601 replies to this topic

[Behemoth]

Thanks to FG'S most brilliant suggestion, we are starting a little crit-circle for food photography. As I have absolutely no shame and a boundless hunger for knowledge, I have decided to submit a couple of photos for your amusement. Tell me what I did wrong, tell me what I did right, tell me how I can make it all better.

First one I kinda liked. Following the example of heidihi, I shot this in daylight. The annoying thing is the sweat on the top of the egg (it came out of the fridge), which I only noticed once I had put everything away.


The second one was less successful. I wanted to replicate a restaurant situation, shooting in low light. I didn't bother with shutter speeds or anything, just used night mode on preset, and steadied my camera on a piece of cloth, on the back of a chair. The good thing is its not too blurry. The bad thing is...eh, pretty much everything else. Advice?

Edited by Behemoth, 16 June 2004 - 03:58 PM.

[tanabutler]

Okay, you asked.

I can't address things like f-stops or apertures or techno, but I do know the language of composition and design.

In the second shot, I would have come in closer or stepped back more, so that the bottom of the glass doesn't rest on the bottom of the picture. And I would have framed it with the glass and bottle off center, farther to the left. As it is, the bottle has the effect that a telephone pole "growing out of someone's head."

In the photo of the egg, I really like the texture of that mat. It's visually intriguing: it looks both metallic and organic.

[Behemoth]

In the second shot, I would have come in closer or stepped back more, so that the bottom of the glass doesn't rest on the bottom of the picture. And I would have framed it with the glass and bottle off center, farther to the left. As it is, the bottle has the effect that a telephone pole "growing out of someone's head."

I absolutely agree...my probelm with that one was, when I tried to get closer the auto-focus wouldn't work, and from farther away you couldn't read the label. Also, you can see I failed to turn off the reading light in the other room. But the shot glass could definitely be better placed. Pretty sloppy overall, actually. As I said, I have little or no shame

[tanabutler]

Actually, the reading light in the other room is not a distraction for me. It's compelling. Like, "What's back there?" Moody, even.

Nothing beats a good macro lens for focus, in my book. It's one of the first features I made good use of.

[jhlurie]

While it won't help your short-term goal of improving your camera skills, both of the situations you show can be improved (at least for web-use) by digital post-processing. The egg sweat can probably be lessened or even eliminated with some kind of use of a blending tool or a targeted contrast reduction just on that little area, and the dark dinner scene could certainly be brightened and the colors (mainly the yellows, since there aren't many others present to enhance) brought up a bit.



In terms of composition, I'm no expert, but it helps to be able to see stuff in the first place. It does look a little unbalanced though. I'd have changed the angle a bit so that I was closer to the glass, but also swung clockwise around the table a bit. Or maybe have moved a few of the pieces of that table--there's a real empty space on the left that needs to be filled.

Also, technically, I guess it's a bad thing that we can see you in the mirror. Or is that indeed another room beyond? I admit I can't quite tell.

[Anna N]

What a great idea to have a photo-critique thread - if only the camera I used to borrow hadn't met such an ignominious end.

[Behemoth]

While it won't help your short-term goal of improving your camera skills, both of the situations you show can be improved (at least for web-use) by digital post-processing.

That's actually a fantastic point, and what you did with my photo is great incentive to start looking into that. I am really a low-tech person at heart. I have a visual arts background but until now my usual medium had been pen and ink. (I've done some semi-professional illustration.) I've been wanting to get into photography for a really long time but usually lacked both funds and nerves. Finally, after years of borrowing other people's stuff, I decided to take the leap. Anyway, please don't take what I posted too seriously, I merely wanted to stick something up there so that other people would get brave and post something too. I learn a lot from just seeing what other people do.

Oh, there's no mirror, that's the living room.

Edited by Behemoth, 16 June 2004 - 12:07 PM.

[jhlurie]

Well dangers exist with digital post-processing, at least at the amatuer home levels.

For example, look at the photo I enhanced--specifically at the floor behind the table (it's hard to tell--I'm talking about the light area behind the table--that is the floor and not a backing wall, right?). It's subtle, but do you see the blocky splotches? Those are annoying artifacts of the enhancement process.

You could, of course, just crop the photo. I'm not sure if that totally fixes the compostion problems, but it does focus things a bit more on the bottle and glass. You'd never do this for printing out a photo, but again, for web-use, it's just fine.

[Suzanne F]

Horses sweat, men perspire, ladies glow, and eggs . . . ??

(Sorry, nothing substantive to add, but what a great idea for a thread!)

[Toliver]

Regarding the Egg picture, again it depends on what you want to convey. If your purpose was to show off the food (as will be the purpose of most eGulleters posting pictures of food..."Here's what I made for dinner last night", etc) you need a fill light so the egg will look better.
I'd suggest placing a white card (like white cardboard or posterboard...the pros call them "reflectors") off-camera to the right of the egg which will bounce the light coming from the left back onto the right side of the egg. It won't be as bright as your Key Light (which is what your main source of light is called) but will help to fill in the underlit areas/shadows. You can prop the white card up with a salt shaker or whatever is on hand.
If you actually used a low powered light on the right, it would be called, of course, a Fill Light.
And if this were video production there would also be a back light which helps separate the subjects from the background. But depth of field will help do in still photography what a backlight does in video.
Regarding the candle/wine pic, you could also use a little reflector (again, off-camera) on the left side to add a little highlight on the left sides of all the glass.

Also, compare the light in both pics. You have very warm, inviting light in the 2nd picture but the light in the egg picture has a blue tinge (fluorescent?) which lends a "coldness" to the image. Perhaps a reflector would help, or maybe a filter change to adjust for the blueness of the light (if you have that option) or some post-tweaking in an image processing program like Photoshop to shift the ambience more towards the red to gain back some warmth.

That being said, when we (the company I work for) shoot food for video (a whole different animal), we put the Key Light in back (so it's pointed towards the food & camera) and place a reflector or soft Fill light in front. Works like a charm for us.

[Behemoth]

Also, compare the light in both pics. You have very warm, inviting light in the 2nd picture but the light in the egg picture has a blue tinge (fluorescent?) which lends a "coldness" to the image. Perhaps a reflector would help, or maybe a filter change to adjust for the blueness of the light (if you have that option) or some post-tweaking in an image processing program like Photoshop to shift the ambience more towards the red to gain back some warmth.

The egg picture was taken in daylight. The bluish cast comes from the mat, and is fairly true to life. I don't mind it so much since I liked that it contrasted with the warmth of the egg. I suppose I could try it with the WB set to flourescent. The nice thing about digital photography is you can't waste film.

What I wanted to capture was the difference in texture between the mat, the cup, and the surface of the egg. You are absolutely right, the egg is too dark. I think a reflector will make a big difference. I have a piece of white mat board somewhere.

I think what I will try to do is recontruct the same two images. The reason I chose two very basic subjects is because I wanted a scene I could replicate at will and practice with, and the content wouldn't be distracting. For the second image, apart from the composition, the macro setting automatically sets off the flash. I plan to go back to the manual to figure out how to override that.

I really appreciate your generosity with both time and advice. I hope other amatuers won't be shy, this is really helpful stuff.

[jhlurie]

I think a little shadowing is okay sometimes. It's more the shadow on the base of the egg cup that's distracting as opposed to the shading on the egg itself.

[tanabutler]

We're going to all have to give each other permission to "borrow" each others' images in this thread, if we are going to use them for own own tweaks and suggestions.

Right?

I, for one, will hereby grant permission to anyone in this thread to take any photo I submit in this thread, if they want to "borrow" it, tweak it, and upload their results into their eGullet images folder.

No copyright violations in this thread.

Sound good?

[Toliver]

No copyright violations in this thread.

Sound good?

Sounds like a grand idea. Perhaps one of eGullet's hosts (who have the power) can edit/pin a little "Rules & Reg's" at the top of this thread stating such: "Anything posted in this one thread is fair game and no copy rights apply."
Being able to freely tweak pictures would be of great help.

edited to say: Having said that, here is a before & after of the Egg picture after running "Auto Contrast" & "Auto Color" in Photoshop:

Going back to your original intention (showing off the texture as opposed to showing off your meal), having the light coming from a back angle helps show off the texture better than a front-facing light. And a side fill might even wash out any texture you were going for. You would have to play with the light placement in relation to your subject to find the ideal texture...which is why most food photographers use studios with lights they can move, barn door, scrim, etc.
But note that this kind of photography is going to be an exception for the intention of this thread (or what the intension of this thread should be). Most eGulleteer's will want to find out the basics techniques so they can post semi-decent images of their meals/dishes/ingredients. You're going a little beyond that...

Edited by Toliver, 16 June 2004 - 02:16 PM.

[Behemoth]

Perhaps one of eGullet's hosts (who have the power) can edit/pin a little "Rules & Reg's" at the top of this thread stating such:  "Anything posted in this one thread is fair game and no copy rights apply."
Being able to freely tweak pictures would be of great help.

Agreed.

But note that this kind of photography is going to be an exception for the intention of this thread (or what the intension of this thread should be).  Most eGulleteer's will want to find out the basics techniques so they can post semi-decent images of their meals/dishes/ingredients.  You're going a little beyond that...

.

Also agreed. Though I would add a suggestion: I would really like it if people posted photos with specific problems they would like to solve, so that the problem can be addressed with different attempted "fixes". I chose low lighting, for example, because it is a very common problem. Your egg-photo tip on backlighting is exactly the type of info I really need. Then again, I realize it is often hard to figure out exactly what isn't quite working with a photo so I'm sure I could pick up something from just about any example. I guess what I am trying to say is, I am less interested in the plating, more interested in the overall composition and lighting techniques.

If anyone has 'em, I would love to see some examples of outdoor food markets. Outdoor photos at high noon can be a real challenge. I don't have any at the moment but will try to take a few sometime this week.

Edited by Behemoth, 16 June 2004 - 02:45 PM.

[Hest88]

There's also an interesting point someone once pointed out to me regarding "Photoshopping." In traditional photography, a certain amount of tweaking still happens in the darkroom so no one should feel like an inferior photographer if they have to do some digital tweaking.

[tanabutler]

Here are my fiddles.

I used the airbrush tool a little on the shiny spot of the egg, and did some adjusting with the levels (command-L on a Mac) in Photoshop.



This I cropped, turned into greyscale, then back into RGB. I added three layers and scaled back their opacity to 20% or less, and filled each layer with a certain red, yellow, or ochre. I also adjusted the levels a bit.



EDIT: the second one is completely different for me, emotionally. The mysterious nighttime aspect is gone: I can see the things on the wall, and what once looked like a light on in the other room is not that at all.

Not better or worse, but different. Interesting.

Edited by tanabutler, 16 June 2004 - 02:56 PM.

[hillvalley]

This thread is a great idea. I do have one suggestion. My monitor is an old fashion standard size, 15 inches I think, and I can't see the whole photo. I can't be the only poor slob reading on a small screen. Could we pick a standard size that we know will fit on all screens? I did not get the full effect of the first two pics because they were too big to see all at one.

Rant over. You may not return to your regularly scheduled critiquing.

[Toliver]

You can see the effect of a Back Light in the egg picture. The Key Light in this picture is at such an angle behind the egg that it is acting almost like a Back Light. Note the whitish arc along the top edge of the egg which makes the egg "pop" from the background. This is what a backlight (usually placed up above the subject) will achieve.
I noticed another thing "wrong" with the Egg picture. Take a look at it and ask yourself where is the center of focus? Not in a composition sense but in a technical sense. If you look at the mat that the egg is on, it looks like the very front of the foreground is in focus. As you move your eye to the back you can see about where the egg cup is that the focus is not as sharp. If the intention of the photo is to show the texture of the egg, then this wouldn't be a good photo to illustrate that.
If it's to show the texture of the mat, then it's a succeful image.

[Behemoth]

I tried to redo the egg photo but there are a lot of things I need to adjust -- will need to look through the manual again tonight. I will make a pledge to write down what settings I am using for future reference. Hillvalley, I would be happy to resize the original photos -- just tell me what would be good.

We really need some new photos now, and photoshoping mine doesn't count anymore. In the meantime, I have lots of homework...

[tanabutler]

I tried to redo the egg photo but there are a lot of things I need to adjust -- will need to look through the manual again tonight. I will make a pledge to write down what settings I am using for future reference. Hillvalley, I would be happy to resize the original photos -- just tell me what would be good.

We really need some new photos now, and photoshoping mine doesn't count anymore. In the meantime, I have lots of homework...

The small screens are 640x480. So no photo should be taller than 480.

[Behemoth]

Okay, for forum moderator:

Vertical photos no taller than 480. No copyrights. (My addition: write down what settings you use, if possible). Anything else I'm forgetting? I would go ahead and erase this post whenever the topic gets pinned. Thanks!

[Toliver]

No erasing.
We're off to a good start. This thread is progressing nicely. IMHO.

[jhlurie]

To some extent, the User Agreement of the site cedes the right to reuse posted material to the site itself, but it's probably a stretch bigger than we want to try and extend that to any person reading the site. I'm also pretty sure that we can't create any kind of legally binding mandate by putting a message at the top of this thread.

To be honest, I didn't particularly worry about this when I first altered Behemoth's picture, then again, as a site official I kind of had that right of reuse thing in my head, which as I said probably isn't applicable to everyone, and in that particular circumstance only marginally to me.

I recommend that when you post, you simply add a statement that you are allowing download and manipulation. I'm going to draw the attention of Mr. Shaw--the lawyer--to this topic, but it seems like a good place to start.

[balmagowry]

To some extent, the User Agreement of the site cedes the right to reuse posted material to the site itself, but it's probably a stretch bigger than we want to try and extend that to any person reading the site.  I'm also pretty sure that we can't create any kind of legally binding mandate by putting a message at the top of this thread. 

No - but at least in this case "any person reading the site" is restricted to eG members, isn't it? since the thread is in the user area.

Damn - just lost a reply I was posting to something behemoth said (may try to reconstruct later because it included some egg thoughts) - I think the camera name/model should be included along with settings for each new image. Easier than trying to keep track of who has what camera, and will help to broaden our general familiarity with different types of gear.

[ruthcooks]

Eggs dew.

[jhlurie]

To some extent, the User Agreement of the site cedes the right to reuse posted material to the site itself, but it's probably a stretch bigger than we want to try and extend that to any person reading the site.  I'm also pretty sure that we can't create any kind of legally binding mandate by putting a message at the top of this thread. 

No - but at least in this case "any person reading the site" is restricted to eG members, isn't it? since the thread is in the user area.

balmagowry, my point is that I don't think that the rights of reuse ceded to the site can be transfered in that fashion to anyone viewing it--be they members, anonymous guests, or space aliens. The "site" in this case is a legal entity--as represented by it's owners and operators--not a collection of individuals using it.

Just be specific in your posts that you are allowing download and manipulation of your images. That's the simplest way. At least until Fat Guy notices the PM I sent him and comes and says differently.

[balmagowry]

Ah - yes, I see. Sorry - I gotta stop being so pragmatic....

[pjs]

I don't take photos, but I have to edit them. So, my 2¢ follows:

Shoot big then crop and enlarge. This is the best tip I ever paid money for.

Ground your image. Your main subject should just touch or maybe run off the border of the photo. Also known as anchoring.

Our brains like to process images from the top left corner to the lower right corner. So compose your photos with this in mind. Flop Behemoth's candle shot and see if it doesn't improve. I'm too freakin' tired to edit it and post.

PJ

[tanabutler]

My Canon Powershot Pro1 came today. It is light, small, gorgeous, ergonomic, and as mysterious and powerful as a newborn baby.

It has more buttons than a shipful of sailors, and it pops open even quicker.

I have much to learn, and meanwhile I am knock-kneed, honeymoon, bleary in love, smitten with this camera.

Maybe y'all with your big heavy cameras think you're closer to God than I am. I can live with that.

I look forward to learning how to use this tool. I took them both out tonight on a date at Ristorante Avanti (glorious local/seasonal/organic), and wound up using my G1 Powershot for most of the shots. This is only web work, and the G1 is beautifully suited for that, and more.