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

#31 heidihi

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

Posted 19 June 2004 - 10:02 AM

I'll step in with a photo I took last week that I was less than happy with. I also think it demonstrates a technical point, so some of you may find it helpful.

I took this shot of some pineapple saute for my journal. I shot it in nice warm diffused afternoon light, and was generally happy with it:

Posted Image


A few days later, I was in a rush and shot the following picture of these pupusas, in the same exact location, but at a different time of day. It was early morning, light was really on the other side of the house, and I was too lazy to move everything. Notice how much bluer, and 'cooler' the light is, especially in the shadow behind the lunchpail. I don't like it as much, and wish I had made the extra effort to either wait, or move to slightly better light.

Posted Image


To address some of the more general ongoing discussion points here....In my mind it is important to strive towards improving the overall aesthetic of your shots even if your purpose just tends towards documenting where you are and what you are eating -- if only for the following reason. Every chef and good cook knows that the way something is presented impacts the way a person feels about what they are tasting. Presentation is always a consideration. When you post a picture, it is in a sense an extension of their presentation.

If someone is putting in alot of time and effort towards making your meal special, you need to strive towards shooting their creations with the same care and sensitivity, especially if you intend on sharing pictures of their creations publically. When you are telling me what an amazing dining experience you've had in one of your posts and you include a picture, I want the photograph to support what you are saying, aesthetically. It is not something that happens overnight, but it is something to strive for.

I know the photography learning curve can feel steep, but it is important to learn from your experiences, look at your work critically, and get over some of those initial technical hurdles, until you are shooting the kind of pictures you aspire to be shooting.

Of all the technical photography books I've had over the years, this is the one I have kept. I'm a visual learner and it is great at showing you technical information through easy to understand full-color examples. Worth a peek.
*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
Heidi Swanson
101 Cookbooks
*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*

#32 tanabutler

tanabutler
  • legacy participant
  • 2,798 posts

Posted 20 June 2004 - 12:35 PM

...never mind.

Edited by tanabutler, 20 June 2004 - 11:36 PM.


#33 Arey

Arey
  • participating member
  • 375 posts
  • Location:So. Jersey Shore

Posted 20 June 2004 - 01:52 PM

Sorry -- but I have a vision of this thread existing in 2050 with the same two stupid photos and some comments like "well, you should have used the quantoform-splineificator to get rid of the semi-stable empinoscopalofers."

Well, I"m using Paint Shop Pro 5,897,642:001 which only has the triform-splineficator so I always put the semi-stable empinoscopalofers on a digiform layer which I then mask with the splatchcocking tool.

Edited by Arey, 20 June 2004 - 01:57 PM.


#34 bleudauvergne

bleudauvergne
  • eGullet Society staff emeritus
  • 3,235 posts
  • Location:Lyon, France

Posted 20 June 2004 - 03:26 PM

Hey y'all. I have been hesitating jumping in because I'm a photo spatchcocker myself, and I don't think much about rules and regulations, but it's a nice idea to share ideas. :cool:

Heidihi, I think that your photos are just wonderful. Your market shots look almost as if they have been composed in the studio! I think the best one of your market shots is the one with the different kinds of rice. They are great!

I am certainly not a professional at all. And the photos I take are all completely 100% records, I do very little to compose or arrange, just snapshots. My goal in many photos is to convey information about a place. One thing I always try to do, when out shooting at the markets, is to capture signs of life and activity along with the photos - not be afraid to let other things bleed into the shots. This can be conveyed by objects that hint at the context of the photo, for example, if I'm shooting at a market, for example, I try and include something that hints to activities going on there, and the place - price plaques with examples of the language, and the likes as a part of the shot. As long as there's something drawing the eye within the frame to the primary object, I can have parts of other things building up a kind of patchwork of background information.

Posted Image

About Heidi's pineapple shot: I love that bowl, because it has an irregular shape. The counterpoint between the colorfields in the created landscape, which are extreme in their artifice with the color and low horizon line, contrast beautifully with the organic irregularity of the bowl. That shot seems to be about that bowl. I'm not sure if the horizon line being so low sits well with me, I'd put it at least 1/3 up from the bottom, unless heidi was composing it to include some type above it on the background - like this. (just an example, done very badly with the "paint" program)

Posted Image

Goodnight! :smile:

Edited by bleudauvergne, 20 June 2004 - 03:45 PM.


#35 pjs

pjs
  • participating member
  • 540 posts

Posted 20 June 2004 - 10:45 PM


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!

PJ=Paranormal Jumper. :wink:
"Epater les bourgeois."
--Lester Bangs via Bruce Sterling
(Dori Bangs)

#36 Toliver

Toliver
  • participating member
  • 4,643 posts
  • Location:Bakersfield, California

Posted 21 June 2004 - 10:00 AM

I am certainly not a professional at all.  And the photos I take are all completely 100% records, I do very little to compose or arrange, just snapshots.  My goal in many photos is to convey information about a place.  One thing I always try to do, when out shooting at the markets, is to capture signs of life and activity along with the photos - not be afraid to let other things bleed into the shots.  This can be conveyed by objects that hint at the context of the photo, for example, if I'm shooting at a market, for example, I try and include something that hints to activities going on there, and the place - price plaques with examples of the language, and the likes as a part of the shot.  As long as there's something drawing the eye within the frame to the primary object, I can have parts of other things building up a kind of patchwork of background information. 

Good points, Lucy.
I agree with the "too much 'head room' " in the pineapple picture. Cropping would make the picture better....focusing more on the point of the image.

As for your snapshots, you obviously have an eye for photography. Even when you "just take a picture", your pictures are usually framed very well, meaning you're able to make a point/tell a story with your photos. The viewer takes one look and understands what you are trying to convey.
Some people have the "eye" inately, some develop it over time and some will never "get it".
I think that digital photography will become an important learning tool for anyone who wants to develop their "eye". Afterall, you don't have to waste money printing out photos. You can just call it up on the computer and then delete it after you've learned all you can from the photo then go on and shoot a lot more pictures to learn from.

“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”


#37 tanabutler

tanabutler
  • legacy participant
  • 2,798 posts

Posted 21 June 2004 - 10:42 AM

I am peeking in to say that the learning curve on my new Canon is very steep. Even though the body and functionality are related and similar to the G1 Powershot, there are a lot more buttons and dials. I hope I live long enough to become intuitive with the camera. Right now, there are a great many lip-biting moments when I'm staring at it, wondering how to get it to do what I can get the G1 to do.

No complaints.

Further: the colors are just extraordinarily brilliant. This is completely unretouched.

#38 bleudauvergne

bleudauvergne
  • eGullet Society staff emeritus
  • 3,235 posts
  • Location:Lyon, France

Posted 22 June 2004 - 05:07 AM

Some people have the "eye" inately, some develop it over time and some will never "get it". 

I'm not sure that's true. It's entirely possible that there are people who say they'll never "get it" who don't want to take the time to practice and learn. I believe that the eye is something that always can be refined, that we'll never quit learning.

I have a friend who is a rather (well, very) established photographer. In addition to a lot of press and documentary work, she does b&w portraits of the stars. Her mantra is two words - "detached involvement". Detached in that she can step back and work on the technical aspects of what she's doing with intense deliberation within a very short time frame, and involved, because she gives, or better, abandons herself completely to every single one of her shots. I can see a photo that she's done and tell it's hers right away. She can take a photo of a parking meter and I can say - yep, she did that.

You can just call it up on the computer and then delete it after you've learned all you can from the photo then go on and shoot a lot more pictures to learn from.


:laugh: :laugh: The pack rat in me has difficulty doing that.

Tana, bon courage in mastering the buttons and dials! :cool:

edited to delete repetition and boring subject matter :blush:

Edited by bleudauvergne, 23 June 2004 - 02:39 AM.


#39 FaustianBargain

FaustianBargain
  • legacy participant
  • 903 posts

Posted 22 June 2004 - 06:27 AM

Further: the colors are just extraordinarily brilliant. This is completely unretouched.

welcome to the world of L-series lens, tana.. :biggrin: its beautiful in here...

#40 tanabutler

tanabutler
  • legacy participant
  • 2,798 posts

Posted 22 June 2004 - 07:19 AM

Further: the colors are just extraordinarily brilliant. This is completely unretouched.

welcome to the world of L-series lens, tana.. :biggrin: its beautiful in here...

Yeah, baby!

It reminds me of being a very young child, when everything was so bright and immediate and kind of psychedelic.

I am having a hard time with these controls, though. Having to carry the G1 around as a back-up to make sure I can get the shots I need.

Tonight is a big, professional shoot at a very nice restaurant. We'll see how that goes.

#41 Toliver

Toliver
  • participating member
  • 4,643 posts
  • Location:Bakersfield, California

Posted 22 June 2004 - 10:03 AM

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

Wow! tanabutler, I just looked up your camera. You've got an incredible piece of digital magic there!. It even has the FlexiZone AF/AE where you can move the Auto Focus' point of focus. Very cool. :cool: I've got digital camera envy!
The picture you posted is gorgeous. You are so right about the colors. Also, since it can output RAW format, you've got the flexibility you'll need for post-processing in Photoshop.
Good luck with the restaurant gig!

“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”


#42 tanabutler

tanabutler
  • legacy participant
  • 2,798 posts

Posted 22 June 2004 - 10:30 AM

It even has the FlexiZone AF/AE where you can move the Auto Focus' point of focus.

To me, this is "BLAH BLAH BLAH Ginger" (for those who know the old cartoon about "what dogs hear"). :laugh: No, I think I know what you mean, but I can only do that with the manual open and my tongue sticking out of the side of my mouth.

Thanks, Toliver.

#43 mktye

mktye
  • participating member
  • 171 posts
  • Location:Alexandria, VA

Posted 24 June 2004 - 07:10 AM

Great thread. I've been having more of a technical than asthetic problem with my pictures...

For the White Cake thread over on the Pastry & Baking forum, I've been attempting to take some very close pics of the various cakes to show their texture. However, since the cakes are so white, I've not been able to use the flash without gettting a huge, blurred mess. But not using the flash resulted in some loss of detail. Here is one of the no-flash pics that has been manipulated to increase the sharpness a bit and to brighten it up to real-life color.

Posted Image

Any ideas to improve the detail? Maybe another light source?

Also, I initially photographed the cakes on a dark-colored plate, but there was far too much constrast for my little Canon PowerShot S110 and the cake was a total white blob.

I did have a bit better luck with the darker banana cakes when I could use the flash...
Posted Image

To me, this is "BLAH BLAH BLAH Ginger" (for those who know the old cartoon about "what dogs hear"). :laugh:

One of my all-time favorite cartoons!

#44 jhlurie

jhlurie
  • eGullet Society staff emeritus
  • 6,300 posts

Posted 24 June 2004 - 07:39 AM

mktye, it seems to me that many kinds of light--a standard flash certainly--would indeed make that cake almost invisible. It seems to me that you actually could light it better with more natural light. You need some warm yellow light in there, not the blueish-white you might get otherwise.

Also, again, this is from the standpoint of an ignoramus on most of these things, but I wonder if this is one case where you should be shooting against a black background instead of a white one. Someone who actually knows the science should pipe up here... it just seems to make sense to me.
Jon Lurie, aka "jhlurie"

#45 tanabutler

tanabutler
  • legacy participant
  • 2,798 posts

Posted 24 June 2004 - 08:02 AM

I found this utterly inspirational in every regard.

#46 fifi

fifi
  • eGullet Society staff emeritus
  • 7,727 posts
  • Location:Houston, TX

Posted 24 June 2004 - 08:54 AM

I found this utterly inspirational in every regard.

Wow! What a shot!

Did anyone notice that the vertical element of the kid and the horizontal element of the surf intersect just about exactly in the center. Also the space above the head and feet is just about equal. IMHO, this is an excellent example of violating the rule of thirds making for a much more interesting picture that makes a real statement. It probably wouldn't have been as powerful in color, either.
Linda LaRose aka "fifi"

"Having spent most of my life searching for truth in the excitement of science, I am now in search of the perfectly seared foie gras without any sweet glop." Linda LaRose

#47 tanabutler

tanabutler
  • legacy participant
  • 2,798 posts

Posted 24 June 2004 - 08:57 AM

I should have said, "I found this website utterly inspirational in every regard." Not just that one shot.

Go inside and look around. The lifestyle and kid sections are superior.

The whole thing is. He's working with a new kind of lens.

#48 Jason Perlow

Jason Perlow
  • eGullet Society staff emeritus
  • 13,501 posts
  • Location:FL

Posted 24 June 2004 - 09:01 AM

I think the best shots I have taken recently are from the Big Apple Barbecue Block party, particularly on the second day, where I got more used to the lighting and shooting conditions. Let me know what you think of some of these that I have "Hand Picked"

Posted Image

Posted Image

Posted Image

Posted Image

Posted Image

Posted Image

Posted Image

Posted Image

Posted Image

Posted Image

Posted Image

Posted Image
Jason Perlow
Co-Founder, The Society for Culinary Arts & Letters
offthebroiler.com - Food Blog | My Flickr photo stream

#49 fifi

fifi
  • eGullet Society staff emeritus
  • 7,727 posts
  • Location:Houston, TX

Posted 24 June 2004 - 09:05 AM

Wowser. That guy is good. One could learn a lot just by studying each picture. Especially his use of depth of field and lighting could translate quite well to food photography. What kind of lens? I couldn't find that information.
Linda LaRose aka "fifi"

"Having spent most of my life searching for truth in the excitement of science, I am now in search of the perfectly seared foie gras without any sweet glop." Linda LaRose

#50 fifi

fifi
  • eGullet Society staff emeritus
  • 7,727 posts
  • Location:Houston, TX

Posted 24 June 2004 - 09:12 AM

Jason... From the standpoint of sheer story value, I like the first one. The action depicted and the composition are right on. I would like a little more light on the face but that is a minor issue. Probably not doable at the time but a little photoshopping might help. No biggy.

For the macro shots, I think I like the ribs the best, second picture. The shot does a great job of conveying the information about texture and structure of a good rib, which, I assume, is the intent rather than an artsy shot.

Is it a coincidence that my favorites are also the first two you selected?
Linda LaRose aka "fifi"

"Having spent most of my life searching for truth in the excitement of science, I am now in search of the perfectly seared foie gras without any sweet glop." Linda LaRose

#51 jhlurie

jhlurie
  • eGullet Society staff emeritus
  • 6,300 posts

Posted 24 June 2004 - 09:15 AM

Well, for one thing, they are candid, not posed shots. A different category altogether from most of the other shots discussed here. Even the food shots which were "arranged" were in natural light, with no tripod, and with little choice of the backdrop ( I know, since I was standing NEXT to Jason for most of these and suggested some of those shots and angles--although the execution is all him).

So I think they deserve an analysis, of course (this hasn't been an appreciation thread as much as a "how can these shots be improved" topic), but we've got to keep in mind the differences between candid shots and posed ones. Ed Mitchell, for example, couldn't be moved one way or the other in that first shot, and even the camera angle could only have been changed slightly.

P.S. - I ate the sandwich Ed is making in that picture. :raz:
Jon Lurie, aka "jhlurie"

#52 tanabutler

tanabutler
  • legacy participant
  • 2,798 posts

Posted 24 June 2004 - 09:17 AM

Wowser. That guy is good. One could learn a lot just by studying each picture. Especially his use of depth of field and lighting could translate quite well to food photography. What kind of lens? I couldn't find that information.

I was looking at the source code, and "plungercam" came up. I Googled it and found out a little more. If you see the pictures with a very narrow in-focus area, I think it's that lens attachment creating the look.

I used to know that photographer back in my Nashville years. I even modeled for him once.

He was always a deep and sensitive (and funny) person; the world he occupies now is just beyond my comprehension in terms of depth, subtlety, good humor, and oh, the eye. So much Southernness, too. (In a good way.)

I'm just floored. Talk about stuff that can't be taught. Studied, but not taught.

#53 fifi

fifi
  • eGullet Society staff emeritus
  • 7,727 posts
  • Location:Houston, TX

Posted 24 June 2004 - 09:28 AM

Well, for one thing, they are candid, not posed shots. A different category altogether from most of the other shots discussed here.

What I failed to convey in my post is that the first shot is really really good given the candid shooting situation. The comment about the face lighting is just a minor technical note. (Besides, we can't let Jason get the big-head. :raz: )

Quite frankly, being an obviously candid shot, you could even say, "Look at what a great shot this is even though I couldn't control any of the conditions."
Linda LaRose aka "fifi"

"Having spent most of my life searching for truth in the excitement of science, I am now in search of the perfectly seared foie gras without any sweet glop." Linda LaRose

#54 jhlurie

jhlurie
  • eGullet Society staff emeritus
  • 6,300 posts

Posted 24 June 2004 - 09:45 AM

The lighting was actually already contrast enhanced. I know, because Jason and I sat at a computer and reviewed those shots after the BABBP. When we tried artificially enhancing the light more than what you see, the rest of the shot started looking washed out.

The problem, I suppose, was that Ed's hat is shading his face, and he's already got pretty dark skin. Part of the dangers of candid, I guess, is that Ed was actually working and wasn't exactly going to take that hat. I think there might have been a few other shots taken a second or two away in each direction, but I think the one we are seeing is the only one which wasn't blurry (Ed moves fast for such a big guy).
Jon Lurie, aka "jhlurie"

#55 Behemoth

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

Posted 24 June 2004 - 09:51 AM

Great thread. I've been having more of a technical than asthetic problem with my pictures...

For the White Cake thread over on the Pastry & Baking forum, I've been attempting to take some very close pics of the various cakes to show their texture. However, since the cakes are so white, I've not been able to use the flash without gettting a huge, blurred mess. But not using the flash resulted in some loss of detail. Here is one of the no-flash pics that has been manipulated to increase the sharpness a bit and to brighten it up to real-life color.

Posted Image

Any ideas to improve the detail? Maybe another light source?

Also, I initially photographed the cakes on a dark-colored plate, but there was far too much constrast for my little Canon PowerShot S110 and the cake was a total white blob.

I did have a bit better luck with the darker banana cakes when I could use the flash...
Posted Image

To me, this is "BLAH BLAH BLAH Ginger" (for those who know the old cartoon about "what dogs hear"). :laugh:

One of my all-time favorite cartoons!

Have you tried changing the metering option? Like when you take a photo of a tan person wearing a white t-shirt? My camera as a default averages out the light from all parts of the frame, so sometimes I have to switch it to spot metering. Apart from photographing in more ambient light, that might be worth a try.

#56 fifi

fifi
  • eGullet Society staff emeritus
  • 7,727 posts
  • Location:Houston, TX

Posted 24 June 2004 - 10:12 AM

The one suggestion I would make on the cake pictures, assuming that your primary goal is to convey texture: The shots look like you took them straight on. If you put a little angle on the plane of the cake, keeping the flat part and a cut edge in sharp focus, controlling that angle and the angle of the light will help a lot. You just have to experiment to find the optimum.
Linda LaRose aka "fifi"

"Having spent most of my life searching for truth in the excitement of science, I am now in search of the perfectly seared foie gras without any sweet glop." Linda LaRose

#57 Toliver

Toliver
  • participating member
  • 4,643 posts
  • Location:Bakersfield, California

Posted 24 June 2004 - 10:51 AM

I found this utterly inspirational in every regard.

Thanks for posting this site. His work is gorgeous. It looks like he did some post-production work (dodging & burning) on some of his pics. And his "one part in focus and the rest out of focus" lens (don't know the technical name for it) is put to good use.
Extraordinary images!

As for Jason's pics....
Overall, they are just beautiful, especially after hearing they were just candid snapshots. You have a good eye for composition.
I was puzzled to hear some image processing was done on them since I'd suggest a little more contrast on a number of them. After bringing out the contrast, they really pop. I ran them through my Photoshop 7's AutoContrast mode and they just came to life.
Your "beans" photo is superb and nothing needs to be done with it. It shows great depth of field, great texture and lighting. It should be a book cover photo. Well done.
A couple photos have a slight yellow tinge to them which was most likely caused by the overhead awning which changed the color of the natural light. Using Photoshop's Color Balance image tool would color-correct the photo and bring more pinkness/redness back into the meat.
You did very well on Ed's pic. It tells a story and the busy background is far away enough to be slightly out of focus allowing Ed to stand out even more. I completely understand your post-production struggle to balance this picture's light tones when compared against the darker tones of Ed's skin. This is an example of where Photoshop's Auto features (Auto Contrast, Auto Levels, Auto Color) fail to work as well as they should. Thanks to your tweaking, his face is lit enough so that we are able to see deatils & texture. You could try using the Dodging/Burning Tools to try and bring out more of his features, though I usually don't have much luck with them. I use another trick which involves a couple layers and a Layer Mask. It's rather lengthy to explain and is probably off-topic for this current thread unless you request otherwise.
I won't post the pics after my Photoshop adjustments to try and keep bandwidth down but will if anyone insists.
They are all very good pictures and with a few "tweaks" could be sold as artwork, IMHO. I can just picture them on the walls of a BBQ joint.

edited to remove extraneous letterss :wink:

Edited by Toliver, 24 June 2004 - 10:52 AM.


“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”


#58 jhlurie

jhlurie
  • eGullet Society staff emeritus
  • 6,300 posts

Posted 24 June 2004 - 11:06 AM

Here are a couple of mine (to get started with).  I tend to do shots with unusual centers of focus (as with the frozen berry shot) and I am not sure if they work.

Posted Image

I frequently find it boring (even annoying) when people take these "flat" looking shots where there are no apparent differences in focus. So I like your shot, at the very least as an experiment.

To me, the only thing which disturbs it is that one branch that reaches up right under that berry with the yellow bit on it. I don't know... in a "natural" environment is it okay to do something like reach out and break a twig off, or does the photographer have to be totally passive? :laugh:

I was puzzled to hear some image processing was done on them

Ed's photo was, I think, the only one to have anything extensive done on it. I myself, after Jason left, managed to make one where there was a pretty interesting play between light and dark, but it started to look "artistic" and not natural.
Jon Lurie, aka "jhlurie"

#59 tanabutler

tanabutler
  • legacy participant
  • 2,798 posts

Posted 24 June 2004 - 11:14 AM

I don't know... in a "natural" environment is it okay to do something like reach out and break a twig off, or does the photographer have to be totally passive?  :laugh:

I totally think it's okay to art-direct Mother Nature. :biggrin:

Because if you're seeing what I'm seeing, it's like a ghostly finger is reaching up for the berry. Your eye can't help but go there.

I took some fantastic shots of Bob's grandson on Father's Day: a baby in the grass with a pile of four kittens. Using the burst mode on the camera was great, but only later did I realize a big blade of grass was sticking up in his face. A distraction, to be sure.

Darn it!

I saw, "Mow down those distractions."

#60 Jason Perlow

Jason Perlow
  • eGullet Society staff emeritus
  • 13,501 posts
  • Location:FL

Posted 24 June 2004 - 11:16 AM

Actually Toliver, if you want to post the altered versions of my pics, please do.
Jason Perlow
Co-Founder, The Society for Culinary Arts & Letters
offthebroiler.com - Food Blog | My Flickr photo stream