16 replies to this topic

[Holly Moore]

Having amassed a bunch of AMEX points and having grown increasingly frustrated with my inability to obtain food shots the caliber of philadining and other SLR users (of course I blame my point and shoot camera and not any relative lack of skill), I have ordered a Nikon D90 SLR camera.

If I wasn't intimidated by the complexities of SLR's before, DPreview's detailed review of the Nikon D'90 has me wondering what the hell I have gotten myself into. Though AUTO is still an option, it strikes me as buying a Ferrari and then using the automatic transmission to take it on a spin around the test track.

The D90 has so many settings. There are so many variables for most of these settings. My primary use will be in-restaurant photography. My primary end-use is the HollyEats site though I have sold some pics to magazines and for one cookbook.

Two questions to get me started.

1. On which of the myriad of settings and controls should I focus?

2. I have always shot jpg format even though raw has been available. I save the unedited original and then edit a copy for my site. Nikon offers both NEF and Compressed NEF raw formats - also NEF with and embedded JPG. From what I read the NEF format with Nikons Raw format editing software (properly wielded) will produce superior pics. Is it worth burning storage space to use the Comepressed NEF format? How much more storage space will a Compressed NEF file take compared to a fine raw JPG file?

That's it for now. I suspect I will be seeking more advice once the camera actually arrives.

Thanks

Edited by Holly Moore, 20 June 2009 - 07:19 PM.

[David A. Goldfarb]

I shoot everything with manual settings, but if you want to start out and have good results immediately I'd recommend learning to shoot using aperture priority auto exposure, where you set the aperture on the lens and the camera sets the shutter speed. The aperture not only controls the amount of light that strikes the sensor, but controls the depth of field or how much of the subject will be in focus, which is an important aesthetic choice to make in food photography. I also recommend using manual focus, because food photography is generally close-up photography, and it is very difficult for the camera to know where to focus in that situation. Autofocus will always get something in focus, but it can't read your mind.

In general, I'd avoid using a flash on the camera. This almost always produces very flat looking light, at least until you can figure out how to combine camera flash with available light, which is a large subject for another day.

So if you are using aperture priority and not using flash and shooting indoors, you're going to be getting exposure times that are longer than you can handhold, so I'd recommend using a tripod. I'll handhold a quick snapshot in a restaurant, usually by using a high ISO setting, so that I can get a faster shutter speed, but higher ISO settings usually result in lower image quality. For every food shot I do at home I use a tripod.

Shoot raw, because you can fix a lot of mistakes made in the field without losing much image quality that way. It is often difficult to judge color balance, for instance, from the LCD screen, but if you are looking at a large image on a calibrated monitor, you can see things you might otherwise miss, and the camera's "auto white balance" feature is not entirely reliable.

Learn to read the histogram to be sure your exposure settings are right. One of the main weaknesses of digital photography, as opposed to film, particularly for food photography, is the ability to retain detail in the highlights. A histogram displays the distribution of tonal values in the image. The shadows are at the left side of the curve and the highlights are at the right. Generally, you want to adjust the exposure so that you don't clip the highlights (which is to say, you don't want to overexpose), so the shadow end can be almost touching the left hand limit of the graph, but there should be plenty of space at the highlight end if possible, so you have room to adjust the curve afterward, if need be, particularly if you are using available light.

If you are using artificial lighting, then you should be able to get it right in the camera without requiring much post-processing, but lighting is another subject for another day. If you want to learn about lighting, I highly recommend Hunter, Fuqua, and Biver's book, Light: Science and Magic.

Edited by David A. Goldfarb, 20 June 2009 - 08:52 PM.

[docsconz]

Nice summary, David. Another advantage of shooting raw and an important one is image preservation. Every time a jpeg is opened the image degrades somewhat because it gets recompressed or something like that. The fact is over time the quality of the image dwindles. This doesn't happen in raw. If you must save photos in a different format, try TIFF.

[David A. Goldfarb]

Thanks, Doc.

JPEGs degrade every time the image is saved, but if you just open the image to view it and don't save it, nothing will happen to it.

For longer term digital file preservation (a big can of worms), TIFF is better than RAW, because RAW file formats tend to be proprietary, so the software you use to manipulate a Canon or Nikon RAW file today is less likely to be easily accessible in 25 years than something that can read TIFF files. This also presumes that the data is regularly migrated to easily readable storage media as older media become outmoded. For important images, it's not a bad idea to store multiple formats and make the best archival prints you can, because prints are "human readable," and as long as they are well preserved, can be duplicated by any imaging technology that becomes available in the future.

[Fat Guy]

Holly, just to amplify one bit of what David has said, learning to control the aperture lets you take advantage of the big thing that distinguishes SLR photography from point-and-shoot photography for web use. Other image quality considerations (such as resolution, and all the issues of RAW versus .jpg) are not as relevant when you're shrinking every image to 600x400 pixels anyway. But the depth of field control you get with mastery of aperture settings makes a huge difference. I'd say the other most important thing is lighting, which doesn't have a lot to do with your camera, except that SLR lenses tend to have better light-gathering ability (also related to the aperture issue).

[rlibkind]

Unless I missed it, while a number of posters have discussed the importance of controlling depth-of-field via aperature, no one has stated how the relationship works. Here goes...

At smaller aperatures, the depth of field is deeper, i.e., more of the image, front-to-back will be in focus. At wider aperatures, the depth of field is narrower, i.e., only the plane you focus on will be sharp, with everything to the rear (and, depending upon the particulars, to the front) will be more or less out-of-focus. The usefulness of the narrow depth of field is that it concentrates the viewer's attention on the portion of the photo in focus, i.e., the subject. As information, the higher the f/stop number, the smaller the aperature; the lower the f/stop number, the wider the aperature.

As a consequence or using a wider aperature for narrower depth of field, you will have to compensate for the increased light level by increasing shutter speed; in available light hand-held photography this, as Martha would say, is a good thing, since it helps reduce the impact of shaky hands. So does a built-in image stabilization system.

btw, the beauty of small aperatures is what makes pinhole and old "Brownie" type cameras capable of taking relatively sharp photos. For snapshot purposes, that's what you want. But, generally, you'll want the narrower depth of field in food photography.

I've been using a Canon G9, an advanced point-and-shoot, because for my purposes I don't want to haul around a heavy camera to restaurants and on my visits to farmers' markets. To me losing the depth of field control is a reasonable sacrifice to get the ease of portability. With very few exceptions, SLRs, whether film or digital, are weighty affairs. That's because the larger sensors demand larger lenses, and because of the mirror-prism system.

Mirrorless SLR-like cameras, which show an electronic image in the viewfinder rather than an optical image, are starting to appear, with a commensurate reduction in weight but retaining the benefits of interchangeable lenses and aperature-controlled depth of field; as these models are more fully developed, they will tempt me, since they will be lighter in weight than today's digital SLRs. In the meantime, if I want really great quality photos, I'll get out one of my 35-year-old Canon SLRs and load it with Kodachrome 64 (yes, you can still get it, though there's only one lab in the world that still processes it), or my Mamiya C330 with Fujichrome Velvia 100, both with tripod whenever possible.

[docsconz]

Thanks, Doc.

JPEGs degrade every time the image is saved, but if you just open the image to view it and don't save it, nothing will happen to it.

For longer term digital file preservation (a big can of worms), TIFF is better than RAW, because RAW file formats tend to be proprietary, so the software you use to manipulate a Canon or Nikon RAW file today is less likely to be easily accessible in 25 years than something that can read TIFF files.  This also presumes that the data is regularly migrated to easily readable storage media as older media become outmoded.  For important images, it's not a bad idea to store multiple formats and make the best archival prints you can, because prints are "human readable," and as long as they are well preserved, can be duplicated by any imaging technology that becomes available in the future.

Thank you, David, for the additional information.

[docsconz]

As a consequence or using a wider aperature for narrower depth of field, you will have to compensate for the increased light level by increasing shutter speed; in available light hand-held photography this, as Martha would say, is a good thing, since it helps reduce the impact of shaky hands. So does a built-in image stabilization system.

One can keep shutter speed the same, but change ISO to compensate for changing aperture. Depending on the ISO and shutter speeds, one approach may be preferable to another.

[David A. Goldfarb]

In the meantime, if I want really great quality photos, I'll get out one of my 35-year-old Canon SLRs and load it with Kodachrome 64 (yes, you can still get it, though there's only one lab in the world that still processes it), or my Mamiya C330 with Fujichrome Velvia 100, both with tripod whenever possible.

Hey, another Kodachrome fan! I shot four rolls of K64 with my Canon "New" F-1 (which hasn't been so new since 1983) just last week and am waiting for it to come back from Dwayne's. I prefer film really, for most things, but for a quick food shot for the web, I'll use the 40D.

Edited by David A. Goldfarb, 21 June 2009 - 10:14 AM.

[Fat Guy]

To me losing the depth of field control is a reasonable sacrifice to get the ease of portability.

Everybody is going to have a different cost benefit analysis here. Me, I take a lot of photos with my cell phone even though I know they're completely inferior to photos taken with even a crummy point-and-shoot digital camera. But the phone is something I already carry with me everywhere. Whereas, once I make the decision to carry a camera somewhere, I kind of feel like I may as well take the best one available. Then again I usually don't, because I'm lazy.

[David A. Goldfarb]

Hey, another Kodachrome fan!  I shot four rolls of K64 with my Canon "New" F-1 (which hasn't been so new since 1983) just last week and am waiting for it to come back from Dwayne's.  I prefer film really, for most things, but for a quick food shot for the web, I'll use the 40D.

No sooner do I post this than Kodak announces the end of Kodachrome--

http://www.kodak.com...alFilmPKR.jhtml

Dwayne's will continue processing it through the end of 2010, so shoot it while you can.

[philadining]

What lens did you get with it Holly?

Another thing to keep in mind is that depth of field is affected not only by aperture but also by focal length. A wide-angle lens is going to have a deeper depth of field than a telephoto at the same aperture setting. And there's even more to it than that, but aperture and focal length are the biggies.

I used to shoot with an inexpensive, but very useful, 50mm 1.8, almost always set to wide-open, which allowed me some decent shots even in very low light. But as you yourself had commented, that wide aperture created some pretty extreme focus effects!

At some point, I found a good deal on an 18-55mm lens, and found that I much preferred shooting at the wide-angle end of that lens, even though it wasn't as fast (didn't have as wide of an aperture.) First, there was less contorting myself around at a table trying to frame the shot with a fixed 50; second, between the wide angle and the smaller aperture, I get a wider depth of field, which keeps more of the food in focus; third, even with the longer shutter-speeds required due to the smaller maximum aperture, it's easier to get a steady shot with a wide-angle lens. It's even easier with a VR (vibration-reduction) lens, which I suspect you got, if you bought a kit.

I theoretically agree with David that a tripod is ideal, and any time I do serious shooting in a professional context, of course I use a tripod (and usually artificial lighting), but I find in the kind of restaurant hit-and-run shooting that you and I both do, a tripod is rarely practical. Small table-top tripods are very hard to position correctly on a table with food on it, and framing the shot and determining focus becomes an acrobatic affair. Full-size tripods are always in the way. Either tripod ends up drawing a lot of attention, even more than the SLR itself.

If you happen to be in a restaurant when its not crowded and you're hoping to sell a photo to a magazine (there must still be one or two magazines that still pay for photos, right?) I'd certainly recommend a tripod. But if you're just taking a quick shot of your sandwich at your table to post on Hollyeats.com, it's going to be way easier to just hand-hold it. Practice bracing your arms against your body, or on the table, or whatever, to hold the camera steady (holding it up to your eye helps) and gently squeezing the shutter.

Beyond that basic technique stuff, I'd recommend setting the camera to A, for aperture priority, and opening the lens up as far as it will go, which might only be 3.5 or so, if you have a typical kit zoom lens. If it's a VR lens, make sure the VR is switched on. If it's a zoom, use the wider-end of it, and get as close as your focus-range allows. If it's even a little dim, crank the ISO up to its highest setting, which will allow faster shutter-speeds, therefore less blurring. If it's nice and bright, use lower ISO settings. Keep in mind that higher ISOs will result in grainier photos, which may or may not matter much, depending on the use of the photo - on the web, not such a big deal, in print, extreme grain would be a problem. If you have plenty of light, you can shut the aperture down in order to get deeper focus, if desired. Set the white balance appropriately for the type of light you're encountering. I don't have that much luck with auto settings, so I tend to set that manually, and then do further adjustments when importing the RAW file.

If you haven't bought a lens yet, go for something wide, maybe even a non-zoom "prime" lens, if you don't mind carrying more than one lens around. If you want to be more practical, the 18-55mm zoom, or the 18-200mm zoom, are incredibly versatile lenses, if not the ultimate in optical quality.

And I do suggest shooting in RAW, I think it's worth the extra data storage space. Large SD cards are cheap, as are hard drives for your computer, and you can always delete everything except the best shots. Being able to tweak white balance and exposure and several other parameters during the RAW import process has made a HUGE improvement in my finished shots, and I suspect it would do the same for yours, even if you were only making minor adjustments, or hitting the "auto" buttons. I happen to use a full-on version of Photoshop for this, but Photoshop Elements does a pretty good job for less than $100, and gives you almost everything in the pro version other than working in CMYK colorspace, which you don't really need unless you're laying-out print materials yourself.

But the biggest things, way beyond the gear, are optimizing the light you have, and composing the shot. Get the subject into the spot where the light is best, and at the best angle. That might occasionally be counter-intuitive, but be open to trying a few angles. And then set-up the shot, as best you can. You don't always have that much flexibility if you're shooting stuff on a table, but when you can, move distracting things out of the frame, or make sure interesting things are in the background. Play with your depth of field to make those other elements more or less prominent.

Have fun! I look forward to seeing new pix...

Edited by philadining, 22 June 2009 - 10:41 AM.

[Holly Moore]

Missed Philadining's reply until just now. The lens is a VR 18-105 mm that is standard with the package. Weighs a ton and protrudes out rather rudely. Since I won't be doing all that much telephoto work, I'm thinking of burning some more AMEX points on a lens like the 18-55mm you mentioned.

The camera arrived a few days ago. Day 1 I unpacked it and assembled my mise en place - arranged all the pieces by size and structure. I then proceeded to charge the battery and put on the camera strap. I knew I was in beyond my depth when I had to refer to the manual to figure out how to secure the strap.

Day 2 I rested. Day 3 I attached the lens to the camera, inserted the charged battery and took a picture of one of my cats. Auto setting. So far so good.

This is Day 4 and I brought it to my office. I've taken a few shots of pedestrians. I seem to have managed point-and-shoot with auto focus. It is time for a late lunch so I will take the camera with me and try it out my first food shots.

Anyone know how rugged these cameras are. I travel about Center City Philadelphia on a Vespa. I have two options for transport - either in the compartment under my seat or strapped around my neck. On the trip over I drove with the camera around my neck. Very touristy. I'd much prefer keeping it in the seat compartment.

Thanks all for the great info so far. Tomorrow I will probably take David's advice and experiment with manual focus and aperture priority exposure.

[Chris Hennes]

I've been beating on my D50 for several years now: I managed to destroy the kit lens, but the body is fine, and I used the destruction of the kit 18-55 as an excuse to pick up a something with a bit wider aperture (so I can get that sexy narrow depth of field all the food photographers with actual talent are using these days). The double-digit Nikons are not pro bodies, so they can't take quite that level of abuse, but for someone taking 10k-20k photos per year they are fine, and you pay through the nose for the pro models. All of which is to say: you'll be fine in the seat of the Vespa.

[Alex]

I recently bought a Panasonic Lumix SLR, which has a close-up Food mode: "You can take pictures of food with a natural hue without being affected by the ambient light in restaurants etc." I haven't tried that setting yet. I don't know if the D90 has a similar setting.

[Holly Moore]

I am sure there are similar places elsewhere - but Philadelphia is lucky to have a photography-centric gathering place called Project Basho. Among other things they do there is teach an 8 hour "Learning Your Digital SLR" course which I just took today.

I learned so much, most of which I can apply specifically to food photography above and beyond Auto mode. Aperture and shutter settings, ISO settings, all the modes - especially manual, white balance, exposure adjustments, depth of field, flash adjustments, file options, and a bunch of other stuff I won't remember until I need it. Lots of individual time with the instructor figuring out one's camera and specific questions.

By professional photographer standards, I now probably know just enough to screw up all the settings. But I'm no longer intimidated by my new SLR and I've got a good feel how to approach food pics.

[David A. Goldfarb]

I've been to Project Basho and have met a few times in Philadelphia and New York with Tsuyoshi Ito, who runs it, and it's a great institution that he's building. Anything they do is sure to be of high quality.