601 replies to this topic

[Behemoth]

So this was my lunch...Pad Thai.



I used dynamic focus so it wouldn't focus on nearest thing. I used "vivid" setting to punch up the greens a little. (They were just pale things.) Shot the photo in front of a window, with white balance set to shady. I think it's too dark a photo, still. Bah, shoulda probably used some sort of fill light, huh? The flash tends to really glare off these dishes. This is like trying to put a t-shirt on an octopus, so many things to do all at once! I'm hoping with some practice at least 4 or 5 of those will be semi-automatic.
Ellen, where and what would I buy to make a diffuser?

[Ellen Shapiro]

Behemoth, the easiest thing is a piece of single-ply toilet paper or one ply of a Kleenex. You hardly ever find yourself in a situation where you can't at least come up with that, and it works pretty darn well. With my current gear I have two Sto-fen diffusers which cost about fifteen bucks each but they don't accomplish anything that any translucent piece of white material doesn't do. They just look a bit neater.

Toliver, thanks for those comments. I was hoping you'd ring in on postprocessing. Those images are I think unprocessed except for the resize. Maybe I could e-mail you the originals and you could show how you'd crop and improve them. I find that the Canon D60 has a consistent underexposure problem (this is noted on plenty of photography sites). I'm not sure if it has been corrected in the 10D and Digital Rebel, but if not you will want always to shoot with positive exposure compensation on the Canon DSLR line. I chose those photos because they were part of a few dozen taken the first or second day I had that camera, so they're especially ripe for a lot of commentary. By the way, I'm sorry your hunger for the salmon was not satisfied. I hope this will help:

[robyn]

Very educational thread.

Please critique:

There's nothing to critique about the first photo. It's the best picture I've seen in this thread. Really terrific.

The second picture just doesn't work. I think after looking at a lot of these pictures - I'm getting the sense that it's hard to take great pictures of prepared food. If you're too far away - they don't look like anything. If you're too close - they look like something you'd rather not see . Gives me a lot more respect for professional food photographers. Robyn

[helenas]

The second picture just doesn't work.

It sure does not: since Toliver mistook those eggplants for mushrooms

it's hard to take great pictures of prepared food

Once again, agree: that's why on many occasions i felt like taking a picture just before some dish would go to the oven - way bettter looking than when it would come out ...
but pondering at so many pictures in cookbooks i have a suspicion that there are many trucs that we, amateurs don't employ not only because we're not aware of them but also because our ultimate concern is to make a dinner: the picture is just a nice souvenir

[jhlurie]

Cooked food, I think, often loses color, and softens or blends texture. Even in the best of these photos, I think The greens, reds and especially yellows start to become more brown, tan, or black. Except on the raw (or mostly raw) parts you add on top. The textures get runny, or melty, or shiny.

It's not really a surprise, is it?

[Behemoth]

Cooked food, I think, often loses color, and softens or blends texture. Even in the best of these photos, I think The greens, reds and especially yellows start to become more brown, tan, or black. Except on the raw (or mostly raw) parts you add on top. The textures get runny, or melty, or shiny.

It's not really a surprise, is it?

Definitely, that's why, for example the pad thai recipe asks for half the scallions and sprouts to be cooked, the other half to be added raw at the end. Makes good plating sense, never mind the photos. I have to say, though, while I've always been aware of how I serve things, having to take photos of the fished product really forces the issue of "what will look good".

[Fat Guy]

Restaurants typically pay much more attention to the appearance of food than home cooks. It is often a fundamental consideration when composing dishes. There are plenty of great-tasting items that never make it onto restaurant menus because chefs decide they're unappetizing to look at. Home cooks are much more oriented towards cooking for flavor and almost never think about appearance until it's time to assemble the final dish, so they are usually limited to garnishes as the primary tools for brightening up plates and adding contrast.

[robyn]

Some people have suggested that they want a bit more structure in this thread - and Ellen suggested a "leader". I'm not sure we absolutely need a "leader" unless there's someone who knows what they're doing who would like to lead. I certainly don't fall into that category.

But - to give a bit of structure - I suggest we try one subject a week. And that each person can post 2 photos of the subject - one "plain" and one "arty" (the second being optional). I also suggest that the first subject be "fruit" (which would include berries and the like) - because I think it's relatively easy to do - this is the height of the fruit season - and all of us should have some around the house (and if you don't - shame on you - start reading the nutrition threads ). All in favor - say aye - all against say nay. I'm open to other ideas - but this seemed like an easy painless way to start. Robyn.

[Jinmyo]

I also suggest that the first subject be "fruit" (which would include berries and the like) - because I think it's relatively easy to do - this is the height of the fruit season - and all of us should have some around the house (and if you don't - shame on you - start reading the nutrition threads ). All in favor - say aye - all against say nay.

Fruit. Eh.

[jhlurie]

Restaurants typically pay much more attention to the appearance of food than home cooks. It is often a fundamental consideration when composing dishes. There are plenty of great-tasting items that never make it onto restaurant menus because chefs decide they're unappetizing to look at. Home cooks are much more oriented towards cooking for flavor and almost never think about appearance until it's time to assemble the final dish, so they are usually limited to garnishes as the primary tools for brightening up plates and adding contrast.

I think even home cooks can sometimes make those choices. Okay... Red Holland peppers probably DO taste somewhat better than good old ordinary Green, but haven't you ever caught yourself using them to make something look a bit better? Ground up Basil leaves might distribute better, but occasionally you present them as an intact garnish and not a spice.

Tonight, quite by accident, I had a meal that might have photographed really well if I'd had a digital camera around, or thought of it. I had to make due with ingredients lying around and it just worked out that way. I had frozen ground turkey burgers, but no rolls. So I looked around and noticed I had tortillas--blue corn in this case. I had red peppers, but no green, because the red were on sale in a place I shopped recently. I had basil leaves up the wazoo, because the basil plant in my window hadn't been harvested in a while. I had cheddar cheese. Cooking the burgers and breaking them up among the tortillas (which I fried a bit) made sense, but I also used what else was on hand. So I had blue, red, a mid-range tan and brown, orange, and green on one plate. Much more colorful than 90% of my meals. Who knew fate had such a good eye for color?

[hillvalley]

Robyn, I think fruit is too general. I would like to see it more specific. Cherries come to mind. What if the compositional guide line was just that the shot must include cherries? Everyone submits two pics during a week long period. That way we are critquing a dozen shots at once.

I think there does need to be some size guidelines. Pictures look very different at different sizes. Or maybe a maximum pic size so everyone can see the whole shot?


Oh, an if eG is willing to pay for my master's in photography, I would gladly write a food photography eGCI course

Edited by hillvalley, 25 June 2004 - 05:17 PM.

[helenas]

Also i invite all of us to look at the following food photography masters and learn from them:

Isabelle Rozenbaum;

Nelli Sheffer;

Please, add to the list.

[Behemoth]

I also suggest that the first subject be "fruit" (which would include berries and the like) - because I think it's relatively easy to do - this is the height of the fruit season - and all of us should have some around the house (and if you don't - shame on you - start reading the nutrition threads  ).  All in favor - say aye - all against say nay.

Fruit. Eh.

Yeah, I have to admit I'm not feeling the fruit thing quite so much either. It's almost hard to make that stuff look bad. The thing that's useful about posting cooked dishes/dishes in progress is that it is what most people have been doing already in the dinner thread and in the blogs, which was sort of the point of this exercise. So I would either go in that direction, or else pick some commonly occuring challenge like "glare" or "dim lighting" and try to find a means of dealing with it, either in the course of the photo, or via photoshop. At least, that would be much more useful for me.

It would definitely be fun to have a non-"plate"-focused thread, but here the point was primarily to improve the utilitarian snapshots lots of us were already taking.

[jhlurie]

Well, if you look at the studio photography section for Ms. Sheffer you notice something right away. Her distinct style on most of them is to turn the angle of the camera a few degrees (look especailly at photos number 4,8,9,11 & 12 in her "Studio" section). She also uses the anchoring technique already discussed here quite often (1,2,4,5,6,8,11,12).

[Toliver]

It sure does not: since Toliver mistook those eggplants for mushrooms 

Oops, sorry about that. I don't eat 'em...don't know what they look like cooked.
Perhaps if you had some in their raw whole state in back of the plate, I'd have put two & two together. As it was, I thought they were some big-ass mushroom caps, obviously!

i have a suspicion that there are many trucs that we, amateurs don't employ not only because we're not aware of them but also because our ultimate concern is to make a dinner: the picture is just a nice souvenir 

Yes, you're right. Professional Food Photography is an art unto itself. There are oodles of tricks to it but do we need to know them in order to post our dinner to the "Dinner!" thread? I think there's a happy medium here somewhere.

Toliver, thanks for those comments. I was hoping you'd ring in on postprocessing. Those images are I think unprocessed except for the resize. Maybe I could e-mail you the originals and you could show how you'd crop and improve them. I find that the Canon D60 has a consistent underexposure problem (this is noted on plenty of photography sites). I'm not sure if it has been corrected in the 10D and Digital Rebel, but if not you will want always to shoot with positive exposure compensation on the Canon DSLR line. I chose those photos because they were part of a few dozen taken the first or second day I had that camera, so they're especially ripe for a lot of commentary. By the way, I'm sorry your hunger for the salmon was not satisfied. I hope this will help:

Ellen,
I didn't comment on the postprocessing because it looked like the intention of these two photos was on-the-spot documentation of a meal being cooked. That usually means shooting in available light and shooting from the hip, so to speak, meaning you can't really interrupt the process to stage a photo. Given that, I thought they were both very good given the circumstances and didn't need to be picked apart since you didn't have control over the situation (I assume). Does that make sense? That's why the intent of posted photos can be important.
Yes (here I go critiquing them!), both are a little on the under-lit side and some cropping could help them but, again, given the spontaneous shooting conditions, they turned out quite well and your point is still made.
I will process the pics in Photoshop (I'll use what you posted) to see if they can be tweaked any but there may be a delay in posting the results because I am leaving on a week's vacation to the Land Beyond Computers (i.e., my mom's house in San Diego ). I will attempt to borrow a computer down there to do the processing and posting.
And thanks for the gorgeous salmon photo! In the picture, your point of focus is very narrow and I don't have the know-how to suggest how to broaden it so more of the salmon is in focus. The lighting is good...perhaps a little reflector could have been added to the left side to fill in the shadows, but it's still very good overall.

[helenas]

Well, if you look at the studio photography section for Ms. Sheffer you notice something right away.  Her distinct style on most of them is to turn the angle of the camera a few degrees (look especailly at photos number 4,8,9,11 & 12 in her "Studio" section).  She also uses the anchoring technique already discussed here quite often (1,2,4,5,6,8,11,12).

Not that it matters in the context of the thread, but Nelli is he

Edited by helenas, 25 June 2004 - 06:13 PM.

[robyn]

Yeah, I have to admit I'm not feeling the fruit thing quite so much either. It's almost hard to make that stuff look bad. The thing that's useful about posting cooked dishes/dishes in progress is that it is what most people have been doing already in the dinner thread and in the blogs, which was sort of the point of this exercise. So I would either go in that direction, or else pick some commonly occuring challenge like "glare" or "dim lighting" and try to find a means of dealing with it, either in the course of the photo, or via photoshop. At least, that would be much more useful for me.

That was kind of the point - that the subject is relatively easy - so people can concentrate on things like focus - composition - color - the basics. I am certainly not so advanced that I can say I have mastered the basics.

As for things like glare - or dim lighting - I think the latter is relatively advanced - the former can be really advanced (I had to take pictures of silver so I could get auction house opinions - it was basically impossible for an amateur like me to take decent pictures - I couldn't believe what the professionals actually had to do for the auction catalogue).

Anyway - it was just a thought....

Robyn

[Behemoth]

Okay, I have been playing around all afternoon with a digital enhancer (XnView for the curious). I can't believe how great these things are, but I can't help but feel like I'm cheating. I can recover almost any mistake with this thing! I am about to post an improved pic of the pad thai in the dinner thread. Yet another frightfully addictive plaything...Oy.

edited to reply to robyn -- I am willing to cede the choice of photo topics to the crowd, let's hear a few more opinions before we go one way or another. One option could be to have fruit as just the first round subject, to get people warmed up.

Edited by Behemoth, 25 June 2004 - 08:23 PM.

[fifi]

fifi has yet another stupid question...

Why is it that, when cropping, I feel like I have to retain the original proportions? Is this a hold over from the 35mm world? In the digital world, does it matter at all? Is it a thing about the normal print stock? If you never print it, who cares? But then, as I look at printed media, not all of the photos (not many?) adhere to the traditional proportions.

I think I am getting another headache.

[tanabutler]

Ellen, those two photographs are just so perfect, in composition, framing, color, subject, everything. What kind of lens, and what was your aperture in the second one? (I'm probably not asking the right questions, or enough about the technical stuff.)

Ellen: But people on eGullet as a whole would rather see the information than see no photos because of minor clarity deficiencies of the kind tana is a stickler for. That being said there is a fine line between flexibility in standards and collapse of standards.

Agreed with the first sentence, except for when it's supposed to be documentation of an event at which eGullet team members were included (exclusives, for example), and the shots look amateur. Not everyone with a camera is a photographer. I completely agree with most people wanted to see the information, and I'm in that boat, too: show me your dinner! Sometimes bad photographs still give good information.

But if the photography at an exclusive event, or one in which an eGullet team member has a privileged or unique view, and the shots are out of focus, motion-blurred unintentionally, badly composed, or just awful, it compromises my ability to praise the extremely high level of professionalism and knowledge in this forum. (And praise I do, because I am just flummoxed with how much the eG team knows and has access to.)

Ellen, I just wanted to see this again (and I broke up the paragraph so I could read and memorize it more easily). This is REALLY good information.

Some tips for correcting clarity problems:
1. Learn and work within the limits of your camera. If your camera isn't well suited to macro shots then don't take macro shots until another day when you have a camera that's better than that. Most digital cameras have a comfort zone within which they take their best photos. So move yourself around in order to place your subjects within that comfort zone and then crop if need be.

2. Observe how your autofocus system behaves. Every camera is different but after awhile you will figure out what your camera thinks it should be focusing on, and then you can push it to focus on what you want. You can also learn how to change your autofocus settings on some cameras.

3. Without getting overly technical, there are reasons why when working with zoom lenses the effects of camera shake and restrictions on depth of field will be worsened the more you zoom. So don't zoom way in if those are problems for you.

4. Use the viewfinder rather than the LCD screen when composing. When you use the LCD you extend your arms away from your body and amplify camera shake. When you hold the camera to your face your arms can brace against your body and you get much better clarity through the viewfinder. With SLRs you don't even have the choice to compose with the LCD, and that's a good thing.

5. Follow through, just like in tennis or softball. Taking a photo represents a whole cycle of body and camera motions. Train yourself to wait a full breath after the camera has taken the shot before you allow yourself to move away from the scene.

6. If you have really serious problems with camera shake, there are more things you can do, ranging from learning to control your breathing to using available objects as braces.

7. You may not get as artsy shots but flash, even daylight fill flash, will usually help with clarity.

HERE IS ANOTHER SUGGESTION FOR CAMERA SHAKE: get a tabletop tripod. My ex-husband (also a photographer) gave me one that he hates because he does nature shots. It's changed my photography. I'm still fine with using existing objects or surfaces as a brace, but the tripod rocks. There: you have my big secret.

I had a problem this morning with handheld focus, and I wish I'd saved one of the pictures--oh well, I can describe it. A toddler, backlit by morning sunlight through a window, was reading a book to himself. I set him off-center, to practice with that whatchamacallit on my camera that allows for off-center focus. But alas, the larger pictures revealed little Aidan to be a pink blur, with the plum tree outside in perfect focus. Good-bye, thirteen photographs!

Toliver:
One thing that has been missing from a lot of the posted images is any mention of the equipment being used to shoot the pictures.  I think that should be one of the rules of this forum since it's important information, IMHO.  Listing the type of camera should be a "must". 

Toliver, your suggestions have been so helpful that I think anything you want should be The Rules.

Type of camera = make, model and megapixels? Okay?

Hillvalley: aren't those cotoneaster berries, and not cherries?

Helenas: I knew it was eggplant. All is not lost. Your greens photograph is just beautiful.

Hillvalley: About fruit? Cherries are already out of season here, at least at my farmers' markets.

I agree with the matter of photographing dinner, since that is the biggest (and weakest, visually) thread in eGullet.


I had to deal with a bunch of photos from two different restaurant visits. I am just flummoxed that one shot, under seemingly identical conditions in distance from the camera, lighting, etc., doesn't respond to Toliver's Auto Levels trick. Maybe because the plate has so much golden food on it.

[Behemoth]

I had a problem this morning with handheld focus, and I wish I'd saved one of the pictures--oh well, I can describe it. A toddler, backlit by morning sunlight through a window, was reading a book to himself. I set him off-center, to practice with that whatchamacallit on my camera that allows for off-center focus. But alas, the larger pictures revealed little Aidan to be a pink blur, with the plum tree outside in perfect focus. Good-bye, thirteen photographs!

Ouch!

I have taken to enlarging in my LCD screen the first shot of any scene I am photographing, so I can check where the focus is happening. Often have to dump that first photo, but at least I can then try and fix it...its really helped me.

Yet another reason why digital cameras rock.

[jhlurie]

Agreed with the first sentence, except for when it's supposed to be documentation of an event at which eGullet team members were included (exclusives, for example), and the shots look amateur. Not everyone with a camera is a photographer. I completely agree with most people wanted to see the information, and I'm in that boat, too: show me your dinner! Sometimes bad photographs still give good information.

But if the photography at an exclusive event, or one in which an eGullet team member has a privileged or unique view, and the shots are out of focus, motion-blurred unintentionally, badly composed, or just awful, it compromises my ability to praise the extremely high level of professionalism and knowledge in this forum. (And praise I do, because I am just flummoxed with how much the eG team knows and has access to.)

Okay, now I'm massively confused. While dinner at Jason's house, or hanging out with Ellen at a restaurant, are indeed very exclusive invites, they are hardly the results of privledge which imposes on the eGullet membership.

Using Jason as an example, since I'm less aware of the circumstances of Ellen's photos, the shots you took the most aesthetic exception to were his dinner. Earlier shots, of the BABBP, were pretty crisp--almost definitely within whatever silent criteria most of us would impose--and while they benefitted from the post-processing suggestions of a member hardly broke any kind of trust barrier between the eG team and our user base.

Not to mention the fact that the purpose of the eG team at exclusive events, on the occasions when they occur, are not usually based on us being there as photographers. Sometimes the intent is to report, sometimes it's merely to be a representative of a forum where many of the participants have used our resources in various ways.

Straight constructive criticism is fine, but you seem to be digging deeper. You can say something is blurry without questioning someone's motives or obligations, or invoking creative adjectives.

[tanabutler]

And you would be smart to do so. I forgot my camera has that functionality. But it's okay--I'm telling myself that all the shots I'm taking these days are experimental.

How convenient, since I have to photograph a 500+ person party at a winery tomorrow, and a farm dinner of 100+ on Sunday.



Tomorrow isn't as critical, but Sunday I will also be taking my G1, with which I am quite familiar, as a back-up.

[tanabutler]

Agreed with the first sentence, except for when it's supposed to be documentation of an event at which eGullet team members were included (exclusives, for example), and the shots look amateur. Not everyone with a camera is a photographer. I completely agree with most people wanted to see the information, and I'm in that boat, too: show me your dinner! Sometimes bad photographs still give good information.

But if the photography at an exclusive event, or one in which an eGullet team member has a privileged or unique view, and the shots are out of focus, motion-blurred unintentionally, badly composed, or just awful, it compromises my ability to praise the extremely high level of professionalism and knowledge in this forum. (And praise I do, because I am just flummoxed with how much the eG team knows and has access to.)

Okay, now I'm massively confused. While dinner at Jason's house, or hanging out with Ellen at a restaurant, are indeed very exclusive invites, they are hardly the results of privledge which imposes on the eGullet membership.

Using Jason as an example, since I'm less aware of the circumstances of Ellen's photos, the shots you took the most aesthetic exception to were his dinner. Earlier shots, of the BABBP, were pretty crisp--almost definitely within whatever silent criteria most of us would impose--and while they benefitted from the post-processing suggestions of a member hardly broke any kind of trust barrier between the eG team and our user base.

Not to mention the fact that the purpose of the eG team at exclusive events, on the occasions when they occur, are not usually based on us being there as photographers. Sometimes the intent is to report, sometimes it's merely to be a representative of a forum where many of the participants have used our resources in various ways.

Straight constructive criticism is fine, but you seem to be digging deeper. You can say something is blurry without questioning someone's motives or obligations, or invoking creative adjectives.

I'm not talking about eating dinner at someone's house. I'm talking about times when eGullet is included in more unusual or "exclusive views," and I don't mean the BBQ.

And I'm not going into the site and dragging up examples. It's just something that, hopefully, this thread is going to raise awareness of: what composes a good shot, and what composes a bad shot, and how to breach the chasm, if possible.

Clearly lots of shots that might seem marginal have tremendous potential for improvement. Toliver's tips turned six shots I had today into shots I can actually use, as opposed to going, "Oh hell, I have to go back and do it again."

I understand the definition of reporting, andd I know no one in their right mind need spend a half an hour fixing the lighting on the photograph they're going to post about their dinner. It's just dinner! I know that.

[Jason Perlow]

eGullet is a volunteer organization. An organization in which the "staff" have real lives, real jobs, and whatever contributions they make to this site are as a result of personal sacrifices of time and resources that they can reasonably afford to give.

eGullet has no professional photography staff -- the only person on this site who has such professional qualifications is Ellen Shapiro, and her photography is not paid for by the site and whatever she chooses to contribute, for example her journal of her recent travels in Asia and coverage of the Big Apple Block Party, is of her own good will and graces. Because she is an extremely busy person, for the most part she does not attend "special access" events with the express purpose of photographing for eGullet.

Now, if you have been following along, that means that when we are lucky enough to send a representative to a food event, and are able to get any beyond-regular-means access, photography is on a BEST EFFORT basis, and at best we can expect documentation-type or ameteur photographs, and my own shitty, legally blind, out-of focus, bad subject matter, camera-shaken, anally-retentively-macro-mode-why-does-he-always-go-for-the-extreme-closeup-I-dont-get-it-shots included. Not photographs of a professional nature. Not perfectly focused and composed or in perfect lighting. If they are focused and decently composed, you should consider yourself lucky. So I take extreme exception when someone tells me our photographs or any other content for that matter isn't up to their exacting standards.

I would also like to add there isn't a single web site or example of newspaper or magazine news media with the exception of eGullet that has been able to post such comprehensive editorial and photo documentary coverage of any food event or restaurant meals, especially on the extremely limited budget we are on in terms of human resources and money.

Thank you for your time. We now return you to your regularly scheduled food discussion thread.

[Pan]

I have been following this thread but have yet to post, and I certainly will not post any of my photos here for comments. I would only say that I completely associate myself with Jason's remarks in his last post, and would add that objecting to typos, misspellings, or grammar mistakes as being unworthy of this site is just as objectionable as objecting to less-than-"perfect" photography as unworthy of this site. I definitely try my best to write every post well, and with proper grammar, punctuation, and spelling, but I do not tell others what to do in that regard, and I can immediately think of a member who makes loads of typos and spelling mistakes all over the place and whose contributions are quite valuable. I will never, never criticize that person for the errors or even mention the errors to that user, because the posts in question are easily understandable and that person is in a unique position to contribute content to this site. (I will not name or even indicate the sex of the user I'm talking about, by the way, so if you want to guess who I have in mind, you're on your own.) eGullet is not a site reserved for professional writers, photographers, and typists - nor even professional cooks. It is for anyone who is interested in matters having to do with food who is willing to operate within the eGullet User Agreement. And if anyone can't stand to look at posts with typos, grammar mistakes, spelling mistakes, incorrect punctuation, improper capitalization, and flawed photos, they are always free to spend their time elsewhere.

Edited by Pan, 25 June 2004 - 11:46 PM.

[jhlurie]

Pan. that was just horribly written!

Whoops.

Now back to constructive photo criticism. On Ellen's last posted shot, I really like the way the blue border of the plate guides your eyes. I'm not sure if her role in that situation allowed her to choose the plate, but to steal a phrase we've used elsewhere here... it makes it pop.

I'm trying to decide what I think of the soft focus on the plates in the background. I'm not sure yet, but somehow it's making me a bit too curious about what's actually back there.

[bleudauvergne]

I was going to pipe up earlier, because I thought that the critique from the beginning of Jason's photos was rather harsh. I still don't feel altogether comfortable in the atmosphere here in this thread, because I'm not sure what people expect. Are we here to offer friendly advice? Technical advice? I'll be the first to admit I'm not qualified to do that. Encourage each other? It's what I've tried to do. This is "The Shutter Bug Club", yes? The context and grandstanding that it seems to be developing is offputting, in my opinion.

About Jason's photos: I personally found Jason's shots on this thread to be quite well chosen, and a nice documentation of a special event, with real personality. I will also add, in general, that in watching what he documents, and how he does it over time, in many areas of eGullet, I witness an inspiring and positive creative process that involves his discovery of the equipment he is using and some real flashes of inspiration. I also see within this context someone who enjoys what they are doing, shares their time and effort often and consistently, and the exhuberance is contagious. That's really very important to me as a member of this forum. In fact, in many ways I find that what he shares with us as well as what many others share, translates to a transmission of energy to me that affects my own efforts, which I value more than any "technically perfect" impersonal, glossy, post processed singular studio image.

Not once have I ever felt ill at ease while viewing the work of others on this board because of my expectation of a perfect standard from anyone, forum hosts included. I have no idea what all of the hullabuloo is about. I am certainly not going to worry about spinach in my teeth - because it kills inspiration, it's not a good thing. I'm going to continue posting a lot of amaturely done, dim, less than perfect photos, with glare, focus problems, and riddled with technical mistakes, everywhere, thanks. I cannot justify beating myself up and agonizing over whether a photo is done "correctly" or not, it's a hinderance to my own creative process.

Please Jason, do not ever put a second thought to sharing your photos with us. I can honestly say get a lot from your photo contributions.

[Jinmyo]

I can honestly say get a lot from your photo contributions.

You forgot a word in this sentence.

Disgusting.


/Kidding. Sorry.

[fifi]

On Ellen's last posted shot, I really like the way the blue border of the plate guides your eyes. I'm not sure if her role in that situation allowed her to choose the plate, but to steal a phrase we've used elsewhere here... it makes it pop.

I agree on the blue border. Ellen may not have been able to choose the plate, but she had the great good sense to spot the opportunity. Maybe not consciously, because she obviously has "the eye", but she spotted it nonetheless.

I started into photography about 30 years ago when the kids were little. Then I got into botanical subjects that dragged me into the world of macro. Now, because of eGullet dammit , that has extended to food. One thing that happens with me, when I have a camera with me, is that I look at things differently. I now notice how lovely those bits of red pepper are in that salad, or how deliciously that texture of the refried beans makes my mouth water . So far, the obsession hasn't led me into cooking for the camera, yet. But, maybe my plating will improve. I have never been much on photographing people (my kids excepted), but Jason's shot of Ed Williams is changing my mind. What a story is in that picture! I need to start trying to develop "an eye" for such opportunities.

All I am saying is that it ain't all technical, folks.