Food Shutter Bug Club (Part 1)

[Rico]

Thanks, Dakki! See, I think I'd technically be the noob here, seeing as how I didn't even consider that the tomato on the left was facing away from the camera. But of course it is. Thanks for the insight. As for the blurriness, I think you're right, but I'm not sure how to fix it with my little pocket camera. Or maybe I was just moving the camera when I took the picture (sheepish). Can you get tripods for pocket cameras?

Blether, thanks for the complimentary words. I shot this in my photo box I made about a week ago following this guy's directions. That alone has made a world of difference, though I feel I'm going to have to start adding stuff - garnish, if you will - to the photos so they're not all so ... plain clean white, you know? I have no idea how to go about that, like where people's eyes first go and so on.

As for the shutter speed, I honestly don't know. I don't even know if my little pocket camera has modifiable shutter speed. I'd love to get a really cool one, but that's down the road for me. Are you at all familiar with coolpix (I feel like that's like asking a successful painter if he's familiar with Crayolas, but it's worth a shot!)?

Edited September 15, 2010 by Rico (log)

[Blether]

... Can you get tripods for pocket cameras?

You'll find a threaded recess on the underside of the camera. It's about 1/8" across ? Yes, even my Fujifilm 4500 pocket digi from the year 2000 has one. With 4.5M pixels it was top-of-the-range then. It's what I still use.

Blether, thanks for the complimentary words. I shot this in my photo box I made about a week ago following this guy's directions. That alone has made a world of difference, though I feel I'm going to have to start adding stuff - garnish, if you will - to the photos so they're not all so ... plain clean white, you know? I have no idea how to go about that, like where people's eyes first go and so on.

Aw, shucks. I built a box using the instructions (linked ?) in the eG photo tutorial. The hardware store gave me a used cardboard box, and though I had a hell of a time looking for 'tissue paper' in Japan, when I translated it to "shoji gami" (shoji paper) I found it at 3 bucks 50 for 1 metre x 9 metres. Results can be seen earlier in this thread (same photo repeated in the Lasagne cook-off thread).

As for the look - the great thing about digicams is the instant feedback, know what I mean ? If it looks good, it looks good.

As for the shutter speed, I honestly don't know...

I know the Coolpix. Isn't a Coolpix the camera that Prawncrackers uses to conquer the eG photography world ? Nikons have always been good, and especially have a reputation for indestructibility in 35mm film. Then again, I haven't used one. Look for the 'EXIF info' for your photos in your photo software - that typically will tell you the actual shutter speed and aperture, amongst other things.

[Rico]

You use a pocket digital camera? Prawncrackers uses a Coolpix, too? I can get a tripod for this thing and adjust shutter speeds?

This may have just advanced from a distracting pursuit to an all-out hobby.

[SobaAddict70]

I have a Coolpix. It's a Nikon L3. Not a very good camera when if you believe ratings guides because of the time it takes to properly load, in addition to the on-screen opening animation.

I'm going to let you in on a little secret. I can already hear Blether gasp in horror -- I don't use a tripod. Never have. Oh sure, I *should* probably use one and it might improve my photography somewhat, but I'm satisfied with the material I'm producing. It's not magazine quality material but I'm not shooting for a professional publication. And the only person I need to satisfy is myself.

On the other hand, lighting is key. A photo of a dish that's not presented very well can be touched up quite a bit during the post-photo processing phase (using Picasa or similar software) and you will find that some improvement will come through IF the light is adequate. However nothing can save your photo if the light looks washed out, too dim or worse, if it appears that you used flash when in fact you did not.

For an example of what I'm talking about, compare this photo

with this pic

None of the pix were taken using flash, however the top pic makes it appear as if I did. A professional food stylist friend of mine says that it appears that I used flash because it looks washed out and flat. He even goes so far as to recommend getting a key light and a fill light (in other words, one light source that is dominant from whatever angle you choose, and a fill light source to soften and lighten the shadows cast by your key light source). He's technically correct but I'm don't bother because by the time I'm done futzing with stuff, the food is cold and someone has to eat it.

By the way, closeup shots look better especially if there's detail work involved (i.e., Indian food with lots of visible spices). I'm late for a meeting, otherwise I'd post an example now.

I'm going to put myself out there (possibly exposing myself to criticism) by saying you don't NEED a super-expensive camera to take quality photographs. There are things that a good camera can do, like taking photos in low-light settings (i.e., restaurants) where flash would be intrusive. But for my purposes, my Nikon suits me just fine. What you do need however is great lighting, a little knowledge (from forums such as this one) and some experience (which comes with time).

Edited September 15, 2010 by SobaAddict70 (log)

[Dakki]

Thanks, Dakki! See, I think I'd technically be the noob here, seeing as how I didn't even consider that the tomato on the left was facing away from the camera. But of course it is. Thanks for the insight. As for the blurriness, I think you're right, but I'm not sure how to fix it with my little pocket camera.

Oh man, you have no idea. I've only been taking food photos for a little bit, and I don't do it very often. If you look a couple of pages back, you'll see how horrible my initial attempts were; I think I've improved, but certainly not enough to go around offering advice as if I was an expert.

This is what I've learned (so far) in no particular order:

1-Low angles. Overhead shots suck.

2-Closeups are good. Backgrounds can be distracting.

3-Pay attention to the composition and plating.

4-Think about the light. Flash (at least from a pocket camera) makes images flat, artificial lighting can be weird colors, and mixing different light sources can mean you have areas that look differently weird and become hard to fix. The simplest way around this is sunlight and the use of reflecting surfaces, but you can "cheat" and fix the photo's colors afterward.

5-Touch up the photos, particularly color, contrast and sharp. Digital cameras don't correct for weird light the same way our eyes do, so the stuff that looked fine to us under the kitchen lights turns an unappetizing shade of purple in photos. I think David Goldfarb recommended Photoshop Elements but I have a phobia of Photoshop products. What I use is called FastStone Image Viewer, a free-to-use little program that does very basic snapshot editing (sharpness, color, cropping and so on) with none of that layering nonsense that makes Photoshop such a PITA.

6-Take lots of slightly different pics. The way our brains are built (well, my brain, anyway) we tend to focus on getting that one shrimp in the cocktail in beautiful light and perfect focus and totally ignore the filthy kitchen rag in the background, which becomes obvious once you look at the photos on your computer.

Finally, this isn't actual photo advice but I think an account with a free photo hosting service like flickr or Photobucket is better than attaching your pics directly to the forum. That way you can post larger images and share the same image over several boards without uploading it every time.

Well, that's the kindergarten-level advice I can offer.

[Rico]

You guys are awesome.

I don't bother because by the time I'm done futzing with stuff, the food is cold and someone has to eat it.

Haha! Well, hell, that's the whole point, right??

I'm going to put myself out there (possibly exposing myself to criticism) by saying you don't NEED a super-expensive camera to take quality photographs. There are things that a good camera can do, like taking photos in low-light settings (i.e., restaurants) where flash would be intrusive. But for my purposes, my Nikon suits me just fine. What you do need however is great lighting, a little knowledge (from forums such as this one) and some experience (which comes with time).

And the news keeps getting better for me. More experience necessarily means more cooking, which in turn means better cooking, leading to better photos, and ultimately better eating. Yes, I'm going to like this new pursuit.

And Dakki, I have taken your advice on the Photobucket, and here's the first stuff I've got posted from there:

It's a squash and goat cheese salad I got from Emeril's new grilling book. I feel like the squash in front looks kind of bland ... but it's squash, you know? It's also taken outside and I guess the sunlight makes it look shiny. I don't know if shiny is good.

Edited to say I haven't quite figured out photobucket yet.

Edited September 16, 2010 by Rico (log)

[ScottyBoy]

One thing that's a personal preference is using a single color of plate. I prefer white because the colors just jump out and the fact that it tones down the "busyness" in the photo. Then it helps if you then cover the table with a white sheet, so everything is focused on the food. that's just how I do it.

[dcarch]

One thing that's a personal preference is using a single color of plate. I prefer white because the colors just jump out and the fact that it tones down the "busyness" in the photo. -------

There is an even better reason to use white blackground.

If you print your photos, a dark background probably uses 100 times more ink.

You know how expensive inks can be.

dcarch

[ScottyBoy]

Ah hah, good point.

I bought a new Olympus PEN EPL-1 and was having a ball with it. But I made sure to lose my charger and had to wait a week for the new one to come. Back in business!

[prasantrin]

One thing that's a personal preference is using a single color of plate. I prefer white because the colors just jump out and the fact that it tones down the "busyness" in the photo. Then it helps if you then cover the table with a white sheet, so everything is focused on the food. that's just how I do it.

Did you do any processing or is it untouched?

[ScottyBoy]

I run all my stuff through Apple's Aperture program but on this night I didn't have to do much. It was actually the first photo I took and had an "Ah hah" moment and realized I didn't need a huge setup to take solid pictures.

[prasantrin]

^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.)

[ScottyBoy]

Yeah it's right out of his book also made the chicken ramen with soft egg.

[dcarch]

Yeah it's right out of his book also made the chicken ramen with soft egg.

What's the black stuff?

BTW, beautiful!

dcarch

[ScottyBoy]

Oh it's the Yakitori chicken thigh, one of those marinades that tastes great grilled and blackened. Quick pickles, pea shoots, scallion and the 45 minutes at 145 egg. Oh a little siracha never hurts either

Edited September 17, 2010 by ScottyBoy (log)

[Holly Moore]

Tuna carpaccio shot outside at dusk with no flash using Nikon D90 with Nikkor 17-35 f/2.8 lens as a jpg. Polished a bit using photoshop curves - auto.

So how do I get the plate back to white or shoot it so the plate never picks up blue tint?

[Dakki]

Hi Holly, FastStone Image Viewer is a free to use, lightweight, ridiculously friendly program that does simple snapshot editing.

http://www.faststone.org/

[robirdstx]

Holly - can you reset the white balance before you take your photo with your camera?

[Holly Moore]

I'm still learning the D90, but believe it is possible. The settings show white balance as auto. Will pull out the manual tomorrow and see what else I can do.

As to Faststone Viewer I'm not seeing what that can do for me. Before getting Photoshop I used Photoshop Elements for a number of years. I also have a first level understanding of Photoshop - know levels, hue, saturation and such. What happens though is that I can't figure out how to get rid of the blue on white plates using Photoshop without screwing up the rest of the picture.

The support forums say to take care of it in Raw, but the raw images are so big that they eat up major disk space - especially since I save one untouched pic, one edited pic at high quality pixel level and one cut down to 75 dpi and to 300-600 pixels wide for the web.

I may be looking for an easy solution where there is none.

[dcarch]

Tuna carpaccio shot outside at dusk with no flash using Nikon D90 with Nikkor 17-35 f/2.8 lens as a jpg. Polished a bit using photoshop curves - auto.

So how do I get the plate back to white or shoot it so the plate never picks up blue tint?

I use Corel to do this:

dcarch

[Holly Moore]

Nice on the white. How did you do it?

[Blether]

I very rarely do any post-process on my digital photos, but I did this:

desultorily with Photoshop (version CS4), using Image - Adjustments - Color Balance. You can vary the three colour vectors separately for shadows, midtones and highlights.

An easier option is Image - Adjustments - Variations, whose use you'll find self-explanatory.

Edited September 18, 2010 by Blether (log)

[Blether]

Oh yes, and if you're serious about processing large-size image files, get yourself / build yourself / have made a machine (PC) with at least 4 disks in RAID 10. Used to be the 3ware controllers themselves cost like USD1,500 - now good enough ones come built in as 'Intel Intelliraid', and disks are cheap. Get Seagate - the Western Digitals (as of early 2009) didn't support NCQ in RAID mode. YMMV.

[Dakki]

Sorry Holly I totally missed the part where you were already using photoshop and high-end gear.

Anyway since this is post-processing night here's my hamfisted attempt, done with the FSIV sharpen and color adjustment tools on a 7 year old Dell in under 2 minutes.

[prasantrin]

Just glancing at the three samples of post-processing, I would say Dakki's looks the most processed(colours are oversaturated), Blether's looks the least processed (most like the original), and dcarch's looks to be in the middle. Personally, I prefer Blether's re-do as it doesn't have that "fake" look that oversaturation produces although dcarch's "pops" more. But different eyes have different POVs, so the "ideal" result is very subjective.

Holly--you can change the white balance by pressing on the +/- button and turning the back (I think) wheel to the left or right, depending on if you wnat + or -.

I would actually prefer to learn how to adjust these things before taking a picture rather than after. Too many people rely on post-processing and fail to learn about the basics of taking a good picture. I see a lot of food photos that are very clearly processed (usually overprocessed), and to me, those just aren't as interesting.