Why do my photos look like crap?

[Mean_Mr.Mustard]

Hey caverject -

I hope you don’t mind, but I did a quick touch-up job on one of your photos (if you do mind, say the word and I will delete it).

Your original

My edited version
mmm

[caverject]

@Mean_Mr.Mustard

Hey caverject -

I hope you don’t mind, but I did a quick touch-up job on one of your photos (if you do mind, say the word and I will delete it).

Your original

My edited version
mmm

Don’t mind at all. How did you get the background to blur like that? And I’m assuming you sharpened it quite a bit?

[Mean_Mr.Mustard]

@caverject

Don’t mind at all. How did you get the background to blur like that? And I’m assuming you sharpened it quite a bit?

I went into Photoshop first to clone out that yellow corner edge at the top. While there, I cloned the more blurred sections onto the sharper sections of counter top (there are better ways to do this, I just did a quickie).

In Lightroom I changed the white balance (I think it was way too yellow), increased clarity, vibrance, and contrast, opened up the exposure a bit, messed with curves a little, then, finally, sharpened just a tad.

I think a slightly lower angle would help (so you’re not looking down into the dish so much), as well as the previously-mentioned prop items (cool looking fork, candlestick/holder, glass of wine, breadstick, etc.)
mmm

[caverject]

Thanks so much for all the helpful advice. I tried to follow as many suggestions as I could and I think my results have turned out much, much better. For any beginners out there that are having the same problems I was, these recommendations were some of the most useful:

@Argent_Towers

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.

Absolutely true. I had to get the one with the built-in motor, so it was slightly more expensive, but having a lens with an f stop of 1.8 makes it super easy to get great pictures. Because it’s a fixed lens you have to walk towards or away from the subject to “zoom” but you get used to it and the results are fantastic.

@FoundWaldo

The lighting is too flat; you need it coming in from an angle, at least. To get those great food photos, you need to control the light carefully. Often that just means recognizing great window light and arranging your plate in the right place and orientation to take advantage of it, other times it means actually using a lighting set up (NOT on-camera flash) to get what you need.

Great food photography is an art. It’s not just a matter of getting the exposure right and clicking. But the most important thing by far is the light.

I found that shooting on my patio with lots of natural light improved the look immediately. I’m still stuck with fluorescent lights in my kitchen so the actual cooking shots still have a ways to go.

@Giles

One tip that I received recently from a professional photographer looking at some of my work was to leave room around the subject. My problem is that I try to compose exactly in the camera, leaving no room for error. That sometimes works fine, because it gives greater impact, but cropping is easy these days, so you can fix the composition afterwards.

Also very good advice. I found that taking a photo from further away and cropping it later in Photoshop produced better results than trying to zoom in from the beginning.

@leahcim

(1) Foodgawker tends to have a lot more “stuff” in the composition for interest. You kind of just have the food, and the minimum required to support the food, and are all shot at a high angle to limit the amount of background.

(2) A lot of the foodgawker photos have a conspicuously shallow depth of field (i.e. the food is in focus, but everything behind it is blurry) which I think is a nice effect. It also goes well the the “having more stuff” thing, since the stuff is clearly there, but the food itself is highlighted. Some playing with your lenses (like getting in close with your camera as opposed to standing farther away and using a zoom lens) might give the same effect.

I had not realized the impact props would have on the photos. The first one I tried just putting a wine glass in the background, and with my new lens it just blurred it in and created the shallow depth of field.

@Mean_Mr.Mustard

• 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

Fluorescent lights really do ruin pictures. I still haven’t gotten Lightroom but the basics in Photoshop are helpful. And again, the wide aperture is extremely important, IMO.

And finally, after following all the advice and suggestions, here are my newest photos:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/65128301@N03/6061184120/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/65128301@N03/6060631733/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/65128301@N03/6060631759/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/65128301@N03/6060631793/

thanks again to everyone

[Johnny_L.A]

Much better!

[caverject]

Also, as many have pointed out, I wasn’t familiar enough with the camera. I would suggest to newbies out there to make sure to understand everything you can about shutter speed, aperture, and ISO. Try to take your pictures with the manual settings - it’s a little daunting at first but once you get the hang of it you’ll never use the auto setting again.

[pulykamell]

Yes, a definite improvement. I might add a smidge extra depth of field on some of those shots (just one stop, not much more), but these are working much better than your first attempt. Keep experimenting and shooting.

[zoid]

Huge improvement!

[GuanoLad]

Wow! What an improvement! It’s so great to see good advice given, judiciously applied, and seeing such a transformation.

Plus, now I’m hungry.

[PlainJain]

@caverject

… after following all the advice and suggestions, here are my newest photos:

<links deleted>

thanks again to everyone

Excellent job!

[CookingWithGas]

I wasn’t in on the first round but looked at before and after and am very impressed with the final results. Your use of shallow depth of field is very good. If you are a gear-head you might also want to look into a tilt-shift lens, which can create very interest depth-of-field effects and are used frequently for this type of photography.

Watch the glare on the tomato soup, though

(BTW in response to the “fake food” discussion earlier, I saw an article in Life Magazine many years ago about a “food stylist” who creates the setups for food ad photos. It showed how she set up a ham sandwich to be photographed. All the food was “real” but the sandwich was constructed. That is, she used styrofoam, aluminum foil, toothpicks, etc., to make the sandwich look a whole lot better than the one you make in your kitchen to actually eat.)

[6ImpossibleThingsB4Breakfast]

Microwaved tampons are used for rising steam, being that food that looks hot and just-served appears much more appetising in photographs.