Jump to content


Welcome to the eG Forums!

These forums are a service of the Society for Culinary Arts & Letters, a 501c3 nonprofit organization dedicated to advancement of the culinary arts. Anyone can read the forums, however if you would like to participate in active discussions please join the Society.

Photo

Food Shutter Bug Club (Part 1)


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
584 replies to this topic

#1 Behemoth

Behemoth
  • participating member
  • 1,658 posts
  • Location:Athens on the Isar/Athens in the Cornfields

Posted 16 June 2004 - 10:55 AM

Host Note: For a more current topic click here http://forums.egulle...tography-topic/

 

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.
i8560.jpg

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?

i8357.jpg


Edited by heidih, 01 September 2013 - 01:50 PM.


#2 tanabutler

tanabutler
  • legacy participant
  • 2,798 posts

Posted 16 June 2004 - 11:15 AM

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.

#3 Behemoth

Behemoth
  • participating member
  • 1,658 posts
  • Location:Athens on the Isar/Athens in the Cornfields

Posted 16 June 2004 - 11:25 AM

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 :wink:

#4 tanabutler

tanabutler
  • legacy participant
  • 2,798 posts

Posted 16 June 2004 - 11:37 AM

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.

#5 jhlurie

jhlurie
  • eGullet Society staff emeritus
  • 6,300 posts

Posted 16 June 2004 - 11:54 AM

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.

Posted Image

In terms of composition, I'm no expert, but it helps to be able to see stuff in the first place. :biggrin: 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. :raz: Or is that indeed another room beyond? I admit I can't quite tell.
Jon Lurie, aka "jhlurie"

#6 Behemoth

Behemoth
  • participating member
  • 1,658 posts
  • Location:Athens on the Isar/Athens in the Cornfields

Posted 16 June 2004 - 12:03 PM

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.


#7 jhlurie

jhlurie
  • eGullet Society staff emeritus
  • 6,300 posts

Posted 16 June 2004 - 12:25 PM

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.

Posted Image
Jon Lurie, aka "jhlurie"

#8 Toliver

Toliver
  • participating member
  • 4,628 posts
  • Location:Bakersfield, California

Posted 16 June 2004 - 12:32 PM

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.

“Peter: Oh my god, Brian, there's a message in my Alphabits. It says, 'Oooooo.'
Brian: Peter, those are Cheerios.”
– From Fox TV’s “Family Guy”


#9 Behemoth

Behemoth
  • participating member
  • 1,658 posts
  • Location:Athens on the Isar/Athens in the Cornfields

Posted 16 June 2004 - 12:52 PM

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.

#10 jhlurie

jhlurie
  • eGullet Society staff emeritus
  • 6,300 posts

Posted 16 June 2004 - 01:03 PM

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.
Jon Lurie, aka "jhlurie"

#11 tanabutler

tanabutler
  • legacy participant
  • 2,798 posts

Posted 16 June 2004 - 01:21 PM

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?

#12 Hest88

Hest88
  • eGullet Society staff emeritus
  • 1,243 posts
  • Location:Bay Area, California

Posted 16 June 2004 - 02:48 PM

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.

#13 tanabutler

tanabutler
  • legacy participant
  • 2,798 posts

Posted 16 June 2004 - 02:52 PM

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.

Posted Image

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.

Posted Image

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.


#14 hillvalley

hillvalley
  • participating member
  • 1,787 posts

Posted 16 June 2004 - 03:22 PM

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.
True Heroism is remarkably sober, very undramatic.
It is not the urge to surpass all others at whatever cost,
but the urge to serve others at whatever cost. -Arthur Ashe

#15 Toliver

Toliver
  • participating member
  • 4,628 posts
  • Location:Bakersfield, California

Posted 16 June 2004 - 03:29 PM

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.

“Peter: Oh my god, Brian, there's a message in my Alphabits. It says, 'Oooooo.'
Brian: Peter, those are Cheerios.”
– From Fox TV’s “Family Guy”


#16 Behemoth

Behemoth
  • participating member
  • 1,658 posts
  • Location:Athens on the Isar/Athens in the Cornfields

Posted 16 June 2004 - 03:45 PM

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. :wink: In the meantime, I have lots of homework...

#17 tanabutler

tanabutler
  • legacy participant
  • 2,798 posts

Posted 16 June 2004 - 03:47 PM

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. :wink: In the meantime, I have lots of homework...

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

#18 ruthcooks

ruthcooks
  • eGullet Society staff emeritus
  • 1,100 posts

Posted 17 June 2004 - 07:25 PM

Eggs dew.
Ruth Dondanville aka "ruthcooks"

“Are you making a statement, or are you making dinner?” Mario Batali

#19 pjs

pjs
  • participating member
  • 540 posts

Posted 17 June 2004 - 09:52 PM

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
"Epater les bourgeois."
--Lester Bangs via Bruce Sterling
(Dori Bangs)

#20 tanabutler

tanabutler
  • legacy participant
  • 2,798 posts

Posted 17 June 2004 - 10:16 PM

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. :raz:

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.

#21 tanabutler

tanabutler
  • legacy participant
  • 2,798 posts

Posted 17 June 2004 - 10:18 PM

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

Disagree about the "just touch" thing. I need to see proof. This is something I would just never do.

Can you link to some images that show this, because I'm likely misunderstanding.

#22 heidihi

heidihi
  • participating member
  • 40 posts
  • Location:San Francisco

Posted 17 June 2004 - 10:41 PM

Behemoth, I really like the cool subtle blue cast to your egg shot. V. nice and contemporary looking- I think it actually works better than the more technically 'correct' color balanced version. For the sweaty egg, just let it come to room temperature before shooting next time :)

Just to go on the record re: altering images after the come off the camera. I try to do as much as possible at the time of the shot. I do as little in post-production as possible and mainly just fidget with the levels a bit, rarely crop at all, etc --I stay clear of "auto" anything; auto contrast, auto color, etc.

Someone requested a few outdoor food market shots. I have a couple from a recent trip to Thailand (below) -- not my favorite market shots, but they are the ones right here on my desktop. Generally speaking Behemoth, outdoor at high noon is going to be a problem -- harsh shadows, glare off the subjects, etc. I try to find shots under umbrellas or overhangs. If you _must_ shoot in full-on broad daylight, turn on your flash and shoot that way using "fill flash"....These were all shot under overhangs or in a stall.

Posted Image

Posted Image

Posted Image
*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
Heidi Swanson
101 Cookbooks
*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*

#23 jhlurie

jhlurie
  • eGullet Society staff emeritus
  • 6,300 posts

Posted 18 June 2004 - 08:10 AM

Our brains like to process images from the top left corner to the lower right corner. So compose your photos with this in mind.

Ah, unless you read Hebrew. :biggrin: It's all "where your eyes go first", I guess.
Jon Lurie, aka "jhlurie"

#24 Behemoth

Behemoth
  • participating member
  • 1,658 posts
  • Location:Athens on the Isar/Athens in the Cornfields

Posted 18 June 2004 - 08:20 AM

Our brains like to process images from the top left corner to the lower right corner. So compose your photos with this in mind.

Ah, unless you read Hebrew. :biggrin: It's all "where your eyes go first", I guess.

Ha, I actually thought of that too, as I grew up with languages that go in both directions.

heidihi -- the pig photo is humbling. What I like about your photos is they have this sort of very formal structure but with informal content. What you said about photoshop is about where I am -- it is something to look into but for now I am really trying to learn the ins and outs of using the camera first.

By the way, I figured out what went wrong with the egg photo in terms of focus -- this might have been obvious to you guys but my camera defaults to focusing on nearest object. I can change that very easily now, and may try to redo the pic to show the result (need more light than I have right now).

For the darker pic, there are several things to try. I've found out how to change light sensitivity and the digital cameras' equivalent to film speed. For the most part what I am getting out of this is learning what technical options I have when I take a picture, and what effect they will have. I think that is something that most beginners reading this will get out of it, too.

My not so secret ulterior motive in buying a large camera: I live in a small town that has 1) a newspaper with a really lousy food section and 2) a great farmer's market. The farmers avoid growing a lot of things as people don't know what to do with it, so I thought it might be fun to pitch a weekly mini-feature that would run from June through October, pick some obscure vegetable coming into season that week, show a photo of it, explain what it tastes like and give a really easy way of preparing it.

Also, I really wanted to finally learn all the technical camera stuff, and have somethng I could really take a long time growing in to.

Edited by Behemoth, 18 June 2004 - 08:27 AM.


#25 pjs

pjs
  • participating member
  • 540 posts

Posted 18 June 2004 - 09:50 PM

Our brains like to process images from the top left corner to the lower right corner. So compose your photos with this in mind.

Ah, unless you read Hebrew. :biggrin: It's all "where your eyes go first", I guess.

So, if you're Chinese it's top to bottom? :laugh:
I'd agree it is a learned cultural bias. (I'll flop the photo and post it as soon as I recover from spending the past few days ridding the office box of the "look2me" virus.)

Disagree about the "just touch" thing. I need to see proof. This is something I would just never do.

Can you link to some images that show this, because I'm likely misunderstanding.


tana, it's not so much a rule but a technique that has its place. Jason has been using the crop and enlarge trick relentlessly as of late and has come up with some really nice images. Chad's salt cellar avatar is also noteworthy. The cellar itself is centered in the frame but the lid and shadow bleed off.

PJ

Edit: Enjoy your new toy. :smile:

Edited by pjs, 18 June 2004 - 09:53 PM.

"Epater les bourgeois."
--Lester Bangs via Bruce Sterling
(Dori Bangs)

#26 tanabutler

tanabutler
  • legacy participant
  • 2,798 posts

Posted 19 June 2004 - 12:08 AM

tana, it's not so much a rule but a technique that has its place. Jason has been using the crop and enlarge trick relentlessly as of late and has come up with some really nice images. Chad's salt cellar avatar is also noteworthy. The cellar itself is centered in the frame but the lid and shadow bleed off.

I still don't think I comprehend. Can you link some posts or threads or something?

One of the basic rules (as I understood them, before I ever held a camera, but just read in educational books in my Memaw's house as a child) was that the edges of subjects (e.g., the edge of a shirtsleeve) should not line up with the borders. I understand it to be like having a telephone pole or tree out of the top of someone's head: be aware, and don't let this happen to you.

I really would like to see an example of the base of a bowl "sitting on the bottom of the picture," or whatever it is you're talking about. I can't imagine that you can possibly be describing what I am imagining as any kind of a good photographic technique.

Thanks, pjs. (PJs? Jammies? Initials? Heh.)

Um, I am enjoying my camera.

The learning curve is steep. I want a mentor. Wah!

Edited by tanabutler, 19 June 2004 - 12:10 AM.


#27 FaustianBargain

FaustianBargain
  • legacy participant
  • 903 posts

Posted 19 June 2004 - 03:24 AM

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.
Posted Image

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?

Posted Image

egg: too much dead space in the background..see the little strip of white whatever at the top of the image..the one that is not the tablecover(or whatever uponwhich the egg is placed) shouldnt be there...not enough light...at least on my screen..open aperture..use a tripod..you used a brown egg..try using a white egg on a white egg holder with a white background..underexpose because your camera meter will overexpose for compensating all the whites...make sure you get all the shades of white...yes, there are different shades of white and well captured,its sublime...place your tripod exactly in a straight line from the egg...you have placed the subject in the centre...use the rule of thirds....composition wise,its never a good idea to place the subject slam bang in the centre...because of how the eye draws it in..the egg image has potential..try again..

the second one is really beyond redemption...dont be offended i said so...the composition is whacked...half a candle light...cant see the label..doesnt convey anything..i see no glasses...a winebottle/candlescene should be 'warm'...place a couple of glasses(photographing glass is always tricky becauseit will reflect the light of the candle..use light reflectors..or foil over books)...place a cheese board and sliced apples..make sure all the lines are straight...your depth of field should be such that everthing is in focus..(for me, at least..there is no point in an elaborate tabletop setup if you are not going tohighlight the subjects)...however..remember that if the subject is 'wine'...it should stand out ...if the glasses or the candle or the apples or the cheese is not the subject..its the wine...makesure there is enough light and sharp focus to read the label...make sure your reflection with the camera in hand doesnt appear on the wine bottle or glasses

#28 FaustianBargain

FaustianBargain
  • legacy participant
  • 903 posts

Posted 19 June 2004 - 03:28 AM

http://www.usefilm.c...11&mode=project > i have been a member here since its inception..it has helped me a lot with its photo critiques..i just remembered their egg project...take a looksie..

#29 Ellen Shapiro

Ellen Shapiro
  • eGullet Society staff emeritus
  • 775 posts

Posted 19 June 2004 - 04:53 AM

There have been a lot of comments on the technical aspects of the egg-cup-placemat photo so I wouldn't add much to that discussion, but I would caution against becoming overly distracted by pure technical analysis.

I'm finding it difficult to consider the egg-cup-placemat photo in the abstract, without an idea as to purpose. A stock photography agency might get a request for "a nice photo of a brown egg in an egg cup" and someone might choose to do "art photography" of an egg, but outside of those special cases most photos are taken with a context in mind. On eGullet probably 99% of the photos we see are taken with the goal of documentation in mind (consciously or not). They are about documenting what you ate, what you cooked, how you cooked it, what you saw at the market, what you saw on your kitchen tour, what your knife collection looks like . . . and I think there are a lot of technical issues we can address in those types of photos, both at the composition and postprocessing stages, in order to make them more pleasing to the eye. But that won't make them more valuable as pure documentation. That is I think why we as a whole welcome photos on eGullet even if they're "bad" photos, because we are as an audience more interested in the informational content of the photos than in the aesthetics of the photos. As long as they're in focus and we can make sense of the colors, they're serving the primary eGullet purpose.

Looking at the egg-cup-placemat photo the first thing I ask myself is what it's a photo of. Is it a photo of an egg, a cup, or a placemat? To think of it as an advertisement, which product is it advertising? To think of it as a magazine photo (it is close in style to a food magazine editorial or advertising photo, which is why I'm using those comparisons), what is the story about? To me the most interesting and prominent feature of the photo is the placemat whereas the cup and the egg are registering in my mind as props. I think, composed a little differently and with some tweaks, this would be a good start towards an illustration of an interesting placemat, say for a placemat advertisement or the "Tabletop" column in Food Arts where they look at what kinds of place settings and accessories different restaurants are using. These questions of purpose are the kinds of questions that stylists are always asking themselves. When those questions are not answered -- for example when a magazine article is illustrated with a stock image -- there is a different feel to everything. But on eGullet of course we have very few styled photos. We have mostly documentary snapshots. No expert in food styling am I, so I have no good suggestions regarding how I would reorient that photo, but it is something to think about.
Ellen Shapiro
www.byellen.com

#30 Ellen Shapiro

Ellen Shapiro
  • eGullet Society staff emeritus
  • 775 posts

Posted 19 June 2004 - 07:58 AM

Maybe this undertaking would benefit from a little more classroom structure.

A good model might be the classes I've taken at the Gotham Writers Workshop. Every member of the class has to submit work for group critique. Obviously there is nobody offering critique who will not eventually be critiqued and that helps with the level of sensitivity and helps to rein in overkill. It might be smart with this group to create a schedule whereby 8 or so people agree to put up photos on a preset schedule of 2-3 days of critique for each person's work and only the other 7 people get to critique it. Then move on to another group of 8. Just one idea.

Another smart rule in the GWW: they refer to the person being critiqued as being in "the box." In other words when it is your turn to be critiqued you are not allowed to defend yourself, explain yourself, or even speak except to answer the most basic questions. Your only job when in "the box" is to listen and learn.
Ellen Shapiro
www.byellen.com