

This explanation will not convince anyone who doesn't like it to change their minds. Either you think it beautiful of not. If so, then there really isn't much to say. Afterall, this has been reduced to the barest of compositional elements.

I have seen thousands of guitar pictures, some akin to this in terms of style. Still, for me, this is beautiful and as good as anything I have seen. In fact, I would love a print...it would look great printed VERY BIG. Any chance of a print Clive?

Best wishes- Andy

mostly with Doro, very nice image, but not with that wow factor for me.

Kind Regards,

To Margriet Van Tulder” Margriet, thank you for your comments.

Your comments raise or bring into question the subject of an “fairer” rating system—and further, if there is such a thing as an objective standard of value that can be used in evaluating our own work and that of others.

The MFT Rating System I have seen rating systems in various photographic forums before, and not one of them has seemed to me satisfactory. I have always thought that it should either be done away with entirely or simplified substantially.

I think the ratable values below 5 are redundant. If an image really is considered bad enough to warrant something less than 5, then to merely assign it a low grade is unhelpful to the photographer concerned—it would be more helpful to offer objective technical advice on how to do better in the future. I have yet to meet a photographer who has nothing more to learn!

In my mind there should only be four categories.

Below C. This category displays average or below average technical skill and compositional style—therefore unnecessary to rate.

The three ratable categories: C. Worthy of comment. This category displays good technical skill and compositional flare/style. An image in this category stands out from the crowd in its specific forum. You find yourself saying: ‘wow, that’s quite good!—if only he/she’d have done such and such….etc’. B. Technically excellent. This category displays a professional use of the photographic tools, together with a strong and powerful image that could easily grace the pages of the best photographic journals, or the walls of the most discerning photographic critic. An image in this category is a real attention grabber, you KNOW it is good and it possibly inspires you to do better yourself, or to try out different techniques in order to achieve a similar effect etc. A. Masterful. This category displays stunning innovative and creative skill in a technically masterful way. An image in this category is neither merely good nor even a personal WOW to you. You know that this image is at the very pinnacle of technical achievement and that you know EVERYONE thinks it displays technical and creative excellence—that its excellence is universally recognized.

You know an image falls into the higher categories B and A because you feel it actually has a value to you personally—something that you are even prepared to part cash with to own or at least would be prepared to pay for if you could afford it.

These suggestions concerning the rating system could of course be refined much further given the time etc. but I do think that their implementation would help lift the bar a little and encourage/inspire the individual photographer to reach for excellence each time s/he pulls the camera out.

GUITAR: With regard to your comments concerning the ‘ordinariness of the subject that you have seen before’.

I find myself tending to echo what has already been said by Andrew. I like the “Guitar” image that I posted (which is why I posted it!). For me it displays a simple form that tends to grab the attention with its strong graphic style. The image has been reduced to simple, pleasing and harmonized elements that resonate with many. People have told me in the past that the curves remind them of the body of a beautiful woman. You don’t have to see “nipples” to know that there is a sexual component to this image. The idea may not be entirely original—but if you are able to point out a similar image online then I would be delighted to look at it. As for musical magazines, instrument shops or makers—I do not read the musical trades magazines nor am I exposed to instrument shops that often—again, if you or anyone else is able to point out a similar image I would love to see it. But in any event, in a world that is awash with images of every kind, it is not so easy to be truly original. My daily task as a photographer is to pursue excellence in my own style and technique and to learn from as many sources as possible.

That you did not feel inspired to rate this image as high as some of the others is not so important to me. But if you could have suggested a way in which I could have improved it—that would really have helped me in my career And if you are not able to tell me how to do better with this image, you could point me to an image online and say: LOOK, this is what I mean.

I have to agree with the dissenters.

It's a very interesting image in the sense of some mild sensuality, but, while not pedestrian, images similar to this have been incoporated in a lot of guitar images - perhaps not in this exact style, but close enough. The following are examples:

Take this as another example which would have been much more interesting in a vertical format and using the same technique you used in this image:

The curves of a guitar can lead to all sorts of interesting images - like the following:

or this:

So in a couple of ways, this isn't all that unique an image - vertical, horizontal or at an angle (off a Windham Hill guitar album - Acoustic Alchemy also has used a similar image, but I can't place my fingers on it at this second) - the curves are the very heart and soul of a quitar and have been for centuries - since the days of the lute.

So while the technical execution of the various elements in this image are terrific, it has been done before - many times over the years, by different manufacturers and cover designers.

(This is a terrifc album)

Here's one where the shape is incorported upside down.

(This is also a great album)

Yours is a good image. Is it a ten? I don't rate images unless they smack me upside the head and say howdy, but if pressed, and I'm assuming you want me to press, I'd say it's an eight - slightly above average and certainly not up to your usual standards - at least as compared to the other images in your folder.

Just my opinion - no offense meant. This is a discussion right?

I looked at this earlier and wanted to say something about it – just didn’t know how to and it would probably have taken me ages to find the right words and explain. Now I see Andy has written exactly what I wanted to write. Great picture because it is so simple and elegant. Guitar look like a body. When I look at the picture for a while the background becomes the foreground (and looks like a torso or bust – don’t know the right words). And Yin-Yang effect.

I have also seen guitar pictures before and pictures like those Tom gives links to, but to me none of them are as good as this one. Too much of the guitar showing on the other ones. Your picture is special because it is so simple with fewer clues to this being a guitar, but still it’s very recognizable as a guitar.

I’m sorry I have no ideas of how this could have been done better (and I don’t rate MFT pictures any longer. Your suggestion of a A, B, C-system sounds good. Only problem is that I think 99 percent of the pictures on MFT would just get a C or no rate).

Caroline and Doro: The quality of the linked pictures isn't very good I admit, but it was more of a demonstration of how the curves of a guitar is used, in a similar format, to Clive's picture. It has been done before, in a many different ways and with many different images. Are they exactly like this image? No, but the idea is the same.

If this picture wasn't titled "Guitar" would you just assume it was a guitar? Let's say it was titled "Yang" could you make the leap to understanding that the yellow shape represented "Ying"? What if it was titled "Shapely" - would that take the image to a different place in time and space?

Caroline and I started tossing some ideas back and forth about titles and pictures over in the competition section of the Forums and this actually demonstrates a point - the title suggests something about the image and does that influence how one views the image.

In this case I think it does. The image, while a technical tour-de-force in it's simplicity and elegance, is just a shape that doesn't invoke anything special about guitars or this particular guitar. If it had been titled "Vase", I wonder what the response would have been. What if it didn't have a title?

Oh well. I'm afraid that I've taken my love for the instrument and taken the discussion to a place where it probably shouldn't have gone.

I'lll go back into my cave now. :>)

Simple and Wonderful. Ovation guitar?

Clive, this came up as a random image. This is spectacular. The lines at the edge of the guitar, with the black background, beautiful, well done.

Thanks for your comments. It’s been quite a while since I posted this--it's nice to know that occasionally people still get to see it.

Thanks again. Clive