Food Shutter Bug Club (Part 1)

[Blether]

I use an old point-and-shoot digital compact, a Fujifilm Finepix 4500, and I'm an average photographer at best. I just re-checked with the same plate I have in the photo I posted (that's a big 30cm / 12" plate), and I framed that picture in macro mode at max zoom (of course that's all-digital macro & zoom) at a range of 35cm from the centre of the plate. A D90 would still focus down to that distance even with the 17-35mm lens, though the front of the plate would be out of focus (min focusing distance 28cm).

Philadining, yes, it's all about compromise, isn't it ? I did have the luxury of standing up and moving around my subject. I was lucky that the lighting wasn't too bad (under the kitchen's incandescent spots and ambient fluorescent), my camera automatically adjusts white balance, and I took two or three pictures. I don't think I used a tripod that time - the photo above I'm pretty sure used synchro flash. (Within the camera-shake rule of thumb or not, goodness knows I've spoiled enough pictures through not holding the camera steady).

David Goldfarb, I always appreciate your knowledgeable posts, both on kitchenwork and camerawork... by which form of words, you can just tell I'm going to take issue with something you said

... perspective distortion isn't caused by focal length but by the distance between the lens and the subject

Let's say I decide to take your portrait, so that the portrait shows your head, neck and a bit of your collar area, and some space around - a portrait that fills the frame. Standard technique says we do this standing maybe 8 - 10ft away, with an 80 or 85mm lens (35mm film). I could take the same portrait, that is fill the frame with the same amount of your image, by using a normal / 50mm) lens from, what, 4 or 5ft ? Or from closer still with a traditional wide (35mm) lens. However, each picture would look different - show a different perspective - with you beginning to look distinctly cabbage-patchy at 35mm. I don't know at what point one begins to call the difference in perspective 'perspective distortion'.

Which is a long way of saying, you're right of course, but, nitpicking, don't we say that, perspective distortion is caused by a combination of the distance between the lens and the subject, and the focal length of the lens ?

[David A. Goldfarb]

Let's say I decide to take your portrait, so that the portrait shows your head, neck and a bit of your collar area, and some space around - a portrait that fills the frame. Standard technique says we do this standing maybe 8 - 10ft away, with an 80 or 85mm lens (35mm film). I could take the same portrait, that is fill the frame with the same amount of your image, by using a normal / 50mm) lens from, what, 4 or 5ft ? Or from closer still with a traditional wide (35mm) lens. However, each picture would look different - show a different perspective - with you beginning to look distinctly cabbage-patchy at 35mm. I don't know at what point one begins to call the difference in perspective 'perspective distortion'.

Which is a long way of saying, you're right of course, but, nitpicking, don't we say that, perspective distortion is caused by a combination of the distance between the lens and the subject, and the focal length of the lens ?

No, it's just subject distance. To put it another way, say you were to take a portrait from six feet away using a 35mm camera with a 28mm lens and an 85mm lens, and then you cropped the photo made with the 28mm lens and printed both to the same size with the subject the same size--perspective rendition would be the same in both photographs.

Just to be clear on terminology, "perspective" in this context refers to the relative size of objects in the frame, so if you take a photograph of a near object and a far object together, the near object will appear relatively larger than the far object when you're standing close to it as compared to when you're seeing both of them from a greater distance. We tend to think of it as "distortion" when it looks unnatural, but really it just looks that way, because of the difference between normal print viewing distances and the actual distance from the lens to the subject, and our cultural expectations about perspective in two-dimensional images of all sorts.

In portraiture you don't want to get too close usually, because it will make the nose look disproportionately large, but this effect is just due to being too close, and the fact that you need a wider lens to get the whole face into the picture is a separate issue.

[Blether]

No, it's just subject distance. To put it another way, say you were to take a portrait from six feet away using a 35mm camera with a 28mm lens and an 85mm lens, and then you cropped the photo made with the 28mm lens and printed both to the same size with the subject the same size--perspective rendition would be the same in both photographs.

Clearly we've used the word 'subject' differently. In my usage, the same thing in the same framing; in yours, a landscape is the same subject as an individual standing in the middle of it - the same goes for the big-nose, 'fishbowl' cabbage-patch-doll-look situation.

Just to be clear on terminology, "perspective" in this context refers to the relative size of objects in the frame...

yes, and the spaces between them, but we're both talking about the same thing, illustrated for example here (1/3 of the way down the page) - focal length and perspective

... We tend to think of it as "distortion" when it looks unnatural

So I guess my first reaction when I saw Holly's original shot was "has the perspective been distorted by using too wide-angle a focal length for the distance ?". There's not much in it, and the backlighting / unfortunate lighting and complete loss of definition in so much of the front of the plate rim don't help, but at any rate it looks strange. I wondered if that's what made it so hard to crop.

Edited September 10, 2009 by Blether (log)

[David A. Goldfarb]

Clearly we've used the word 'subject' differently. In my usage, the same thing in the same framing; in yours, a landscape is the same subject as an individual standing in the middle of it - the same goes for the big-nose, 'fishbowl' cabbage-patch-doll-look situation.

No, I think we're using "subject" in the same way. Take a photograph of a person standing in a landscape or wherever at a fixed distance from the camera with a wide lens and with a long lens. Then crop the wide shot so the person takes up as much of the frame as s/he does in the long shot, and print the cropped shot made with the wide lens the same size as the uncropped shot made with the long lens. Perspective is the same, because the distance between the camera and the person is the same, even though one is made with a wide lens and one is made with a long lens.

If you move closer to achieve the same framing in camera with the wide lens as you would with the long lens, rather than cropping the wide shot to achieve the same framing, then you are changing the subject distance, and that's what changes the relative size of objects in the frame causing big noses and such, not the focal length of the lens.

Here's another way to think about it. Look out the window and hold your finger up in front of your eye. Think of your finger as the "subject." If you hold your finger a few inches away from your eye, it will appear very large compared to objects off in the distance. If you hold your finger at arm's length it will be considerably smaller relative to objects in the distance. You haven't changed the focal length of your eye (at least not significantly) or the size of your finger or the far off buildings or trees outside the window, but you've changed the subject distance, and that's what changes the relative size of the image of your finger compared to the objects in the distance.

[David A. Goldfarb]

yes, and the spaces between them, but we're both talking about the same thing, illustrated for example here (1/3 of the way down the page) - focal length and perspective

The explanation on this website reflects a common misconception about perspective and focal length. In the four examples shown where four trees seem far apart from each other when photographed with a wide lens and "compressed" when photographed with a long lens, this is because the distance between the subject and the lens has changed, not because the focal length has changed. If the photographer were to set up a tripod at the position where he was standing when using a 200mm lens, and then kept the camera in the same place and made a series of photographs with a 100mm lens, a 50mm lens, and a 28mm lens, cropped the photographs so that they all had the same framing and enlarged them all to the same print size, then they would all have the same compressed perspective.

[Blether]

I can assure you that I'm using 'subject' to mean the same object, *filling the frame the same amount*

Your perspective on the words is a purists' one, and everything you say about perspective depending purely on distance is correct and consistent within itself. Yes, to the extent that you have resolution, you can shoot with any length of lens (if you shoot in the right direction) and crop to get the same image. But that's not how we photograph, practically, is it ? Generally - certainly with food - we have a specific subject we want to portray. A news photographer will depend daily on cropping from a wide image. Food doesn't move, though. and while there's certainly advantage in shooting somewhat larger than you need, I believe you can get pretty close to the image you want, in the frame you shoot.

A portrait lens lets you back off from the subject so that the subject can feel more relaxed - partly because it lets you see what you're shooting properly in the viewfinder despite being that far away, doesn't it ?

I sympathise with what you say about "a common misconception about perspective and focal length", but even my venerable textbook The Joy of Photography refers to the different perspective that different lenses give. Actually this is a fun conversation and it's been strangely satisfying to be driven to dig the old tome out again.

Coming back to the topic - in the end, I think you're right that perspective 'distortion' is not the problem with Holly's picture. (I do think that filling the frame more with the food and plate, would make it easier to compose a good image in the first place, and to review it on the spot, on the in-camera display).

Looking again more closely, it seems the angle of the light, the shape of the plate, the shape of the food, and the light's single direction conspire to make the plate feel like it's bleeding off to the bottom left.

As far as I can like the picture, if we're determined to keep the plate, I like it rotated - 2 degrees clockwise, here. A bit too much ? Also lightened two steps and sharpened, as others did, and with a little more yellow:

Edited September 11, 2009 by Blether (log)

[David A. Goldfarb]

Indeed, the reason for this common misconception about focal length and perspective is that it seems to fit with the way we usually work, moving closer with a wide lens and moving back with a long lens. I wouldn't suggest that one should crop in most cases rather than moving closer when it is possible to do so, even if one has plenty of resolution, but the cropping example explains the actual optics of perspective, and sometimes it helps to understand what's really happening.

There is a good explanation of the relation between subject distance and perspective with illustrations, if you're interested, in the chapter of Ansel Adams' The Camera called "Basic Image Management."

[Blether]

I love it when I hear the expression "I could care less". When I knew it, this was always "I couldn't care less". You know - "I could not care less" about something, as in, I care so little, it would be impossible to care less about it. I'm at the absolute zero of caring; I don't give a fig. I care not a jot or a tittle.

"I could care less" sounds like the opposite to me - "I could care less, so right now I'm caring to a certain extent. I care. It's important to me !" But that's not the sense it's used in. What is it, New York sarcasm or something ? You hear it from all over the States, and it sounds so peculiar. That said, I'm not expecting to wake up on some Vanilla Sky morning, and find that the world has turned and things have reverted just to suit me.

Sure, if I stand in the same position and take a series of shots with different lenses, the perspective - according to a strict technical definition - will be the same, but

"My wife's face; outdoors",

"My wife in the garden",

"My wife at the bottom of our garden", and

"My wife in our garden, which gives a panoramic view of the vast woodlands of Appalachia"

- are different subjects; and whether or not the technically-defined perspective is the same, you can't say that the different lenses don't give you a different perspective on what you can see from that place. Yes, it's good to understand the relationships between the various elements, and of course as you said, when it comes to viewing any given image, the size of the reproduction has a bearing on how we perceive it - if we blow a wide-angle shot up big enough (or print a zoom shot small enough), we can lose the distorted perspective.

Thanks to too long an association with Amazon.com, my apartment has enough books, thanks (makes sign of cross, brandishes garlic).

I've decided that I don't see (telephoto / zoom in) pincushioning in Holly's shot - I think there's only 'look-down distortion', if we can call it that - parallel vertical lines appearing to diverge as they come upwards, because we've angled the camera downwards relative to them - camera angle, as you said.

Edited September 11, 2009 by Blether (log)

[Dakki]

In the name of Mictlantecuhtli, Azrael, Enma and Anubis I command thee, ARISE FROM THE DEAD!

Ahem.

So, I have a bit of a problem.

My regular photos come out okay (and honestly "okay" is all I'm after)

but my food/cooking photos all come out looking like this

I'm even more of a n00b at photography than I am at cooking. Can anyone show me a guide on how to take food photos? The goal is to post my stuff on the "What Did You Make For Dinner"-type threads without provoking derisive giggles.

Camera is a Canon PowerShot A590IS saving at 1600x1200 jpg. Turning the flash on and off is as advanced as I get in manipulating the camera and I get a headache just thinking about Photoshop.

[ChefCrash]

Hi Dakki

Start with turning off the flash.

Place your dish near a strong light source (mine is on the stove under the hood lights).

Adjust the white balance manually. Camera's auto balance does a crappy job when you have a combination of light temperatures i.e. incandescent, fluorescent and natural light. This involves switching to manual mode and going to the "custom balance" function in the "function" menu, then point at the object you want to shoot and pressing the "set" button.

Don't be afraid to make unusual compositions. Like extreme close-ups and tilting the camera away from horizontal (left or right.

[Dakki]

Same camera, no flash. Light source is daylight from a window to the right of the photo. This was taken in Auto; I took a whole bunch in Manual, changing the settings around and this was the best photo.

The main problem is that the colors don't look nearly as vivid as they do in real life. How do I fix?

[David A. Goldfarb]

The main problem is that the colors don't look nearly as vivid as they do in real life. How do I fix?

There are things you can do in image editing software to increase color saturation, but if you have manual control of your camera, try bracketing the exposure in small increments, like 1/3 stop or 1/2 stop, whichever your camera can do. Try making two exposures above what the meter says is "right" and two exposures below, and then look at them on your computer monitor--don't judge by the LCD on the camera. In this regard, digital is just like color slide film--there is a narrow range of "correct" exposures, depending on what you want to emphasize, and you need to experiment a bit to get it just right.

[Toliver]

The main problem is that the colors don't look nearly as vivid as they do in real life. How do I fix?

Does your camera have a light source/filter setting? Different types of light sources cast different hues which can impact how your subject will look.

The easiest answer is to fix it in post...meaning to tweak the photo using imaging software/paint software. Picasa is a free program by Google that will allow you to make some adjustments to your photos. Adobe also has an excellent program called Photoshop Essentials aimed at the average consumer. The PS Essentials is a boiled-down version of their professional Photoshop Creative Suite software.

Ideally, if you're quite serious about your photography, you would shoot your photos in the RAW format and then use a high-end program like Adobe Photoshop CS which will allow you to make all of your own adjustments to your photos and be able to save them in practically whatever image file format you could need or want. Unfortunately, the full version of Adobe PS CS is quite expensive. The Essentials version, which is more affordable, may have the tools you would need to adjust the look of your photos.

[prasantrin]

You may have to accept that your camera's sensor isn't going to give you the quality of shots you want. I'm not in any way saying your camera is bad (it's a good camera for its price point), but if you want vibrant indoor shots without using photoshop, you may have to invest in something more expensive. But if you don't want to do that (and you certainly don't have to), then be happy with the shots you're getting using natural light (your lighting seems a bit subdued in that picture--was it very sunny that day and was the sun shining through the window?), and do some post-processing when needed. You said you were only after "okay", and the chile picture falls under that category. Do you really want more?

You could also build a light box to help with the lighting, but if you're only after "okay", then why bother?

[Dakki]

Thank you for your responses.

Toliver, my camera doesn't seem to have anything like that. It might be hidden in one of the 600 menus, but I lost the manual years ago.

Prasantrin, I'm actually looking at entry-level DSLRs right now. It was late afternoon when I took that photo and the sun does not shine directly through any of my windows at this time of year. I would have liked to show the pretty colors those chiles were (they're salsa now) so I guess I'm after a little better than just okay.

Tell me more about this light box.

[Jmahl]

Use of natural light - I wish I could get these results all the time.

[ChefCrash]

Same camera, no flash. Light source is daylight from a window to the right of the photo. This was taken in Auto; I took a whole bunch in Manual, changing the settings around and this was the best photo.

The main problem is that the colors don't look nearly as vivid as they do in real life. How do I fix?

Hi Dakki

You have a good camera. The lack of vivid color and the washed out look is partially caused by low light and its low angle of incidence and over exposure. But the largest cause is from the overall softness of all the elements of the photo i.e. all the peppers, stems and the cutting board.

Auto exposure is not always correct exposure. In the case of this photo the camera's light meter saw a large area of dark green and decided to go with a lower shutter speed or a larger aperture rendering the photo over exposed. You can remedy this. If when you press the shutter half way and hear the camera lock in, you see that the peppers on the screen appear to look lighter than real life and/or the colors are washed out, then release the shutter button, move the composition to include more of the a lighter area (the cutting board), press the shutter again halfway and see if the color of the primary object is better and recompose while holding that setting and snap the photo.

According to your photo properties the shot was taken at the highest (widest) aperture and a slow shutter speed of 1/60 sec and a high ISO of 680, indicating that indeed the light was low.

Another thing listed in the photo properties was: Digital zoom = 1. I'm not sure if that means you used digital zoom to get close up, or that the camera is equipped with one. Either way, you should never use digital zoom for anything:). Do use the close-up Function or setting.

The high ISO automatically reduces detail. The wide aperture reduces depth of field making it hard to focus on all photo elements. Finally, the slow shutter speed may have recorded tiny hand shake further reducing sharpness.

Another cause for out of focus close-ups is if you move your camera after it has locked in on the object. That is, you compose, press the button halfway, the camera focuses and locks in, then you decide you want to move in a little closer. It's easy to do.

To prove what I said. Here is your original untouched:

Here is the same photo after I've applied edge-sharpening once and overall-sharpening once and nothing else in Photoshop:

As you can see, there is better contrast and the peppers and the colors stand out.

Here I added contrast and saturation but no sharpness:

Still kinda blah. So your photo needed more sharpness and detail. You need better focusing effort, more light and/or use a tripod.

Edited May 16, 2010 by ChefCrash (log)

[Dakki]

Thank you very much for your constructive criticism ChefCrash. I will take it to heart.

I don't think I used any zoom, optic or digital, in that photo. The Digital zoom = 1 must be the default setting. I think I'll try making an improvised lightbox to fix the light problem and try to find a miniature tripod next.

Jmahl, I am intensely jealous of that photo. Would you care to post the details of how it was taken?

[prasantrin]

Thank you for your responses.

Toliver, my camera doesn't seem to have anything like that. It might be hidden in one of the 600 menus, but I lost the manual years ago.

Prasantrin, I'm actually looking at entry-level DSLRs right now. It was late afternoon when I took that photo and the sun does not shine directly through any of my windows at this time of year. I would have liked to show the pretty colors those chiles were (they're salsa now) so I guess I'm after a little better than just okay.

Tell me more about this light box.

I think a DSLR might not be the way for you to go. It's a significant investment and not necessarily a prudent one if you're mostly using it to take photos of food for eG. Not only that, but you've indicated "[t]urning the flash on and off is as advanced as I get in manipulating the camera and I get a headache just thinking about Photoshop." It takes time and effort to learn to use a DSLR properly and it seems to me that you'd like something that provides more instant gratification.

If you're serious about creating good photos (not only of food, but of other subjects, as well), you'd be better off learning how to use your current camera and all of its functions first (and of course practising composing shots and learning about lighting). Then if you haven't lost interest in photography after you've done that, upgrade to a DSLR and you can learn even more.

The manual for your camera is readily available online at the Canon website. If you really want to improve your shots, download it and start using your camera as though you were using it for the first time.

[David A. Goldfarb]

Jmahl, I am intensely jealous of that photo. Would you care to post the details of how it was taken?

The main thing this photo has going for it is the light, and that's the key thing--much more important than what camera you are using. A DSLR will give you access to better lenses and more control and higher resolution, but if you are only posting your images on the web, you don't really need very high resolution.

A tripod will enable you to take advantage of available lighting when it presents itself to you. For now, stick to one light source, preferably from a window, and turn off any other lights in the room, since they may cast unwanted shadows and will not be the same color as the main light. For lighting to look natural, it should appear that you have one "main" light, and any other lighting is "fill" which adjusts contrast, or an accent light to add sparkle or highlight some particular element of the image. The more lighting you use, the more it starts to look theatrical as opposed to natural, which isn't necessarily a bad thing, but it's a more difficult aesthetic to master.

I have professional lighting equipment, which I might use to construct a shot like this, which tends toward the theatrical--

But most food shots I do with window light and maybe a reflector or two, because I like the natural look. A reflector can be as simple as a sheet of paper or a piece of white foamboard. Sometimes I just take a sheet of white paper, fold it at 1/3 its length into an "L" shape, and use a bottle or something to weight it down so that it stands up, and move it until the image in the viewfinder or on the LCD screen looks right. Don't be afraid to move the reflector as close as possible to the subject as long as it is just outside of the picture.

This one is just soft window light with all the room lights turned off and a sheet of paper to throw a little more light into the shadows on the right side.--

This one is hard window light when the sun was at a relatively low angle, like in jmahl's shot--

I used a book or whatever was handy to block the light so the sun would fall in a narrow beam and the background would be dark and make the gazpacho foam stand out, and I used a white reflector on the right side to get more shadow detail and to remove some distracting reflections from the glass.

Edited May 16, 2010 by David A. Goldfarb (log)

[Dakki]

I'm so jealous, David. Thanks for your advice.

I've been playing around with the camera a lot more since my first post ITT, taking the same photo several times while changing settings and so on.

This is daylight from the window. The side of the skillet threw a shadow on the surface so maybe I should have closed the shutters and used an overhead light?

Flash/no flash versions of the same pic. The flash pic has nicer color and no shadow but for some reason it doesn't look very nice. I need to figure out why.

Not every photo is food. Is it okay to post these? I'm looking for constructive criticism so I can take better food photos after all.

Early morning daylight. I think this is a nice pic for the camera/operator combination but maybe it's a little too simple.

This would have been a nice pic if I hadn't screwed up the perspective and gotten my shadow in there. I think I'll look for a similar shot tomorrow and not make the same mistakes.

Flash/no flash again. I like how the gears look greasy on the first one but the second one looks somehow nicer. Something else I need to figure out.

Same assembly, different perspective.

[David A. Goldfarb]

Direct flash tends to look harsh. As a general rule, the larger the light source relative to the subject, the softer the light. If you can get the flash off the camera and move it closer to the subject, bounce it off a larger surface like a white card or the ceiling or a wall, or diffuse it with something like a softbox, that will make it softer.

The on-camera flash is a fairly small hard light, so it's hard to make it look good, but when the camera knows the flash is on, it sets the white balance close to the color temperature of the flash, so the color should be accurate. Flash is about the same color temperature as daylight on a bright clear day. In your mushroom photo, the daylight from the window is indirect light, so it's a little blue. If you have some kind of image editing software you can probably adjust that. For instance, if you have a "shade" setting for the white balance, you could use that, and it should warm up a bit.

If you've only got the built in flash, and there's no way to swivel it, try putting a small piece of paper or crumpled plastic or white cloth or bubble wrap over it and that will make it a bit softer. If there is a sensor that detects the flash exposure, be sure not to cover the sensor, and it should be able to compensate for whatever diffuser you might put over the flash.

[Dakki]

A friend recommended Faststone Image Viewer as an extremely simple alternative to messing with Photoshop.

I touched up the mushrooms pic (no flash) and this is what I got.

Original:

v2:

It's still not a great photo but at least the 'shrooms don't look like they'd give you hallucinations if you ate them.

Edited May 16, 2010 by Dakki (log)

[David A. Goldfarb]

Definitely an improvement. If you want an inexpensive image editing program, Photoshop Elements will give you a lot of the more important Photoshop features for basic editing without the cost of the full program. Paint Shop Pro is also not too bad.

If you've got an iPhone or iPod touch and are only handling small images for posting on the web (i.e., no larger than the images produced by the iPhone camera), look for an app called "Photogene," which handles the basic image editing tasks, as long as you know how to upload images to your iPhone/iTouch. Then you can upload them to flickr and link them to eGullet posts.

[Dakki]

So I took this photo yesterday, messed around with it a bit and posted it in another thread. Looking at it again I'm not sure it looks right. Oversharpened?

Here's the original for comparison:

EDIT: I also need to remember to clean my counter BEFORE taking photos.

Edited May 20, 2010 by Dakki (log)