Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Food Photographs

Tags:
Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
December 31, 2004 7:12:39 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I started taking some digital photos of food at a local restaurant. I'm not
bad with Photoshop and such, but I'm no photographer, I could use some
advice.

I've got an Olympus 8080. I'm shooting mostly plates of food in Macro mode
on a small tripod. I've done this sort of thing before with my old Oly 2500
and got great results when I placed items in the sunlight. At this point I
need to stick to indoor because of poor weather. What sort of lighing should
I use for these shoots? I tried a couple of flood lights with regulat
incandesent bulbs (100 & 150 watt). The photos turned out with to much
yellow. It that because of the flood lights? Should I use a certain kind of
bulb? Should I have used the camera's built in flash along with the flood
lights? I've got a couple of older Vivitar external flashes, but not sure if
those would be of much help. I need to keep my setup time to a minimum. I
need to do something on the cheap, because of low funds, would appreciate
any help or if anyone knows of a web resource that deal with indoor food
photos that would be great.

Don

More about : food photographs

Anonymous
December 31, 2004 7:22:37 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

You don't say what use you will put the photos too. It can make a
difference. I shoot and write restaurant reviews and here is how I do it.
Note that this is for newsprint. Try it with just your on camera flash. If
it works well then you are out of the woods. I can trust my camera and know
what it can do. I don't know your camera so the rest is general. You have a
pre-flash that measures the light. That will prevent your old flashes from
being of any use. In manual mode the pre-flash might be turned off...then
the externals might work. The incandescent were too yellow....do a manual
white balance or shoot RAW if you have it. I like to shoot at a bit of an
angle to add depth and to prevent flash bounce back. Macro has too short a
DOF...so go regular mode....for a plate of food.


"Don" <d@d.com> wrote in message
news:XTeBd.8320$_X7.1899@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com...
> I started taking some digital photos of food at a local restaurant. I'm
not
> bad with Photoshop and such, but I'm no photographer, I could use some
> advice.
>
> I've got an Olympus 8080. I'm shooting mostly plates of food in Macro mode
> on a small tripod. I've done this sort of thing before with my old Oly
2500
> and got great results when I placed items in the sunlight. At this point I
> need to stick to indoor because of poor weather. What sort of lighing
should
> I use for these shoots? I tried a couple of flood lights with regulat
> incandesent bulbs (100 & 150 watt). The photos turned out with to much
> yellow. It that because of the flood lights? Should I use a certain kind
of
> bulb? Should I have used the camera's built in flash along with the flood
> lights? I've got a couple of older Vivitar external flashes, but not sure
if
> those would be of much help. I need to keep my setup time to a minimum. I
> need to do something on the cheap, because of low funds, would appreciate
> any help or if anyone knows of a web resource that deal with indoor food
> photos that would be great.
>
> Don
>
>
Anonymous
December 31, 2004 8:54:14 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Fri, 31 Dec 2004 16:22:37 GMT, "Gene Palmiter"
<palmiter_gene@verizon.net> wrote:

>You don't say what use you will put the photos too. It can make a
>difference.

True, a HUGE difference. However due to the nature and location of the
question I would guess that he is not taking pictures for a magazine
or other higher end publications. I have shot a few with an expert and
learned a lot from him and his stylists.

> I shoot and write restaurant reviews and here is how I do it.
>Note that this is for newsprint. Try it with just your on camera flash. If
>it works well then you are out of the woods.

I think that on camera flash would be only useful for the simplest of
snapshots such as perhaps editorials such as you mention. Otherwise
most food pros use quite complicated studio lighting, metering with a
competent stylist and perhaps an additional cook or prep person. I do
realize that that is huge and beyond the budget for the OP.

>I can trust my camera and know
>what it can do. I don't know your camera so the rest is general. You have a
>pre-flash that measures the light. That will prevent your old flashes from
>being of any use. In manual mode the pre-flash might be turned off...then
>the externals might work. The incandescent were too yellow

I would use one or two off camera flash heads and a couple foam-core
reflectors and the incandescent (if lighting is set up properly) would
be inconsequential

>..do a manual
>white balance or shoot RAW if you have it.

I would only shoot raw in this instance, but it looks like he does not
have the option, perhaps Tiff.

> I like to shoot at a bit of an
>angle to add depth and to prevent flash bounce back.

Not to mention fill from other flash sources or reflectors of some
sort. Generally speaking harsh shadows do not work in food
photography.

> Macro has too short a
>DOF...

I agree, except for only the most ummm… "artsy" of images. I prefer to
lean away from such in conventional food photography.

>so go regular mode....for a plate of food.
>
>
>"Don" <d@d.com> wrote in message
>news:XTeBd.8320$_X7.1899@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com...
>> I started taking some digital photos of food at a local restaurant. I'm
>not
>> bad with Photoshop and such, but I'm no photographer, I could use some
>> advice.
>>
>> I've got an Olympus 8080. I'm shooting mostly plates of food in Macro mode
>> on a small tripod. I've done this sort of thing before with my old Oly
>2500
>> and got great results when I placed items in the sunlight. At this point I
>> need to stick to indoor because of poor weather. What sort of lighing
>should
>> I use for these shoots? I tried a couple of flood lights with regulat
>> incandesent bulbs (100 & 150 watt). The photos turned out with to much
>> yellow. It that because of the flood lights? Should I use a certain kind
>of
>> bulb? Should I have used the camera's built in flash along with the flood
>> lights? I've got a couple of older Vivitar external flashes, but not sure
>if
>> those would be of much help.

I would see what I could get with off camera flash and some reflectors
to avoid loss of shadow detail. A meter will also help keeping the
darkest of shadows out of the shot.

>> I need to keep my setup time to a minimum.

May I ask why?

>>I need to do something on the cheap, because of low funds, would appreciate
>> any help or if anyone knows of a web resource that deal with indoor food
>> photos that would be great.

I did a quick search on food photography and was inundated with sites!

>>
>> Don
>>
>>
>
>
Related resources
Anonymous
January 1, 2005 6:55:30 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Adjust your White Balance [ read the manual ] + why you need flash when you
got lots of floodlight handy ?
External lighting do create better colour effect imo.


=bob=


"Don" <d@d.com> wrote in message
news:XTeBd.8320$_X7.1899@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com...
>I started taking some digital photos of food at a local restaurant. I'm not
> bad with Photoshop and such, but I'm no photographer, I could use some
> advice.
>
> I've got an Olympus 8080. I'm shooting mostly plates of food in Macro mode
> on a small tripod. I've done this sort of thing before with my old Oly
> 2500
> and got great results when I placed items in the sunlight. At this point I
> need to stick to indoor because of poor weather. What sort of lighing
> should
> I use for these shoots? I tried a couple of flood lights with regulat
> incandesent bulbs (100 & 150 watt). The photos turned out with to much
> yellow. It that because of the flood lights? Should I use a certain kind
> of
> bulb? Should I have used the camera's built in flash along with the flood
> lights? I've got a couple of older Vivitar external flashes, but not sure
> if
> those would be of much help. I need to keep my setup time to a minimum. I
> need to do something on the cheap, because of low funds, would appreciate
> any help or if anyone knows of a web resource that deal with indoor food
> photos that would be great.
>
> Don
>
>
Anonymous
January 1, 2005 10:28:57 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Don" <d@d.com> writes:

> I started taking some digital photos of food at a local restaurant. I'm not
> bad with Photoshop and such, but I'm no photographer, I could use some
> advice.
>
> I've got an Olympus 8080. I'm shooting mostly plates of food in Macro mode
> on a small tripod. I've done this sort of thing before with my old Oly 2500
> and got great results when I placed items in the sunlight. At this point I
> need to stick to indoor because of poor weather. What sort of lighing should
> I use for these shoots? I tried a couple of flood lights with regulat
> incandesent bulbs (100 & 150 watt). The photos turned out with to much
> yellow. It that because of the flood lights? Should I use a certain kind of
> bulb? Should I have used the camera's built in flash along with the flood
> lights? I've got a couple of older Vivitar external flashes, but not sure if
> those would be of much help. I need to keep my setup time to a minimum. I
> need to do something on the cheap, because of low funds, would appreciate
> any help or if anyone knows of a web resource that deal with indoor food
> photos that would be great.

With flood lights, you need to set a custom white balance (see the manual for
details). You might get close enough with the incandescent or florescent
settings in the camera. You should be able to do this with no additional
cost. You can also fix the colors later in post processing (either by using
RAW files if your photo editor is set up for it, or by modifying the colors
with JPG/TIFFs).

For the flashes, they would help (flashes tend to be set at 5600K which usually
corresponds to between sunny and cloudy on most cameras). I would suggest at
least initially, bouncing the flashes off the ceiling which will give you
softer light. Note, older Vivitar flashes could send hundreds of volts through
the hot-shoe, possibly killing your camera. Depending on how old the flashes
are, I would recomend testing them before using them on the camera (under 6
volts will work on every camera, Olympus doesn't say what the safe voltage is
for the 8080).

--
Michael Meissner
email: mrmnews@the-meissners.org
http://www.the-meissners.org
Anonymous
January 4, 2005 11:25:19 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Don" <d@d.com> wrote in message
news:XTeBd.8320$_X7.1899@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com...
> I started taking some digital photos of food at a local restaurant. I'm
not
> bad with Photoshop and such, but I'm no photographer, I could use some
> advice.
>
> I've got an Olympus 8080. I'm shooting mostly plates of food in Macro mode
> on a small tripod. I've done this sort of thing before with my old Oly
2500
> and got great results when I placed items in the sunlight. At this point I
> need to stick to indoor because of poor weather. What sort of lighing
should
> I use for these shoots? I tried a couple of flood lights with regulat
> incandesent bulbs (100 & 150 watt). The photos turned out with to much
> yellow. It that because of the flood lights? Should I use a certain kind
of
> bulb? Should I have used the camera's built in flash along with the flood
> lights? I've got a couple of older Vivitar external flashes, but not sure
if
> those would be of much help. I need to keep my setup time to a minimum. I
> need to do something on the cheap, because of low funds, would appreciate
> any help or if anyone knows of a web resource that deal with indoor food
> photos that would be great.

1) Use full-spectrum bulbs or daylight floods
2) Manually white-balance your camera
3) Use a good tripod: ambient light exposures with high DOF are often long
ones.
4) If you must use flash, put diffusers over the flash elements. I've had
good impromptu success using everything from tissue paper through
translucent plastic bottles to thin, flexible plastic cutting boards.
Plates, silverware, and such are sources of specular reflections anyway, so
you need to avoid point-source lighting.

Frankly, I'd avoid flash altogether (except perhaps for some diffused fill)
when taking this sort of shot.
Anonymous
January 4, 2005 8:35:35 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Tue, 4 Jan 2005 08:25:19 -0800, "Paul H."
<xxpaulhtck@zzcomcast.yycom> wrote:

>1) Use full-spectrum bulbs or daylight floods
>2) Manually white-balance your camera
>3) Use a good tripod: ambient light exposures with high DOF are often long
>ones.
>4) If you must use flash, put diffusers over the flash elements. I've had
>good impromptu success using everything from tissue paper through
>translucent plastic bottles to thin, flexible plastic cutting boards.
>Plates, silverware, and such are sources of specular reflections anyway, so
>you need to avoid point-source lighting.

I do not understand how flash gives you specular highlights when
floods used for the exact same shot will not.

>
>Frankly, I'd avoid flash altogether (except perhaps for some diffused fill)
>when taking this sort of shot.

Why do you avoid the type of lighing (flash) that is most widely used
by the food pros?

>
>
>
>
Anonymous
January 4, 2005 8:35:36 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

ZONED! wrote:
>
> On Tue, 4 Jan 2005 08:25:19 -0800, "Paul H."
> <xxpaulhtck@zzcomcast.yycom> wrote:
>
> >1) Use full-spectrum bulbs or daylight floods
> >2) Manually white-balance your camera
> >3) Use a good tripod: ambient light exposures with high DOF are often long
> >ones.
> >4) If you must use flash, put diffusers over the flash elements. I've had
> >good impromptu success using everything from tissue paper through
> >translucent plastic bottles to thin, flexible plastic cutting boards.
> >Plates, silverware, and such are sources of specular reflections anyway, so
> >you need to avoid point-source lighting.
>
> I do not understand how flash gives you specular highlights when
> floods used for the exact same shot will not.

in this case they look the same.
>
> >
> >Frankly, I'd avoid flash altogether (except perhaps for some diffused fill)
> >when taking this sort of shot.
>
> Why do you avoid the type of lighing (flash) that is most widely used
> by the food pros?

the flash here will avoid overheating the food
and changing the way it looks.

>
> >
> >
> >
> >
Anonymous
January 4, 2005 8:35:37 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Did anyone mention that the December issue of shutterbug's cover
feature was 'Pro Tips For Fab Food Photos' Back in the day I did a lot
of large format commercial food shots and I thought sb did a good job
of covering the basic techniques.

I did recently take a shot of an apple pie a friend brought over as a
test for my little EX-Z40. Technically it came out fine but I think
all cooked food photos are fundamentally kinda' disgusting.


Frank /~ http://newmex.com/f10
@/
Anonymous
January 5, 2005 2:38:41 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Tue, 04 Jan 2005 12:15:29 -0800, Crownfield <Crownfield@cox.net>
wrote:

>ZONED! wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 4 Jan 2005 08:25:19 -0800, "Paul H."
>> <xxpaulhtck@zzcomcast.yycom> wrote:
>>
>> >1) Use full-spectrum bulbs or daylight floods
>> >2) Manually white-balance your camera
>> >3) Use a good tripod: ambient light exposures with high DOF are often long
>> >ones.
>> >4) If you must use flash, put diffusers over the flash elements. I've had
>> >good impromptu success using everything from tissue paper through
>> >translucent plastic bottles to thin, flexible plastic cutting boards.
>> >Plates, silverware, and such are sources of specular reflections anyway, so
>> >you need to avoid point-source lighting.
>>
>> I do not understand how flash gives you specular highlights when
>> floods used for the exact same shot will not.
>
>in this case they look the same.
>>
>> >
>> >Frankly, I'd avoid flash altogether (except perhaps for some diffused fill)
>> >when taking this sort of shot.
>>
>> Why do you avoid the type of lighing (flash) that is most widely used
>> by the food pros?
>
>the flash here will avoid overheating the food
>and changing the way it looks.

I agree and that is why I was seeking clarification from Paul.
Anonymous
January 5, 2005 12:43:41 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"ZONED!" <no_email@please_post.net> wrote in message
news:41dad33d.254082100@Netnews.Comcast.net...
> On Tue, 4 Jan 2005 08:25:19 -0800, "Paul H."
> <xxpaulhtck@zzcomcast.yycom> wrote:
>
> >1) Use full-spectrum bulbs or daylight floods
> >2) Manually white-balance your camera
> >3) Use a good tripod: ambient light exposures with high DOF are often
long
> >ones.
> >4) If you must use flash, put diffusers over the flash elements. I've
had
> >good impromptu success using everything from tissue paper through
> >translucent plastic bottles to thin, flexible plastic cutting boards.
> >Plates, silverware, and such are sources of specular reflections anyway,
so
> >you need to avoid point-source lighting.
>
> I do not understand how flash gives you specular highlights when
> floods used for the exact same shot will not.
>
> >
> >Frankly, I'd avoid flash altogether (except perhaps for some diffused
fill)
> >when taking this sort of shot.
>
> Why do you avoid the type of lighing (flash) that is most widely used
> by the food pros?

Unlike flash, floods stay on continuously, giving you ample time to arrange
the lighting while observing the results through the camera viewfinder.
With flash, unpleasant specular reflections are viewable only after the shot
and re-arranging the flash can be tricky and time-consuming, thanks to
Snell's Law and oddly-curved surfaces associated with plates and utensils.
On the whole, I'd much rather work with floods, ambient light and diffusers
than flash when photographing small, shiny objects. Like many people, I
started photography shooting with film and it's pretty frustrating to see
unpleasant reflections only after the film is developed and printed when
it's way too late to do anything about it.

I've never met a professional food photographer and I wonder if eating their
subject matter is part of the compensation for the jobs they get? Well,
both you and the food-photo "pros" can do whatever you want, as I was only
stating what has worked for me under similar conditions. Except for once
when I took a family's picture at a picnic and was paid with a free hotdog,
I've never shot food "professionally". However, I have tastefully
photographed several people's china/silver table setttings for estate
planning purposes, have never had a complaint about the results and since I
was paid for my meager efforts on a couple of occasions, I guess that makes
me a "pro". I've never thought of myself as a professional photographer and
I mention it only for those who need artificial comfort from the illusory
status such a meaningless title confers.
Anonymous
January 5, 2005 1:39:34 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Paul H. wrote:
>

> Unlike flash, floods stay on continuously, giving you ample time to arrange
> the lighting while observing the results through the camera viewfinder.

as we do with our modeling lights.
they work very well.

> With flash, unpleasant specular reflections are viewable only after the shot
> and re-arranging the flash can be tricky and time-consuming, thanks to
> Snell's Law and oddly-curved surfaces associated with plates and utensils.
> On the whole, I'd much rather work with floods, ambient light and diffusers
> than flash when photographing small, shiny objects. Like many people, I
> started photography shooting with film and it's pretty frustrating to see
> unpleasant reflections only after the film is developed and printed when
> it's way too late to do anything about it.

digital really avoids that.

I look at the proof on a 18 inch monitor before I break the set.
faster than polaroid, and the exact same image, not similar.
it only takes about two minutes after the shot.
try that with film.
Anonymous
January 5, 2005 5:57:34 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Crownfield" <Crownfield@cox.net> wrote in message
news:41DC3466.5152@cox.net...
> Paul H. wrote:
> >
>
> > Unlike flash, floods stay on continuously, giving you ample time to
arrange
> > the lighting while observing the results through the camera viewfinder.
>
> as we do with our modeling lights.
> they work very well.
>
> > With flash, unpleasant specular reflections are viewable only after the
shot
> > and re-arranging the flash can be tricky and time-consuming, thanks to
> > Snell's Law and oddly-curved surfaces associated with plates and
utensils.
> > On the whole, I'd much rather work with floods, ambient light and
diffusers
> > than flash when photographing small, shiny objects. Like many people, I
> > started photography shooting with film and it's pretty frustrating to
see
> > unpleasant reflections only after the film is developed and printed when
> > it's way too late to do anything about it.
>
> digital really avoids that.

Sort of. If you do a test shot with flash and see an unwanted reflection,
you still have to re-arrange the flash, the subject, or both and do another
test shot to see if the problem is gone. I simply prefer setting up a shot
and taking a bracketed exposure, then moving on to the next subject. About
a year ago, with a light tent I photographed a jewelry collection of about
75 pieces in an afternoon; I would have been at it for days using a
shoot-check-modify approach with flash.

>
> I look at the proof on a 18 inch monitor before I break the set.
> faster than polaroid, and the exact same image, not similar.
> it only takes about two minutes after the shot.
> try that with film.

Well, really, I wasn't advocating film over digital by any means, but a
process that works for both with a minimum of bother for me. Much like
Zorro, I like to get in, make my "Z", and get out, yet still take quality
pictures.
Anonymous
January 5, 2005 7:40:57 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Paul H. wrote:
>
> "Crownfield" <Crownfield@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:41DC3466.5152@cox.net...
> > Paul H. wrote:
> > >
> >
> > > Unlike flash, floods stay on continuously, giving you ample time to
> arrange
> > > the lighting while observing the results through the camera viewfinder.
> >
> > as we do with our modeling lights.
> > they work very well.
> > > On the whole, I'd much rather work with floods,
> > > ambient light and diffusers
> > > than flash when photographing small, shiny objects.

I use flash and reflectors, softboxes, brolly boxes,
flats and diffusers of different types and shapes.

they work perfectly with strobes.
I specially like working with small and / or reflective objects.

> > > Like many people, I
> > > started photography shooting with film and it's pretty frustrating to
> see
> > > unpleasant reflections only after the film is developed and printed when
> > > it's way too late to do anything about it.
> >
> > digital really avoids that.
>
> Sort of. If you do a test shot with flash and see an unwanted reflection,

why not just set up the strobe lighting and look through the lens?
the modeling lights are designed to do that job very well.
they do.

I know 99% that it will work perfectly before I press the button.
that first test shot confirms it.


> you still have to re-arrange the flash, the subject, or both and do another
> test shot to see if the problem is gone.

I do not see where your problem is.
I have used three different strobe systems from two different
manufacturers.
Ascor QC-8's, QC1200, and White-Lightning x3200's.
neither of them have modeling light problems.

what were you using?

take a look at
http://www.vircen.com/rpd/


> I simply prefer setting up a shot
> and taking a bracketed exposure, then moving on to the next subject. About
> a year ago, with a light tent I photographed a jewelry collection of about
> 75 pieces in an afternoon; I would have been at it for days using a
> shoot-check-modify approach with flash.

strange...

>
> >
> > I look at the proof on a 18 inch monitor before I break the set.
> > faster than polaroid, and the exact same image, not similar.
> > it only takes about two minutes after the shot.
> > try that with film.
>
> Well, really, I wasn't advocating film over digital by any means, but a
> process that works for both with a minimum of bother for me. Much like
> Zorro, I like to get in, make my "Z", and get out, yet still take quality
> pictures.
Anonymous
January 5, 2005 10:13:34 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Wed, 05 Jan 2005 10:39:34 -0800, Crownfield <Crownfield@cox.net>
wrote:

>Paul H. wrote:
>>
>
>> Unlike flash, floods stay on continuously, giving you ample time to arrange
>> the lighting while observing the results through the camera viewfinder.
>
>as we do with our modeling lights.
>they work very well.
>
>> With flash, unpleasant specular reflections are viewable only after the shot
>> and re-arranging the flash can be tricky and time-consuming, thanks to
>> Snell's Law and oddly-curved surfaces associated with plates and utensils.
>> On the whole, I'd much rather work with floods, ambient light and diffusers
>> than flash when photographing small, shiny objects. Like many people, I
>> started photography shooting with film and it's pretty frustrating to see
>> unpleasant reflections only after the film is developed and printed when
>> it's way too late to do anything about it.
>
>digital really avoids that.
>
>I look at the proof on a 18 inch monitor before I break the set.
>faster than polaroid, and the exact same image, not similar.
>it only takes about two minutes after the shot.
>try that with film.

The Nikon D70 (and I am sure others) plugs directly into a NTSC
display for a live view of what you've just shot. It's not
color-correct or high resolution but it can be more useful than the
little LCD on the back of the camera, and it's 36" or more depending
on the TV being used. It also lets the model see what's going on.

--
Owamanga!
Anonymous
January 5, 2005 10:13:35 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Owamanga wrote:
>
> On Wed, 05 Jan 2005 10:39:34 -0800, Crownfield <Crownfield@cox.net>
> wrote:
>
> >Paul H. wrote:
> >>
> >
> >> Unlike flash, floods stay on continuously, giving you ample time to arrange
> >> the lighting while observing the results through the camera viewfinder.
> >
> >as we do with our modeling lights.
> >they work very well.
> >
> >> With flash, unpleasant specular reflections are viewable only after the shot
> >> and re-arranging the flash can be tricky and time-consuming, thanks to
> >> Snell's Law and oddly-curved surfaces associated with plates and utensils.
> >> On the whole, I'd much rather work with floods, ambient light and diffusers
> >> than flash when photographing small, shiny objects. Like many people, I
> >> started photography shooting with film and it's pretty frustrating to see
> >> unpleasant reflections only after the film is developed and printed when
> >> it's way too late to do anything about it.
> >
> >digital really avoids that.
> >
> >I look at the proof on a 18 inch monitor before I break the set.
> >faster than polaroid, and the exact same image, not similar.
> >it only takes about two minutes after the shot.
> >try that with film.
>
> The Nikon D70 (and I am sure others) plugs directly into a NTSC
> display for a live view of what you've just shot. It's not
> color-correct or high resolution but it can be more useful than the
> little LCD on the back of the camera, and it's 36" or more depending
> on the TV being used. It also lets the model see what's going on.

very usefull, but not the detail of a 1200 x 800 display.

>
> --
> Owamanga!
Anonymous
January 6, 2005 8:43:12 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Wed, 5 Jan 2005 09:43:41 -0800, "Paul H."
<xxpaulhtck@zzcomcast.yycom> wrote:

>
>"ZONED!" <no_email@please_post.net> wrote in message
>news:41dad33d.254082100@Netnews.Comcast.net...
>> On Tue, 4 Jan 2005 08:25:19 -0800, "Paul H."
>> <xxpaulhtck@zzcomcast.yycom> wrote:
>>
>> >1) Use full-spectrum bulbs or daylight floods
>> >2) Manually white-balance your camera
>> >3) Use a good tripod: ambient light exposures with high DOF are often
>long
>> >ones.
>> >4) If you must use flash, put diffusers over the flash elements. I've
>had
>> >good impromptu success using everything from tissue paper through
>> >translucent plastic bottles to thin, flexible plastic cutting boards.
>> >Plates, silverware, and such are sources of specular reflections anyway,
>so
>> >you need to avoid point-source lighting.
>>
>> I do not understand how flash gives you specular highlights when
>> floods used for the exact same shot will not.
>>
>> >
>> >Frankly, I'd avoid flash altogether (except perhaps for some diffused
>fill)
>> >when taking this sort of shot.
>>
>> Why do you avoid the type of lighing (flash) that is most widely used
>> by the food pros?
>
>Unlike flash, floods stay on continuously, giving you ample time to arrange
>the lighting while observing the results through the camera viewfinder.

Crownfield has already addressed the modeling light issue.

>With flash, unpleasant specular reflections are viewable only after the shot

modeling lights again

>and re-arranging the flash can be tricky and time-consuming,
>thanks to Snell's Law and oddly-curved surfaces associated with plates and utensils.

The law applies to any photography using any reflective or refractive
properties including liquids, glass, gems etc.

>On the whole, I'd much rather work with floods, ambient light and diffusers
>than flash when photographing small, shiny objects. Like many people, I
>started photography shooting with film

As did I, but I fail to see your point.

>and it's pretty frustrating to see
>unpleasant reflections only after the film is developed and printed when
>it's way too late to do anything about it.

Since I have always used flash with good modeling, I also use White
lightning as does Crownfield (I use Ultra 1800s) I have no surprises.


>
>I've never met a professional food photographer and I wonder if eating their
>subject matter is part of the compensation for the jobs they get?

Huh? Most food shot by a pro has been worked up by a stylist and is
usually not fit (or at least advised) for consumption.

>Well,
>both you and the food-photo "pros" can do whatever you want, as I was only
>stating what has worked for me under similar conditions. Except for once
>when I took a family's picture at a picnic and was paid with a free hotdog,
>I've never shot food "professionally". However, I have tastefully
>photographed several people's china/silver table setttings for estate
>planning purposes, have never had a complaint about the results and since I
>was paid for my meager efforts on a couple of occasions, I guess that makes
>me a "pro". I've never thought of myself as a professional photographer and
>I mention it only for those who need artificial comfort from the illusory
>status such a meaningless title confers.
>
I was just trying to point out that shooting with decent studio flash
is in many opinions preferable for food.
>
!