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.


Food Shutter Bug Club (Part 1)

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

#571 prasantrin

  • legacy participant
  • 5,468 posts

Posted 13 October 2010 - 01:47 PM

I use the free version of VSO Image Resizer. It's very easy to use, and you can do a few other things with it other than resizing your pictures. The only thing I don't like is that every time I open it, I get the little pop up asking me if I want to continue with the free version or upgrade. But I suppose it's a small price to pay for something that's free.

#572 Blether

  • participating member
  • 1,728 posts
  • Location:Tokyo

Posted 13 October 2010 - 06:45 PM

... 1. When I adjust image size in Photoshop the pics are still fairly large. Is there a way to ultra-compress in Photoshop? ...

Holly, when you save your photo in Photoshop, don't you get the 'JPEG Options' dialogue ? Yes, you can use "Image - Image Size" to resize the whole picture. But the 'Quality' part of 'JPEG options', with the slider and the level number (1 to 12 ?), is I believe the same as the type of compression you're talking about.

QUIET!  People are trying to pontificate.

#573 philadining

  • participating member
  • 2,603 posts
  • Location:Philaburbia

Posted 13 October 2010 - 11:16 PM

Yeah, Holly, as Blether said, there are plenty of ways to resize your photos within Photoshop, you don't need another program. After you've done all your tweaking to the shot, I'd save an un-compressed version of it, either as a photoshop file or maybe a tiff, in case you want to do something with it for print. yes, this eats up a lot of disc space. Get over it. Big hard drives are cheap these days, get a large one, or two, or a RAID set to mirror (RAID level 1.)

Then, if you're posting to the web, go to the Image menu, choose Image Size, and change it to the size you desire: 72 dpi for the web, then whatever actual dimensions you want in pixels or inches or whatever dimension you want. Be sure to check the Resample box, along with the Constrain Proportions box.


Then, after it's been resampled, you may want to do some sharpening... or not...

Then, if you choose "File>>Save for Web & Devices" you'll get a dialog that allows you to choose the image type and tweak the amount of compression you want, giving you a before and after pane that shows the consequences of your choices, both visually and as a file size.


Also - regarding your white-balance issues - you'll have LOTS more control if you shoot RAW, and then upon opening the RAW file, use that dialog to adjust the color temperature until the whites are white. That gives you much more to tweak than the post-processing adjustments of levels, or curves, or color balance, or hue and saturation. The auto button often gets close, but you'll still usually want to tweak the blue-yellow (temperature) slider a bit, and then, you almost always need to adjust the exposure setting, and/or the black levels.


Of course it's even better to have the white balance set right in the camera, but the real-world lighting conditions don't always play along. You should try to avoid having different light sources with different color temperatures hitting your subject at the same time. If your plate is being lit by an incandescent lamp, but you're also sitting near the window, and it's simultaneously being lit by sunlight, you'll end up with parts of the shot too yellow or too blue, and there's no easy fix for that...

Edited by philadining, 13 October 2010 - 11:18 PM.

"Philadelphia’s premier soup dumpling blogger" - Foobooz


#574 percival

  • participating member
  • 146 posts

Posted 13 October 2010 - 11:55 PM

Posted Image
One of the prettier breakfasts -- from last week. Annatto rice, shrimp peas carrots scramble. I actually had breakfast first, then shot the photo with leftovers, so the eggs are overcooked/dry, and they don't have the nice steamy look. Annatto gives great color, though I'm not fond of the smell. Fortunately that goes away by the time it's served. The image itself is heavily cropped. It was taken with my new Sony NEX-5 and an antique Canon Serenar 50mm 1.9 lens, which arrived the night before. Wanted to try it out. Turns out it's very soft, which was expected, but it doesn't really work for macros: closest focal distance is ~3 feet.

#575 percival

  • participating member
  • 146 posts

Posted 13 October 2010 - 11:55 PM

[Blah, double post...]

For photo editing, I highly recommend Adobe Lightroom 3.2 -- there's really no better tool out there for photo editing. Not only feature-wise, but simplicity as well. Far better than Photoshop. And Lightroom handles RAWs better than even OEM software.

Edited by percival, 14 October 2010 - 12:01 AM.

#576 Blether

  • participating member
  • 1,728 posts
  • Location:Tokyo

Posted 08 November 2010 - 09:34 AM

Sorry to those of you who saw the photo in Lunch - what'd ya have ?, but - huitres Ansel Adams:

Posted Image

Edited by Blether, 08 November 2010 - 09:36 AM.

QUIET!  People are trying to pontificate.

#577 heidih

  • eGullet Society staff emeritus
  • 10,985 posts
  • Location:Los Angeles

Posted 08 November 2010 - 09:39 AM

Blether- the stone counter plays beautifully with the colors and pattern of the oysters

#578 Rico

  • participating member
  • 271 posts
  • Location:Dallas

Posted 08 November 2010 - 09:51 AM

blether, I had a bad oyster experience in New Orleans a few months ago during March Madness (completely my fault; when you're with college buddies and drinking huge amounts of beer, eating 100 oysters at $.25 a pop seems like a good idea), and this is the first time since then I've wanted to eat them again. That's the highest compliment I can think of. That's a great photo.

#579 Dakki

  • participating member
  • 1,047 posts

Posted 30 January 2011 - 03:18 PM

Posted Image

The sun came out today so I thought I'd give this photo business a shot.

Tacos YET AGAIN. Will the madness never stop?!
This is my skillet. There are many like it, but this one is mine. My skillet is my best friend. It is my life. I must master it, as I must master my life. Without me my skillet is useless. Without my skillet, I am useless. I must season my skillet well. I will. Before God I swear this creed. My skillet and myself are the makers of my meal. We are the masters of our kitchen. So be it, until there are no ingredients, but dinner. Amen.

#580 tino27

  • participating member
  • 831 posts
  • Location:Akron, OH

Posted 23 March 2011 - 12:37 PM

I recently upgraded my point and shoot to a digital SLR (the Canon T3i) which came with a standard kit lens (18mm-55mm f/3.5-5.6). While I have already taken some amazingly sharp photographs using the kits lens, I realize that there are probably better lenses with which to shoot food. I primarily shoot at the restaurant itself and while I am enjoying the range of the zoom lens that came with the camera, I find myself mostly shooting in the 18-28mm range, with an occasional zoom to frame the food better.

I am considering upgrading to this lens and don't mind dropping some cash, but I figured I'd ask some of the other food photographers on eGullet which lenses they preferred to shoot with (or, if you have an opinion about the lens to which I linked).

Feel free to post a picture or two taken with your lens if you feel it would help illustrate the capabilities better.
Food Blog: Exploring Food My Way: Satisfying The Craving -- Exercising my epicurean muscles by eating my way through everything that is edible.
Flickr: Link To My Account
Twitter: @tnoe27

#581 hathor

  • participating member
  • 2,695 posts
  • Location:New York, Montone, Italy

Posted 23 March 2011 - 01:27 PM

I use my Compact-Macro Lens 50mm most of the time. Flickr stream here.

#582 SobaAddict70

  • legacy participant
  • 7,609 posts
  • Location:Hobbiton, the Shire

Posted 23 March 2011 - 01:34 PM

^I was just wondering because it looked (to my eyes) like the brightness had been adjusted just a little, compared to SobaAddict70's picture of the scrambled eggs, which looks like the brightness (and maybe colour) has had more of an adjustment.

I love the composition of the photo (was that David Chang's recipe?). It seems to me that a lot of really talented chefs (pastry or savoury) tend to have excellent composition when it comes to photography. Makes sense if you think about the artistic side of cooking.

(I don't just mean professional chefs, but also home cooks/bakers, "serious" or otherwise.)

The brightness was adjusted a little bit but the color is as is. Lighting was from an overhead studio lamp. Those eggs really are that yellow. They're not from the supermarket. :wink:

#583 tino27

  • participating member
  • 831 posts
  • Location:Akron, OH

Posted 23 March 2011 - 02:05 PM

I use my Compact-Macro Lens 50mm most of the time. Flickr stream here.

Is that a prime lens? In a lot of the food shots I am doing, I'm trying to get the entire plate of food in the frame while still sitting at the table. At 50 mm, I would've needed to back up a few feet in order to achieve that.

You have some nice photographs on your Flickr page.
Food Blog: Exploring Food My Way: Satisfying The Craving -- Exercising my epicurean muscles by eating my way through everything that is edible.
Flickr: Link To My Account
Twitter: @tnoe27

#584 Moopheus

  • participating member
  • 1,308 posts
  • Location:Cambridge, MA

Posted 23 March 2011 - 03:04 PM

Okay, for laughs, I will post a few. Here's one I like:





[Moderator note: This topic continues here, Food Shutter Bug Club (Part 2)]

Edited by Mjx, 27 July 2014 - 02:56 AM.
Host note added.

"I think it's a matter of principle that one should always try to avoid eating one's friends."--Doctor Dolittle

blog: The Institute for Impure Science

#585 Prawncrackers

  • participating member
  • 1,187 posts
  • Location:Birmingham, UK

Posted 13 June 2011 - 12:32 PM

May I submit these to the panel - A study in Brown Crab...

I took the first photo off the cuff really, just before scrubbing these two hen crabs clean and dispatching them with a skewer. They were all tensed up and looked like they knew what was coming. Anyway I took one shot, light wasn't great and they were still moving a little, hence the shot was a little soft:
Copy of 20110606a.JPG

I don't usually do much post-processing, maybe just the odd brightening here and there but I thought this shot looked interesting. So I decided to apply some sharpening and up the contrast. It really surprised me how it made these creatures pop out of the picture. Especially the hairs on the legs, you really get a sense of the texture of the shell, don't you think?

These crabs were destined for linguine, but that's one thing I find tricky to get right on the plate/in the bowl. I made this dish twice in the past week and just can't decide which is the more appetising presentation and gave the better shot. The first dish had the linguine wrapped around a carving fork and placed carefully in a cheffy way into the bowl. This one was taken with flash bounced off the ceiling:

The second was taken with natural light and here the pasta was just dumped into the bowl for a more natural look:

So what do you think? I can't decide which shot I prefer, I'm not really that happy with either. Will a smaller or differently shaped bowl help perhaps, and is there anything else I can do with long pasta to get a better composed shot?