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


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

#511 ScottyBoy

ScottyBoy
  • society donor
  • 1,254 posts
  • Location:United States

Posted 12 October 2010 - 08:55 PM

You're right that for halibut it looks undercooked but if you enjoyed it, it flaked and it was cooked then there ya go. To me, fork = no good. I don't like to put anything BUT the food in my shots hence the white plates, no garnish and a white background. The piece is so long that maybe if you had cut it in the middle then offset stacked the pieces it might be a little better. That's my $.02 and all your photos look a x1000 better keep it up!
Sleep, bike, cook, feed, repeat...
Oakland, CA
My Place
My eGullet Foodblog
eG Ethics Signatory

#512 Rico

Rico
  • participating member
  • 269 posts
  • Location:Dallas

Posted 13 October 2010 - 07:25 AM

Thanks for the kind words, ScottyBoy, and for the advice. I completely agree with it, and the idea of cutting it in the middle and stacking it is a solid one. I suppose that picture is just going to have to be re-taken with a new batch of fish. I'd be disappointed about that ... but it was really tasty.

#513 Holly Moore

Holly Moore
  • eGullet Society staff emeritus
  • 4,572 posts
  • Location:Philadelphia, PA

Posted 13 October 2010 - 01:01 PM

For the last ten years I've used a program from a now defunct company to compress pics before uploading to my web site. I process the pics the Photoshop and then run them through the compression process to get them really small, byte-wise. Alas, my laptop died, and I can't find the cd to load my old software for pic compression onto my new laptop.

A couple of questions,

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

2. What is a good software compression program to use in lieu of the one I have been using? Freeware would be nice.

Thanks.
Holly Moore
"I eat, therefore I am."

HollyEats.Com
Twitter

#514 prasantrin

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.

#515 Blether

Blether
  • participating member
  • 1,657 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.

#516 philadining

philadining
  • society donor
  • 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.


Picture-1.jpg


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.

Picture-3.jpg


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.

Picture-4.jpg


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

philadining.com

#517 percival

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.

#518 percival

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.


#519 Blether

Blether
  • participating member
  • 1,657 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.


#520 heidih

heidih
  • eGullet Society staff emeritus
  • 10,735 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

#521 Rico

Rico
  • participating member
  • 269 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.

#522 Dakki

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.

#523 tino27

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

#524 hathor

hathor
  • participating member
  • 2,690 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.

#525 SobaAddict70

SobaAddict70
  • eGullet Society staff emeritus
  • 7,516 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:

#526 tino27

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

#527 Moopheus

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:
ernietestcut.jpg
"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

#528 Holly Moore

Holly Moore
  • eGullet Society staff emeritus
  • 4,572 posts
  • Location:Philadelphia, PA

Posted 11 June 2011 - 11:54 AM

Got a question about framing/cropping food on a plate - how tight to go? I waiver between showing most or all of the plate or cropping in on the food. Three crops of the same pic - and maybe none are the best approach.

1 - Plate with the background.

Churchill-Full.jpg

2 - Tight on plate - framing right on the edge of the plate and below on the plate shadow.

Churchill-Mid.jpg

3 - Cropping all the way to the food, omitting most of the plate.

Churchill-Tite.jpg

Cropping to the food, emphasizes the food but can take it out of context. Curious how others approach cropping plated dishes.

Pic is of the Churchill Burger at Pub and Kitchen in Philadelphia.
Holly Moore
"I eat, therefore I am."

HollyEats.Com
Twitter

#529 dcarch

dcarch
  • participating member
  • 2,317 posts

Posted 11 June 2011 - 12:49 PM

IMHO:

1. The profile (top) of the burger is obscured by the French fries.

2. There should be more French fries showing.

3. The way all the other objects are arranged do not add any drama to the picture, might as well eliminate them.

4. The table top wood design/pattern can be played up a little.

dcarch

Posted Image

#530 Holly Moore

Holly Moore
  • eGullet Society staff emeritus
  • 4,572 posts
  • Location:Philadelphia, PA

Posted 11 June 2011 - 01:18 PM

Thanks, dcarch, Are you saying you prefer the middle cropping, but with the changes you made? I often find cropping a plated dish difficult - whether to lose the overall feel to focus on the food.
Holly Moore
"I eat, therefore I am."

HollyEats.Com
Twitter

#531 Panaderia Canadiense

Panaderia Canadiense
  • participating member
  • 2,063 posts
  • Location:Ambato, Ecuador

Posted 11 June 2011 - 01:21 PM

Here's a crack at it from me. These are Ecuador's "sweet" spices.

Posted Image
Elizabeth Campbell, baking 10,000 feet up at 1° South latitude.
My eG Food Blog (2011)My eG Foodblog (2012)

#532 Genkinaonna

Genkinaonna
  • participating member
  • 577 posts
  • Location:Just west of beautiful Portland, Oregon

Posted 11 June 2011 - 03:48 PM

Panaderia-That is such a cool picture! Kudos!
If you ate pasta and antipasto, would you still be hungry? ~Author Unknown

#533 nickrey

nickrey
  • society donor
  • 2,215 posts
  • Location:Sydney, Australia

Posted 11 June 2011 - 05:33 PM

Holly, I'm with dcarch on his suggestions: the plate probably needed to be rotated about 45 degrees clockwise to bring more of the fries into the shot. It would have balanced the picture more. Also where I've seen backgrounds used effectively is to give a sense of place to the food. In this case, it doesn't really so I'd go for a tighter crop with the turned plate and with the fries more in alignment with the grain of the table.

Nick Reynolds, aka "nickrey"

"My doctor told me to stop having intimate dinners for four.
Unless there are three other people." Orson Welles
My eG Foodblog


#534 Blether

Blether
  • participating member
  • 1,657 posts
  • Location:Tokyo

Posted 12 June 2011 - 05:18 AM

Here's a crack at it from me. These are Ecuador's "sweet" spices...


That's a cracker.

#535 Panaderia Canadiense

Panaderia Canadiense
  • participating member
  • 2,063 posts
  • Location:Ambato, Ecuador

Posted 12 June 2011 - 07:43 AM

What really gets me is that I know that the top right and bottom left spices come from the same tree.... Thanks, folks, for the boost!
Elizabeth Campbell, baking 10,000 feet up at 1° South latitude.
My eG Food Blog (2011)My eG Foodblog (2012)

#536 dcarch

dcarch
  • participating member
  • 2,317 posts

Posted 12 June 2011 - 08:40 AM

Holly, I'm with dcarch on his suggestions: the plate probably needed to be rotated about 45 degrees clockwise to bring more of the fries into the shot. ---------


I can be very interesting rotating the same picture 45 degrees.

In this picture (which is very artistic chromatically and texturally), by rotating it 45 degrees, somehow all the ingredients becomes equaly important to the eyes.

dcarch


Before
Posted Image



After
Posted Image

#537 Panaderia Canadiense

Panaderia Canadiense
  • participating member
  • 2,063 posts
  • Location:Ambato, Ecuador

Posted 12 June 2011 - 08:46 AM

Huh. I'll be darned - it reduces the visual importance of the Canela bark, and brings the Ishpingos into balance with the Star Anise. I shall definitely use it diagonally on the website it was taken for..... Thanks, dcarch!

EDIT - for those who are curious, the original photo from top left contains: Star Anise, Whole Allspices, Ishpingo, Canela Bark, Anise, and Cloves.

Edited by Panaderia Canadiense, 12 June 2011 - 08:48 AM.

Elizabeth Campbell, baking 10,000 feet up at 1° South latitude.
My eG Food Blog (2011)My eG Foodblog (2012)

#538 SobaAddict70

SobaAddict70
  • eGullet Society staff emeritus
  • 7,516 posts
  • Location:Hobbiton, the Shire

Posted 12 June 2011 - 08:48 AM

Panaderia-That is such a cool picture! Kudos!



I agree.

Moopheus, that's actually a great shot. Black and white pix are harder to carry off than you might think, imho.

Here's one I took within the last two weeks that came out well, despite the busy-ness of the photo.

144.JPG
Smoked bacon and wild mushrooms, with sautéed spinach

#539 ChefCrash

ChefCrash
  • participating member
  • 708 posts

Posted 12 June 2011 - 10:20 AM

Hi Holly, nice looking burger. I agree with all the responses above and want to add that you should experiment with tilting your camera in either direction (off horizon). A horizontal plate leaves a lot of empty space.
It can be done in post:

post-14-0-54931300-1307818072.jpg

#540 Toliver

Toliver
  • participating member
  • 4,589 posts
  • Location:Bakersfield, California

Posted 13 June 2011 - 11:58 AM

2. There should be more French fries showing.
Posted Image

I agree with this french fries comment along with the comment in another post about the rotating of the plate to achieve this.
I'd love to take the top bun off the burger to better see what's under there but I'm inquisitive that way. The lighting is quite good, too.
If your goal is to show what you're eating, the tight shot is more appropriate. If you are also commenting on the restaurant itself, then perhaps the mid-range shot would be better to show off the table decor/setting.

“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”