Food Shutter Bug Club (Part 1)

[johnnyd]

Richardv,

Your edits on the Fresh Maine Shrimp Harvesters thread were terrific. I am still getting around Photoshop features and worry that I overdo it sometimes. These, however, seemed just right:

Before:

After:

Before:

After:

What do you think?

Your advice for 300% USM seemed over the top for me but I haven't much experience with it. I added 50% on these two and then 15% increase on brightness and contrast, each. You mentioned Color Balance and Sharpening here but what is the average range of adjustment for a picture such as that above? What values did you settle on with the Auction house photos?

Thanks,

John

[Toliver]

←

I think it looks great! I love the texture in the shine on the bao to the right forefront and the fluffy texture of the dough in the open bao. I also like seeing all the bao in the background, as well, creating a sort of repetitive bao wallpaper.

One way to make the foreground bao "pop" more would be to restrict the spill of the key light so not everything in your composed shot will be lit with the same amount of light. Allowing the light to fall off (decrease over distance) will create a sense of depth, too, which can help make your picture look better. You are telling the viewer what to look at in your image by your lighting, your composition and your camera's focus. In your image, even though the lighting is even overall, your subject stills commands the viewer's attention because of the camera's focus.

To restrict the spill of light, some professional lights come with a set of moveable shields/flaps called "barn doors". You move the "barn doors" to control where the light spills and where it doesn't. If your light source doesn't have barn doors (and most non-professional lights won't) you can achieve a similar effect by either turning the light so less light falls on the background subjects, or by using a piece of cardboard (or something similar) off-camera to partially block the spill of light.

Anyway, that is just a suggestion.

Your work continuess to improve and cause pangs of hunger!

edited to add: A note of caution...be careful when placing flammable material (like cardboard) near hot lights.

Edited April 4, 2005 by Toliver (log)

[Tepee]

Thanks, Richardv, for your suggestions. They are noted.

Toliver, you are too kind! Thanks for your (another) invaluable tip.

[Tepee]

Playing around with one color, different shades. Thought of adding some peanuts somewhere because it's peanut butter cookies, but can't decide where to put them. I'm not really pleased with the composition either. Will play with more cookies tomorrow.

Edited April 6, 2005 by Tepee (log)

[M. Lucia]

I've been following this thread with interest and I'm looking for some advice.

Naturally, being on eG got me interested in food photography. I have an old school (35 mm) Canon AE-1 and a Nikon F2. I love both of these cameras and they take wonderful pictures (I have 55 mm and 80mm lenses).

Let's start by saying my budget is very limited. For a while I contemplated getting a digital camera, and I had admired several people's pictures who just use Canon Powershots (Bill, Lucy, Patrick). However, I don't think I can switch from an SLR camera, and digital SLR's seem to be way out of my price range. Besides, I don't have any desire to switch to digital, I am mainly taking these photos for myself (and the place where I get pictures developped puts them on a cd if you want for little charge).

So, I concluded the best way to improve my photos would be just to get a new lens for my camera. My main problem is not being able to get in close enough in my photos (is there such thing as a macro lens?) So I am wondering if a 28 mm lens would give me the close-ups I want?

Do you all have advice on lenses for SLR camera for food photography?

I really admire Heidi's photos and I know she uses film SLR cameras, so if she's out there and can offer advice on lenses that would be much appreciated.

Or, if you have a really compelling reason why I should switch to a cheap digital let me know.

Thanks!

[s'kat]

As far as getting in close to your food, a macro lens would be ideal, but a set of magnifying filters would work just as well, and be much cheaper.

edited to add: I got a used set of 3 from my camera store for about $4.00.

Edited April 7, 2005 by s'kat (log)

[pcarpen]

There seems to be a growing interest in food photography, and hopefully, interest in *improving* food photography. With the proliferation of digital cameras and food blogs and egullet, everyone seems to be taking pictures of food. Just check out the Flickr Food Tags to see just how many people out there are taking pictures of their food.

What's also obvious from many of these pictures is that many of them are just plain bad. Extreme closeups, unnecessary use of flash, bad composition, etc. A lot of this obviously has to do with the conditions these are taken under (i.e. in restaurants, in poorly lit kitchens, etc.) and the types of cameras that people are using (point and shoot digitals with no manual adjustments to settings). There is so much beautiful photography on the web right now, but very little of it is of food.

It's great to see people in this thread trying to improve themselves, but I would love to see some more advanced tips and advice from professionals out there for those of us who are really looking to improve their technique, equipment, etc. Perhaps an EGCI Course on food photography could be in order? Anyone out there know how to make this happen or who could teach it?

[M. Lucia]

As far as getting in close to your food, a macro lens would be ideal, but a set of magnifying filters would work just as well, and be much cheaper.

edited to add:  I got a used set of 3 from my camera store for about $4.00.

←

This is basically a magnifying glass over your lens? Does anyone else have any experience with these?

Or other advice on lenses/cameras?

[jayt90]

As far as getting in close to your food, a macro lens would be ideal, but a set of magnifying filters would work just as well, and be much cheaper.

edited to add:  I got a used set of 3 from my camera store for about $4.00.

←

This is basically a magnifying glass over your lens? Does anyone else have any experience with these?

Or other advice on lenses/cameras?

←

Yes, these are like reading glasses, and are measured in diopters as well.They are not the best way to get close, nor is the 28mm lens you mentioned earlier.

The best option, on a budget, will be a 50, 90, or 100mm macro lens, used, possibly from eBay or a reputable store. Canon and Nikon have made thousands of them over the years, but there are other good brands such as Sigma or Tamron. The mount should be specified for Canon or Nikon manual focus. These lenses are distortion free, super sharp, and of course will focus from a few inches to infinity. The close up lenses will not focus to inf. and are less sharp, especially at the corners.

Even if you get close with a 28mm, there may be perspective distortion, with the subject appearing too 'in your face', and the background wildly spread out.

You can also look for a bellows or auto extension tubes to make any of your lenses go closer. These are more complicated to use than the macro lens.

[heidihi]

Hi all,

On the close-up question...

Some of the point and shoots also have a macro mode - I used to do all sorts of "macro"-type shots with my Nikon Coolpix 990 way back when...I loved that camera. It took what I thought were fantastic results - especially at a time when I didn't have use for the bigger files sizes needed for print/commercial use, great for web use. I haven't researched the current batch of point+shoots, but I am sure there are some out there with good macro modes.

Cherry pic taken with inexpensive camera set to macro. (circa late 90s? - 2000?)

I have a 100mm macro lens that I sometimes dust off to use with my DSLRs. It is actually a nice lens, takes beautiful shots - the downside, heavy and large. I avoid travelling with it if necessary, it takes up quite a bit of real-estate in a camera bag I try to keep small, which in turn keeps me mobile.

-h

Edited April 9, 2005 by heidihi (log)

[M. Lucia]

Thanks for the responses.

I went to the camera store this morning (Alkit in New York) and got a lot of good advice. I basically came to the same conclusion, I need a macro lens. The diopters aren't worth it for quality. I also did a lot of reading on how lenses work and learned enough to know that I need a lens that can go from 1:1 to infinity.

I'm looking at getting a 100 mm macro lens (and if I get a good deal maybe I'll buy a digital point and shoot also). I'm hoping I will be able to use this lens on more than just food photography, hopefully when traveling.

Thanks for all the good advice, it really helped.

I'm thinking I need to take a photography class.

[jhlurie]

I've been absent from this topic for too long. There are some great shots.

There is, I think, a minor focus problem with this one, but the color and arrangement of it is great.

This one is just beautiful. I agree with Toliver that the light is a bit too even, but its still a gorgeous shot.

[fifi]

On the subject of courses in macro photography, or any other type for that matter, I highly recommend finding one in your area. I had the great good fortune to stumble onto a macro course some years ago at Rocky Mountain National Park. It was taught by this great team, Wendy Shattil and Bob Rosinski. It was a small class, about 12. Some folks camped out. I, of course, chose a motel room in Estes Park. We spent 3 days groveling in the dirt taking pictures of the most amazing small things. The height of the trip was in the alpine meadow at the top of Trail Ridge.

Bob and Wendy were exceptional teachers. They were fun and informative in the extreme. I have recently rediscovered my pages of notes on some of the techniques that I learned and equipment tips.

I would love to find a similar opportunity that focuses on food and has an equally esteemed teacher(s). (Wendy and Bob have several books and have worked for National Geographic.) I also, of course, need to work on the leap to digital and Photoshop. I learned more in that three days than a bookshelf full of books.

[jayt90]

Hi all,

On the close-up question...

I haven't researched the current batch of point+shoots, but I am sure there are some out there with good macro modes.

I have a 100mm macro lens that I sometimes dust off to use with my DSLRs. It is actually a nice lens, takes beautiful shots - the downside, heavy and large. I avoid travelling with it if necessary, it takes up quite a bit of real-estate in a camera bag I try to keep small, which in turn keeps me mobile.

-h

←

I haven't researched the latest point and shoots, but I know that past versions have placed the macro mode at the short end of the zoom range, i.e. wide angle only. This is done because it is easier and cheaper for the lens designer, there is greater depth of field, and it is more hand holdable for the user, but at the expense of distortion and a more natural perspective from a longer focal length.

I have a 100mm Canon macro, and it too is large and heavy, with a rugged metal body. A superb lens, but the 50mm would be more practical in a restaurant, especially if I had a lightweight one with a non metal barrel. I think Sigma or Tokina would be a good starting point to look at one. This is becoming more important to me as I get closer to acquiring the Eos 20D.

[jayt90]

Thanks for the responses.

I went to the camera store this morning (Alkit in New York) and got a lot of good advice. I basically came to the same conclusion, I need a macro lens. The diopters aren't worth it for quality. I also did a lot of reading on how lenses work and learned enough to know that I need a lens that can go from 1:1 to infinity.

I'm looking at getting a 100 mm macro lens (and if I get a good deal maybe I'll buy a digital point and shoot also). I'm hoping I will be able to use this lens on more than just food photography, hopefully when traveling.

Thanks for all the good advice, it really helped.

I'm thinking I need to take a photography class.

←

Let us know what you get, and how it works out...

By the way, the 55mm Micro Nikkor was legendary in its day, though it went to 1:2. Still a good option on the used market. Then again, a 90 or 100 from a current lens line may be as light and useable.

[bilrus]

I've been absent from this topic for too long.  There are some great shots.

There is, I think, a minor focus problem with this one, but the color and arrangement of it is great.

with Toliver that the light is a bit too even, but its still a gorgeous shot.

←

This one tasted damn good, too.

Since this was taken with a point and shoot it is tough to get the focus pinned down as well as I'd like. I take several shots making minor adjustments and pick the one that gave me the best focus.

Any tips on that would be appreciated.

[M. Lucia]

Again, thanks to everyone for the advice.

So, I am in the process on bidding on macro lenses on EBay (I thought I had the one I wanted yesterday but apparently the seller hadn't met his reserve- harumph). This is for my 35 mm, so probably not of too much interest to any of you here.

However, I also splurged and bought a digital camera. The only thing I could afford was a point and shoot, the Nikon Coolpix 4600. I am trying to get over my "what do you mean I can't control my focus/F stop/etc." shock by telling myself that I am just going to use this for going out with friends, little projects, something small to toss in my bag, not serious photography.

Since I just got this camera today I still have no idea how to use it or its software.

You at eGullet are the recipients of my very first digital picture. The subject is matcha almonds that I made (recipe from NYTimes magazine). The photo hasn't been doctored at all, and I think it could use a bit of brightening since the green is really much more vibrant.

Advice welcome!

[Chufi]

Congratulations M. Lucia on your first digital picture!

I only started taking pics of my food a couple of months ago, and I had never even used Photoshop before that. I am learning a lot from looking at other peoples pics, and from trial and error ofcourse. This thread has taught me a lot..

One of my problems has been with lighting. In the winter, I found there was no place in the house that would give me decent lighting.

Pictures I took on the counter turned out greenish. The lighting over the dining room table is not sufficient, so everything looks brown. I then started to take my dishes into the bedroom.. the only place with an adjustable lamp.

Two of those:

Even here, the lighting is not what I would like it to be. A bit too dull and brown. (and I should get my bottles of lotion out of the way before taking pictures )

I'm very glad spring is here and I can take pictures with natural light. I like this one because the food becomes almost abstract:

With the natural light, it's sometimes difficult to manage the harshness of the light. It can become too saturated, if that's the word, forgive me I am juggling a foreign language here as well as being an absolute camera dummie!

[doctorandchef]

My Webpage

After reading through the 11 pages of posts, here are my 2 cents.

I am a total amateur, but have been trying to get my food photos to look right for the past 2 years, with varying degrees of success. I guess the only way of learning is by taking lots and lots of pictures. There's no substitute for learning the old fashioned way of trial and error.

Having said that, I think there are certain caveats.

1. Lighting: never use the camera-mounted flash. It will just flatten everything. I find different lights from different angles (i.e. from the side, from the back) will bring out the contours and textures better in some dishes than others. Experiment.

2. Tripod: since most food photographs are shot in a macro mode, hand-shaking is magnified, and unless you're using a high shutter speed, any shaking will be obvious.

3. Bracket: Shoot each picture using one f-stop above and below. You'll never know how a camera handles a certain composition under different lighting conditions. Post-production editing can't always correct exposure "mistakes" without looking overly artificial.

4. Use natural lighting if possible: well, pretty hard to do if you shoot your dinner shots and the sun has already set! I find natural light gives a good "pre-set" lighting setup which you can in fact duplicate with experimenting with light placements, but it takes a whole LOT of experimenting.

5. White balance: If available on your camera, try to calibrate things using a white sheet of paper. I usually re-calibrate before every shot. For example things shot under fluorescent lights will have a blue hue to it, light bulbs might be yellow etc. I think this was covered in a very early post.

6. Photoshop it!- Why not do some correcting afterwards? Experiment, and stay away from the "auto-correct" buttons.

Currently I'm working on a book and I'm trying to get some Donna Hay-style of photographs. Took me almost a year to get somewhat decent pictures in terms of the lighting, but it's still hard to predict how to get good photos consistently. It usually takes 15-25 shots to get a decent photo that is semi-usable.

I have a Canon Powershot G5. I use a mini tripod. I have a light-box used by people taking pictures of objects for ebay, that has been a godsend in terms to getting glare and reflection free photos. I use 2 500W halogen spotlamps located above and behind-and-to-the side through the lightbox.

Check out my modest blog which I started a month ago: http://doctorandchef.blogspot.com

Check out this website I found years ago:

www.bostonchefs.com

www.capecodchefs.com

Now those are NICE photos.

Any feedback on the photos of mine would be much appreciated!!!

[jayt90]

Raymond, your website photos are outstanding, and probably close to what most of us want to achieve, with ease.

I think two of your suggestions stand out: tripod, and light box.

With these you can get professional looking results. Is the box something you can build? Or is it better to buy one at a store or ebay?

[M. Lucia]

Congratulations M. Lucia on your first digital picture!

I only started taking pics of my food a couple of months ago, and I had never even used Photoshop before that. I am learning a lot from looking at other peoples pics, and from trial and error ofcourse. This thread has taught me a lot..

One of my problems has been with lighting. In the winter, I found there was no place in the house that would give me decent lighting.

Pictures I took on the counter turned out greenish. The lighting over the dining room table is not sufficient, so everything looks brown. I then started to take my dishes into the bedroom..    the only place with an adjustable lamp.

←

Thanks Chufi! I still have never used photoshop except for a few odd school projects done with the help of others. I am just beginning to learn about all this stuff.

I had to laugh about you taking your food into the bedroom (lovely onion confit, btw). I am now scuttling plates of food around my appartment trying to find the best lighting. A lot of times I am shooting at night and it is really hard to get the lighting right, I am constantly dragging lamps around.

My mom, who did a bit of prof. photography, always taught not to shoot around midday because the light is too strong and results in rather boring pictures. Now that it is lighter later here I am able to get some decent light in the early afternoon. Of course I am also limited with light and space in my little nyc abode.

I wish I had more time to play with all this. For the doctor- for those of us who don't have lightboxes could you suggest a way to rig up some sort of lighting situation? I am experimenting, but it is hard to figure out at what angle the lighting should be and how to reduce glare.

On your website I love that you have some photos with just white backgrounds- I assume that you use photoshop to brush out the edges of the plate? I'd like to learn that so I don't have random books (or lotion bottles) peeking into the corner of my pictures.

Thanks everyone, keep those beautiful images coming!

[jayt90]

- for those of us who don't have lightboxes could you suggest a way to rig up some sort of lighting situation? I am experimenting, but it is hard to figure out at what angle the lighting should be and how to reduce glare.

On your website I love that you have some photos with just white backgrounds- I assume that you use photoshop to brush out the edges of the plate? I'd like to learn that so I don't have random books (or lotion bottles) peeking into the corner of my pictures.

Thanks everyone, keep those beautiful images coming!

←

I have used a small Larson softbox with a Metz flash unit to good effect. It is not nearly as powerful as a studio flash, but that doesn't matter since it can be placed overhead, or two feet away. It was quite inexpensive (the box, not the Metz!) in a used camera store.

I got it when I had a job photographing signature dishes in a number of Toronto restaurants. I didn't know that it could be disassembled after use, and I was carting everything with me on the subway for the first two or three places!

It was a great gig, as I got to eat the food!

Since I am finally preparing to convert to digital, I have thought about making a lighting board with six 23 watt flourescent bulbs (the coiled bulbs) The output would be similar to a 500 watt halogen, and any unnatural flourescent color cast could be handled by the white balance, or raw files fixed later. I have seen set ups like this advertised in the back pages of Pop Photo magazine.

[snekse]

Having said that, I think there are certain caveats.

1.  Lighting: never use the camera-mounted flash.  It will just flatten everything.  I find different lights from different angles (i.e. from the side, from the back) will bring out the contours and textures better in some dishes than others.  Experiment.

2.  Tripod: since most food photographs are shot in a macro mode, hand-shaking is magnified, and unless you're using a high shutter speed, any shaking will be obvious.

3.  Bracket:  Shoot each picture using one f-stop above and below.  You'll never know how a camera handles a certain composition under different lighting conditions.  Post-production editing can't always correct exposure "mistakes" without looking overly artificial.

4.  Use natural lighting if possible:  well, pretty hard to do if you shoot your dinner shots and the sun has already set!  I find natural light gives a good "pre-set" lighting setup which you can in fact duplicate with experimenting with light placements, but it takes a whole LOT of experimenting.

5.  White balance:  If available on your camera, try to calibrate things using a white sheet of paper.  I usually re-calibrate before every shot.  For example things shot under fluorescent lights will have a blue hue to it, light bulbs might be yellow etc.  I think this was covered in a very early post.

6.  Photoshop it!- Why not do some correcting afterwards?  Experiment, and stay away from the "auto-correct" buttons.

What's the best way to take pictures in a restaurant? If I'm in a dimly lit dinning room with no natural light and no tripod, what should you do? Especially if the restaurant doesn't allow flash photography...

[tanabutler]

What's the best way to take pictures in a restaurant?  If I'm in a dimly lit dinning room with no natural light and no tripod, what should you do?  Especially if the restaurant doesn't allow flash photography...

←

Use a longer shutter time, and get creative with your props there. I have used wine glasses, empty plates, or my purse to steady the camera. You might get some interesting angles, as an added benefit. Nothing is as boring as a shot of food taken from overhead, and flash photography in restaurants should be a ticketable offense.

[doctorandchef]

Hi,

Thanks for the comments.

The white backgrounds are actually just the plate. As you may have noticed most of the items are quite small and all I did was put them in the centre of a round plate. I haven't learned how to photoshop things out yet, but that sounds like a good idea.

For restaurant picture taking, flashes are somewhat of a social faux-pas, but it gets quite impossible to take photos in some dimly lit restaurants. I guess what was said before, using a really long exposure time, might help, but your hands must be ultra steady. You must rest the camera on some prop.... I've seen those tiny desktop tripods on sale at camera shops, but I guess it might look weird at a nice restaurant.

Another tip someone else mentioned was using a shutter delay i.e. the shutter doesn't go off until 1-2 seconds after you depress the button, eliminating the inevitable motion cause by the act of pressing. That might help.

As well, try turning up the ISO setting, from 50 to 200 or 400. This really depends on your camera (if it has that setting). Be aware of increased grain when you jack up the ISO.

Lighting food is an artform to itself, so there is no one "right" answer but plenty of wrong answers. Look at cookbooks with high quality photos and note where the shadows and highlights lie in the photos. My personal favs: French Laundry (of course!), any of the Donna Hay cookbooks (she was a photog after all!), Tetsuya Wakuda's book, and all of the Alfred Portale's cookbooks. Personally I think the Charlie Trotter photos have nice color but they are mostly shot at 90 degrees overhead, hence I don't learn much from them. But if you're taking 90 degree overhead shots they have by far the best photos I've seen.

I'll post a photo of my lighting set up later.... that set-up has been 2 years in the making and I'm giving away my "secret"!!! hope everyone benefits with better photos. Reward me by buying my cookbook when it comes out. hahah....

Cheers