The lighting is fluorescent; should I just shoot outdoors? Also, forgive my ignorance but how do I know what setting the white balance should be if I am manually adjusting it? And by faster lens do you mean a lens with a lower f stop?
thanks
I agree with FoundWaldo.
The white balance on the rice thing and the sandwich are too yellow. The counter as a backdrop is distracting, as are the things poking into the pictures (the yellow thing above the rice, the white thing above the sandwich).
The white balance for the soup is too blue, and the plain white tablecloth blends into the bowl too much. Try a yellow bowl with warmer lighting, perhaps?
Florescent lighting in general is horrible to take pictures with, because they’re a combination of harsh white and slightly green light that just makes everything, especially organic matter, look zombified. Maybe try setting the food next to a window, especially if you can get interesting shadows in the picture as well.
And ditto on the shallower depth of field – if you don’t have a faster lens but do have a telephoto zoom one, try standing further away and zooming in from afar.
You might also want to consider attacking the food from different angles – lower, straight-on, etc. for more interesting looks. Or maybe have the food posed with other props (utensils, cups, whatever) or maybe even people.
Turn off your lights and shoot near a window. Read the websites I linked to above. Just shooting outside will usually also give you relatively flat light, unless you shoot near sunrise or sunset.
Many cameras have a way of adjusting your white balance by shooting a white card. Technically, you should use a card that is manufactured specifically for this purpose, but a sheet of white paper is usually good enough. Read through your camera manual to see how this is accomplished for your particular camera. Or, shoot RAW, and adjust white balance after the fact. (You can use a picture of a white card as a reference to do this.) If you err on your white balance, err on the side of slightly warm (a little yellow). That usually looks better than images being too cool (blue.) I personally tend to balance everything slightly warm. I hate the look of a strictly neutral white balance for most subjects. However, on the green-magenta spectrum (to compensate for fluorescent lighting), you really want to be spot-on with that. Errors on neither side look too good, unless you are purposely going for a sickly green look.
Yes, “faster” lens means a lens with a wider aperture. For example, a lens with a maximum aperture of f/1.8 is faster than one with a max aperture of f/2.8.
that last photo was one I actually tried photoshopping, so I didn’t link to it because it was modified. I did crop it as as been suggested, and applied a cooling filter, but it still seems that the lighting is off.
this is the photo I’m talking about - after Photoshop
http://www.flickr.com/photos/65128301@N03/5930088017/in/photostream/
The pictures look fine. What do you expect? You are close to the objects and focused on them. You could get different effects with different aperture numbers. As a picture for a lunch menu, this would be very nice. Photography is partly about the purpose of the photo. Tell us more about the purpose and your observations of imperfection regarding that purpose.
See post 7, Al.
There are some nice food photos here:
http://www.eatology.co/SiteEATOLOGY/Recipes/Entries/2011/6/28_The_Best_Banana_Bread_of_Your_Life.html
Scroll down to “next” to see more photos
thank you all for your replies and advice - I will try all of it.
thanks
Just a thought, my sister has a food blog and she uses a regular old end table lamp (sans shade) to create more interesting lighting. I think her shots (to me, a layman) look like they could easily be in a food magazine. I’m sure experts will disagree, but take a look:
Now she has worked at it a good deal in the past few months but she is not a professional. She doesn’t work in a creative field either. And, of course, it’s actual food (that will be eaten) that she takes pics of.
Exif says he’s using a Nikon D5000, so yes indeed it has a manual white balance setting. Assuming it’s not radically different from my D40, you go to white balance menu, select PRE, and then choose RECORD. Fill the camera’s field of vision with a white paper, or better a proper grey card, in the actual lighting you’ll be using for the shot and hit the shutter release.
Don’t forget to change the white balance back to auto when you go out to shoot the kids running around in the backyard.
caverject - I’m not trying to be an ass, but you need a lot of practice. Your photos are, to be honest, a mess. The positive side to this is that, with just a moderate amount of effort and determination, you will see dramatic improvement relatively quickly.
If you are serious about this, start here: Understanding Exposure by Bryan Peterson. This is a must-read. You can get a used, earlier edition if you’re strapped for cash.
Here’s another must (if you are using flash): Strobist. Get yourself lost in the site, and do it regularly. Start with Lighting 101.
There are a lot of good photo forums where you can ask specific questions and get specific advice. This one is usually pretty good.
Finally, I get the sense that you’re not real familiar with your camera. Without this knowledge, you don’t really know what it can do for you. Learn your equipment.
A couple of random thoughts:
-
Shoot in RAW. You have so much more to work with when it comes to processing.
-
Keep the fluorescent lights off. Use off-camera flash - bounced or with umbrella (they’re cheap) - or natural light.
-
Learn your processing software. Get Adobe Lightroom if you can (much better than Photoshop for your needs). Learn about contrast, vibrance, and clarity (these would improve your sample photos immensely).
-
Shoot at the widest aperture your lens allows, and make sure you are focusing carefully. Spot focusing, rather than matrix, would work nicely. Tripod (using timer or remote shutter release) is a must.
It’s easy to feel overwhelmed. Know that you are in for a fun and exciting journey. Good luck, and show us more in a month or two.
mmm
Just wanted to mention that you could try playing with adjustment layers and adding some gaussian blur to the foreground and background to make it look as though you had a shallow depth of field.
-
- Absolutely.
-
- Absolutely.
-
- I’d disagree, but I usually shoot bigger things in crappy lighting. Then I’d stop 'er down as far as I could and let the tripod do its job, but that probably doesn’t work on closeups.
FTR: The only time I was paid to do commercial photography (note that it was on 35mm Kodachrome using lamps that burnt hotter than the Sun) my first shots using Kleenex as a filter caused the Kleenex to catch fire, and later shots using the lamps too close to the Formica tabletop caused it to char. We still used them. I was a draftsman, but they were good enough to be blown up to 24" x 36" for a trade show.
Have you ever caught Formica afire? Didn’t accomplish it once, and stopped it from going too far another couple times.
I really do appreciate all the advice and tips, and you are quite right, I do need a lot of practice. I will definitely follow up on all these and keep trying. One last question regarding lenses, I noticed most of the lenses with wide apertures (1.8-2.8 range) for Nikons are pretty expensive. Are there any third party lenses that are affordable and are decent or would it be better to go with a used Nikkor lens? (i’m using a D5000)
thanks
I’m curious about the OP’s choice of username. Caverject is a drug that you inject into your penis to make it hard.
Pharmacists have a weird sense of humor
Umbrellas are a bitch when it comes to reflective surfaces like the ones you get when shooting food (plates, bottles, forks, etc.) They make really ugly highlights in dinnerware and utensils unless you’re really, really careful. This is not to say it can’t be done, but it’s not ideal. You’re better off with a softbox (makeshift or real one), a bounce off a big white wall (like you mention), or natural window light (which basically acts as a softbox.)
All the lighting the OP needs, at this level, is a nice, big window. I wouldn’t want to complicate the issue with off-camera flash, softboxes, strobes, etc. It’s completely unnecessary for someone of that level. When learning light, start simple and build from there. A single window light (and perhaps a reflector) can create results more than good enough for a website.
My standby lens is a Nikkor 50mm f1.8 fixed lens. It cost me $119 at B&H Photo. This lens is the best deal there is. No need to spend lots of money. I also recommend the SB-400 speedlight, which I also bought at B&H for 80 dollars.
Upon further thought, I am going to retract my off-camera flash/umbrella recommendation and agree with pulykamell; start with window light and a reflector.
I agree with the lens (great value), but totally disagree with the flash. The SB-400 is severely limiting. If you are on a budget, find a used SB-600. Or, as mentioned, hold off on the flash for now. (what you don’t want to do is use your built-in, on camera full frontal flash for these projects).
mmm