|
I've been snapping pics for a food blog lately and I think they come out ok but could use a hell of a lot of improvement. I was hoping you guys could give me some specific pointers. I have a Canon Rebel XT but the only lens I have is a 50mm lens that I got for photographing paintings. Obviously I need more flexibility with lenses. My other big problem is lighting. I have one light source in the kitchen (an overhead) and many of our pics are shot after dark. Plus during the day the sunlight isn't so great anyway. Right now we're battling an insane mixture of color temperatures. Here are the main limitation: 1) We don't cook just for the photos. That means that my shots are usually limited to a few quick snaps before we eat. I don't see this changing. 2) The budget is really low. So I need suggestions to improve the lighting that won't break the bank. I do have one of those metal dome lights with the clip on it. I try to bounce it off the ceiling but am not sure how successful that is. 3) The budget issue applies to the lens as well. Here's my workflow as of now: shoot in RAW adjust color temperature in the canon RAW conversion thingee adjust levels in photoshop until it looks more or less ok (and remove crumbs and poo poo like that) occasionally add a tiny bit of unsharp mask. We've been experimenting with styling the pics with table cloth and stuff like that. Anyway, here are some of the pics for your perusal and ridicule. They more or less travel backwards in time so if they get worse as you scroll don't be surprised. All suggestions are welcome! I don't expect to be able to get shots like this guy because I don't see having the time to stage and style the shots when we're like "hurry up, dinner's getting cold!" but it would be nice to move in that direction...  ^ First experiment with shooting outdoors on an overcast day.      This was a tough one because of the overall brownness of the dish, even though it was awesome. I think I made a beautiful dish look not so appetizing.              
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2009 15:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 08:41 |
|
|
I've sort of thrown myself into food photography since I work for a catering company and they can't afford to hire a professional every time they need some shots taken. The absolute biggest hurdle I've encountered is that in order to get a good photo you have to have food that looks good. Even then, not only does the food have to be presentable, but the plate, the table/counter/whatever, and whatever is in the background. I'm using a Rebel XT, the kit lens, a 50/1.8, and recently picked up a Tamron 18-200/3.5-5.6 and a 430EX-II Speedlite. As for lighting, I found this guy's videos extremely helpful the first time I tried to take any food shots http://www.youtube.com/user/prophotolife The single worklight pointed straight up works well enough, but I've gotten my best results with a diffused flash. You're off to a good start it seems. Although, the really narrow depth of field seems to be hurting some of your shots. They seem just a tad too out of focus to get some of the textures out of the food. Here's some of the better shots I've managed to take. http://chrisbrennerphoto.com/food If you have any other questions I'd be happy to try and answer them after work.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2009 16:52
|
|
|
I have nothing to contribute yet, but I'll be watching this thread closely, as I'm interested in the same thing you are. I will say, however, the 50mm is probably your best lens choice, seems most food photographers are using either that or the 85mm .. the f/1.8 is great for the shallow DoF that seems to go great with food photography. Do you have a hotshoe flash? You may want to look into getting a hotshoe flash or two, and maybe some cheap wireless triggers ala Strobist.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2009 17:13
|
|
|
charliebravo77: I found a sweet deal on a used Tamron 28-200 3.8/5.6 Lens. Maybe I should pounce on that... I'm gonna watch those videos today. Thanks for the link. And, yeah, I go a little overboard on the low DoF thing sometimes. I try to bracket a few different settings but sometimes I'm rushing and I forget to cover myself. rigeek: The 50mm is nice but I feel very limited. Half the time I'm backed halfway across the room trying to get a whole plate into a shot, or overhead shots I'm standing on tables and poo poo. It would be nice to have another option I guess. Since lighting is my biggest obstacle I'm probably best off investing in that. What's a good cheap, easy to set up, small footprint flash set up that I could do? I'd love to remodel the kitchen to have a permanent lighting set up! How sweet would that be...
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2009 17:49
|
|
|
Well corksroo you need to be aware of the compression effect you get when you use your chosen focal length too - if you use a wide angle lens you get close which makes everything farther apart and distorted, telephoto gets you farther away which brings everything together. Much like faces are a poor idea with a wide angle, I could see food looking strange too. I have no idea if that's an issue or not v v For sure if you go too wide your depth of field will be huge and you will get lots of distractions. The 50mm really is perfect for this.And a word of warning: generally superzooms like a 28-200 suck pretty hard. Canon's 24-105 f/4L has finally made a decent wide to telephoto range possible but it's a $1000 lens. Anything less and you will be disappointed. Stick to a 70-200 or so, they are solid performers. For cheap consumer zooms, Sigma has a 70-300 APO DG Macro that's $190 new and a crazy good deal.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2009 18:27
|
|
|
Yup, I know all about compression. (I used to be a hack independent filmmaker and did a compression shot or two in my day) I've thought about the differences in tele vs wide and just would like a little more flexibility. But yeah the 50 is very nice in terms of minimizing any sort of weird warping. Maybe a lens isn't what I need. Maybe I need to focus on lighting. That said, this also looks like maybe a nice compromise: Canon EF 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5 II USM
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2009 18:36
|
|
|
I follow Michael Ruhlman's blog about cooking just because I like his book and everything, recently his wife has been posting blog entries about how she take photos of his food. Apparently she's set up a full website with stuff: http://ruhlmanphotography.com/#/page/home/ On the blog you get a few tips and such, its fun to read. A lot of the comments in here are a lot more detailed. Her comments are still good stuff. http://blog.ruhlman.com/food-photography
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2009 20:42
|
|
|
thanks, although his blog seems to be broken...
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2009 23:57
|
|
|
One thing that's really easy to fix and keep an eye out for that can make food look terrible is the color temperature. Food just looks bad under the yellow-y light and it's a really easy thing to fix 
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2009 00:17
|
|
|
This is a tempting idea. I haven't tried any food photography, but I own an old Nikon & a 50mm 1.8 lens that'd be perfect to test some food shots with. I may try to finish a roll on some dishes and will post them here if I get it scanned in the next few days.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2009 01:08
|
|
|
I'm abandoning the idea of getting a new lens. I want to improve the lighting first and foremost, and the good deal on the 28-105 or whatever it was is gone. So here's my plan: 1) get a reflector. I might just get some foamcore but I need something. 2) put a brighter, daylight-balanced bulb in the kitchen overhead 3) build something like this: http://jugalbandi.info/2008/08/photography-solutions-do-it-yourself-tabletop-lighting-system/ which looks like a fun project regardless. In other news, one of our pics made it onto tastespotting.com which is a first, so we're obviously heading in the right direction.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2009 14:34
|
|
|
corkskroo posted:
You don't even need to go that far. Have a look here: http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=281524 That should get you started for less than $50.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2009 16:17
|
|
|
rigeek posted:You don't even need to go that far. Have a look here: http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=281524 crikey that's an epic thread! I may have to try something like that, although a box won't allow me the range of angles I want to get for each dish. I'll post pics when I do rig something. This weekend is a good possibility...
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2009 21:23
|
|
|
http://www.loumanna.com/ He's a friend of mine, and offers workshops if you're in the NYC area. He also loves to help, and replies to email as such.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2009 00:17
|
|
|
corkskroo posted:I'm abandoning the idea of getting a new lens. I want to improve the lighting first and foremost Yes. I feel like food photography is way more about lighting than lenses. I would make some scrims and buy some clamp lights from Home Depot. here are some links my lighting teacher sent out [contains titties] http://photo.net/photography-lighting-equipment-techniques-forum/00AQW1 [contains titties] http://www.prophotolife.com/2008/04/22/technical-more-sticks-screens-and-bulbs/ you don't have to use wood like the instructions, PVC pipe and corner joints work alright and it's more portable as you can break it down. Ripstop nylon from a fabric store works great as a diffusion material as well http://www.shuttertalk.com/articles/diylighting#introduction $75 lighting kit 40oz fucked around with this message at 05:40 on Dec 4, 2009 |
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2009 05:38
|
|
|
This is great, I have just got my first ever real photo assignment that could actually lead somewhere so following this thread avidly. I do agree that lighting is more important than just about anything, although it does depend on how beautiful the dish is as well as how long it can stand up to being photographed. Some stuff I have been working on, with foams and sabayons, lasts about 20 seconds if I am lucky. I usually have to photograph things on the "pass" at the restaurant during service, so you can imagine how tough that is. Trying to get any kind off off camera flash is basically impossible and so I usually just bounce or diffuse a fill flash and use the light from the heat lamps. Although on it gets harder on the Garde Manger pass with no heat lamps... I also did a shoot in the dining room, I had about 10 minutes to set up and then the chef carved in about 3 minutes and I was shooting frantically. Some examples  
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2009 07:36
|
|
|
mysticp posted:I also did a shoot in the dining room, I had about 10 minutes to set up and then the chef carved in about 3 minutes and I was shooting frantically. Some great shots there! I can see that as hurried as you must have been you paid some attention to detail (all handles and implements facing the same way unless that's some chef thing) the composition is good and the lighting is pretty decent. Is that guy carving a peacock?
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2009 01:07
|
|
|
noss posted:Some great shots there! I can see that as hurried as you must have been you paid some attention to detail (all handles and implements facing the same way unless that's some chef thing) the composition is good and the lighting is pretty decent. For the first shot I had quite a bit of time, plus the whole carving guéridon was set up for me. For the chef carving stuff I had no time at all, as he is a very experienced european chef he was blindingly quick. I had to keep telling him to slow down so I could frame some different shots. I wish I had been able to use off camera lighting, the shadows on the chef jacket and apron really bother me. He is carving a duck, it is one of his most famous dishes. A swiss magazine is writing an article about him and they wanted a few shots for it. Most importantly he was happy with them, so I am going to be shooting more of his food in the near future.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2009 09:19
|
|
|
All my plans of going out and getting an additional shop light and some other stuff to diffuse the lights were thwarted by assorted things so I just grabbed a couple of 100W "reveal" bulbs (which claim to be "full-spectrum") at rite aid and bounced one off the ceiling. I snapped this with minimal fussing. It's kind of over exposed but maybe heading in the right direction? The other thing that drives me crazy is in Photoshop I have to selected view > proof colors every time I start on a new image and do a huge amount of levels adjustment or else the image comes out very faded when I save to jpeg. I swear I never used to have to do this. I trace this additional step to when I got my current samsung monitor. Does anyone know what I'm talking about? I'll open an image, it'll look fine, and then if I "save for web" it goes to hell. I have to screw with the levels like crazy just to get it to look like it did coming off the camera. What's the proper proof setup setting for doing this work?
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2009 00:54
|
|
|
corkskroo posted:This is looking much better! The only suggestion I have is to include a bounce for the foreground, the lime could use a bit more lighting. Good improvement.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2009 08:54
|
|
|
corkskroo posted:I just grabbed a couple of 100W "reveal" bulbs (which claim to be "full-spectrum") at rite aid and bounced one off the ceiling. I snapped this with minimal fussing. It's kind of over exposed but maybe heading in the right direction? quote:The other thing that drives me crazy is in Photoshop I have to selected view > proof colors every time I start on a new image and do a huge amount of levels adjustment or else the image comes out very faded when I save to jpeg. I swear I never used to have to do this. I trace this additional step to when I got my current samsung monitor. Does anyone know what I'm talking about? I'll open an image, it'll look fine, and then if I "save for web" it goes to hell. I have to screw with the levels like crazy just to get it to look like it did coming off the camera. What's the proper proof setup setting for doing this work? I never use it, but I think "save for the web" minimizes file size and more importantly how many colors an image contains. This could be an issue. Is your monitor color calibrated?
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2009 03:11
|
|
|
~~**food**~~ This one probably needs a larger size, the top of the steak is in focus, but not the plate because it's a double cut steak and really thick.   
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2009 07:04
|
|
|
40oz posted:Yes, that's a pretty high key image, the black band at top is distracting, and there is a sticker on the lime, but its pretty good. I think once you play around with diffusion and alter the shadows you'll get more of what you're looking. Yeah, I need to adjust things and I need a second dome light. I'll sketch out my idea later and post it. The line at the top is the edge of the counter and usually I'd clone-tool that out. And obviously the sticker doesn't matter; I just grabbed a few random things to snap for colors. quote:I'm not sure about this, I don't work digital enough, but: errrr... i went through some general calibrations when I got it but probably not in the way you're thinking... I need to spend a little time on this. Shoulda sprung for a better monitor. I have a smaller Sony monitor that gives much better colors but I can't hook up two monitors to my computer (Mac Mini) and I can't find an external video card that will work with this platform/OS. Annoying.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2009 13:31
|
|
|
corkskroo posted:errrr... i went through some general calibrations when I got it but probably not in the way you're thinking... I need to spend a little time on this. Shoulda sprung for a better monitor. I have a smaller Sony monitor that gives much better colors but I can't hook up two monitors to my computer (Mac Mini) and I can't find an external video card that will work with this platform/OS. Annoying. Look up "color space" and "color profiling". The calibration the previous poster spoke of was getting an external device to "calibrate" your monitor's color, which sets it to a standard so that people see the same colors on different monitors. It sounds more like you were having a "color space" issue, where you are getting muted colors from switching between color spaces. I'm no wiz at this, but for instance if I load a RAW file in photoshop it will be AdobeRBG. When I go to save for web, it converts to sRBG and looks washed out. You need to convert the file to the sRBG colorspace or you will have issues like loosing intensity. Ask in the gear thread for people who know what the hell they are talking about to help you out.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2009 16:41
|
|
|
still only have the one light. Just been too busy to get another. But here's a shot from last night. Set up is just the regular kitchen overhead and a fluorescent bounced off the ceiling, white balanced off a card before shooting. on the plus side, i think the colors, the food and the plate look great. on the minus side of course i'm introducing all sorts of wacky shadows. I need to conform the bulbs and get another lamp.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2009 00:02
|
|
|
corkskroo posted:still only have the one light. Just been too busy to get another. But here's a shot from last night. Set up is just the regular kitchen overhead and a fluorescent bounced off the ceiling, white balanced off a card before shooting. I think this shot could use more DOF. At first I thought this photo was way out of focus, but it seems there there is a sliver of focused area. Are you using a tripod? Can you get away with a stopped down aperture?
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2009 06:16
|
|
|
jink posted:I think this shot could use more DOF. At first I thought this photo was way out of focus, but it seems there there is a sliver of focused area. Are you using a tripod? Can you get away with a stopped down aperture? I do have a tripod and I use it for everything. For each setup I try to do low, medium and high DOF shots, but for this set up for some reason I only got low shots. (probably due to the whole "hurry so we can eat" thing) But for this show I like it because the filling is in focus (or mostly) I'll try to be better about getting higher dof shots in the future.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2009 13:39
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fUjz_eiIX8k
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2009 14:22
|
|
|
Mannequin posted:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fUjz_eiIX8k I love the quirky sound effects to make it all kid friendly. But yea, once I saw a trick where they took a raw turkey, painted the skin to make it look crispy and then took a steamer wand to only cook the one section they carve open. Has anyone else heard the Mitch Hedberg joke about gluing sesame seeds to the buns? "wtf is a sesame?"
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2009 15:37
|
|
|
Mannequin posted:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fUjz_eiIX8k Haha, awesome. Thanks for posting.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2009 18:28
|
|
|
That video is awesome and also it's the exact opposite of how we do things. I love it. Anyway, the little tart pic above was featured on Food Gawker! Moving up in the world...
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2009 14:27
|
|
|
AIIAZNSK8ER posted:I love the quirky sound effects to make it all kid friendly. But yea, once I saw a trick where they took a raw turkey, painted the skin to make it look crispy and then took a steamer wand to only cook the one section they carve open. Back in the old days of commercial food photography turkeys were commonly basted with motor oil to get a nice color. Now that kind of heavy-handed styling is generally avoided as much as possible.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2009 21:56
|
|
|
brad industry posted:Back in the old days of commercial food photography turkeys were commonly basted with motor oil to get a nice color. has it become an ethics issue? or does it induce too many legal troubles for people saying its false advertising?
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2009 07:13
|
|
|
brad industry posted:Back in the old days of commercial food photography turkeys were commonly basted with motor oil to get a nice color. I'm curious too: Why is this avoided with food now when it's obviously a free for all when it comes to models and fashion/perfume/cosmetics?
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2009 07:32
|
|
|
Because the current aesthetic for food photography is minimally styled food with natural looking lighting. Not that they don't style the food, because they do, but it's to put the emphasis on natural/healthy/organic/authentic cooking/whatever. The vast majority of food photography isn't advertising. Truth in advertising laws don't have anything to do with the amount of styling either, it just has to be the actual product you would buy. McDonald's can't substitute a homemade bun for the photo of a burger, but they can pick one bun out of 1000, prop it up with toothpicks, put sesame seeds on perfectly with tweezers, and spray it with hairspray to get it to shine.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2009 08:40
|
|
|
brad industry posted:Because the current aesthetic for food photography is minimally styled food with natural looking lighting. Not that they don't style the food, because they do, but it's to put the emphasis on natural/healthy/organic/authentic cooking/whatever.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2009 05:35
|
|
|
Some new stuff. This is going to be a framing shot for a magazine that the restaurant I shoot for produces to give out for its customers. The subject is poultry and this was a shot of a chicken liver mousse that they make. The idea is the recipe will be provided and printed in the white space of the shot. Hence all the white space. This was shot with a Canon 7D, 17-55 2.8 IS USM @ 55mm, ISO 100, 1/250 @ f4.0 with 550ex flash at 1/8 mounted off camera, diffused into an umbrella (camera right) with a reflector on the left (I improvised with some aluminum foil!). I do wish that I had a second flash to do maybe a 3:1 ratio instead of using an improvised reflector, but overall I am pretty happy with it. I used the camera's built in flash trigger, but set it to manual as I am still getting used to something other than a Cactus V4. The cool thing is as a result of this I pretty much have the gig to shoot all the food for them for the next 6 months. I am super happy as this is not just a lot of exposure but also a lot of practice.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2009 09:14
|
|
|
mysticp posted:Some new stuff. This is going to be a framing shot for a magazine that the restaurant I shoot for produces to give out for its customers. The subject is poultry and this was a shot of a chicken liver mousse that they make. The idea is the recipe will be provided and printed in the white space of the shot. Hence all the white space. Wow, that looks great! I am digging the use of white space for the recipe, a great idea. Will you show the final design with recipe in this thread? I think your lighting works well in this photo. The reflector did a great job. I don't see any dark areas that need more lighting, especially since the main subject (the pâté) is well lit.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2009 02:15
|
|
|
notlodar posted:Can they actually spray it with hairspray? Yeah sure. The law just says the thing in the ad has to be the thing they're actually selling. So you can't use mashed potatoes as a stand in for ice cream or go to the farmer's market and get fresh organic peas to shoot for your canned peas ad, but you can have a couple of pro chefs preparing it while a team of stylists does their magic and a photographer lights the gently caress out of it. Like Elmer's glue is commonly used to replace milk in cereal advertisements (doesn't soak the cereal) but they're not selling milk. I just worked on a shoot where the stylist used hot glue to hold together a sandwich and she went through like 3 heads of lettuce to find the one perfect leaf. mysticp posted:I would have moved the bread slightly to the left so that shadow doesn't fall on it, and it would be nice to see more of a specular highlight on that brown liquid to give a better idea of texture but that's kind of nit picky. It's a little to FLOATIN' UNTETHERED IN WHITE SEAMLESS SPACE with no sense of narrative for me, but if that's what they wanted it looks great. Congrats on the job.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2009 02:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 08:41 |
|
|
brad industry posted:I would have moved the bread slightly to the left so that shadow doesn't fall on it, and it would be nice to see more of a specular highlight on that brown liquid to give a better idea of texture but that's kind of nit picky. It's a little to FLOATIN' UNTETHERED IN WHITE SEAMLESS SPACE with no sense of narrative for me, but if that's what they wanted it looks great. Congrats on the job. Yeah I was kind of against the whole white space thing, but I imagine when the editor puts the recipe on it then it will look a lot better. I have a ton of shots of the plate without even the bread on it, which I prefer, but the Chef called the final shot on which one he liked. I also totally agree on the bread, it's the one part which bothers me the most. Assuming i get the final page in some sort of digital format then I will post it here. It looks like I will be setting up a number of shoots in the new year to catalog the entire menu, which is a ton of work, but I am really looking forward to it. For info, the restaurant is Eleven Madison Park in Manhattan.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2009 09:07
|
|