View Full Version : Taking pictures of food?
If I want to take professional pictures of food.
What type of equipment and lighting would I need?
Is it easy to take such pictures and how would I learn about such settings?
Off the top of my head, clean uncluttered background, and use natural light whenever possible, preferably smack bang in front of a window, with some sort of netting to create a soft, diffused light? :)
what sort of camera would I need? I'm assuming I would need an slr and lenses?
Not necessarily, but with a decent lens, you’ll be able to get the shallow Depth of Field which so many food pics have nowadays. Well, the ones I've seen anyway :)
Thing is I would love to make a cook book. And pictures and presentation is my biggest problem. Time and patience with presentation I think I can get that sorted. It's just the camera work.
Could you try shooting upwards? As in resting the camera on the worktop, rather than shooting from above?
I am sure a P+S can manage, just have a few practice sessions and see what works best? :)
You'll have to talk in laymen speech I have no idea about photography at all.
As for shooting from a table, Most food shots are done from a 45ish angle by the looks of it. Maybe a small worktop tripod.
The camera I have a he moment is rubbish the colour goes orange unless you focus it on a bright light source before taking a picture and hey are usually blurry. I was going to get a fuji a few months ago. But hey didn't have any in stock. So thinking maybe I should get somethign more suitable just for this.
If you're serious about it, you can pick up a second hand Canon 300D/400D with basic lens for a couple of hundred? Should be more than adequate? :)
And what sort of lens would I need?
Good neutral colour light (normal kitchen light is out)
Uncluttered surfaces
Food is neat (presentation)
Good use of Depth of field
It depends on what you are trying to photograph so the lens used could be varied. From a 50mm for a big Turkey to a 100 macro (for some coffee beans).
Say the usual plated up look.
A 50mm would do it.
This was taken on a 16-35L at 24mm on a 30D....which equates to about 40mm
http://img148.imageshack.us/img148/6439/img1604o.jpg
So what sort of price are we looking at for a second hand 300d/400d with a 50mm lens. Also any good website forums to look at for 2nd hand kit?
And how do you let about taking such great shots. Is it just as simple as taking some posting them up on a forum. And someone saying fiddle with this or that. Till you get he hang off it?
Or is there any good guides o close up shots?
Oh and very nice pic mondo and that's exactly the type of shots I'm talking about.
If you're serious about it, you can pick up a second hand Canon 300D/400D with basic lens for a couple of hundred? Should be more than adequate? :)
And 50mm are about £60-70 brand new, bloody brilliant little things :)
So what sort of price are we looking at for a second hand 300d/400d with a 50mm lens. Also any good website forums to look at for 2nd hand kit?
And how do you let about taking such great shots. Is it just as simple as taking some posting them up on a forum. And someone saying fiddle with this or that. Till you get he hang off it?
Or is there any good guides o close up shots?
Oh and very nice pic mondo and that's exactly the type of shots I'm talking about.
After putting the food on the plate, think about clutter/mess/background, then..
You have to think about the following:-
1 - Light, best with natural light, unless you get into flashes, which will get tricky not to mention expensive. So best to do it with natural light
2 - You have to think about miniminal focal distance on a lens, alone with the focal length will determine how close you get to the subject and also determine your minimum shutter speed without camera shake without the use of a tripod. The 16-35L is nice coz the minimum focal distance on that is inches, i think the 50mm is longer, but it is a longer reach. I have taken shots of food with it, and it's not bad.
Like this is from a 50mm on a 30D (which is the same crop as a 400D)
http://img2.imageshack.us/img2/7135/coffee1a.jpg (http://img2.imageshack.us/i/coffee1a.jpg/)
3 - I do some processing in Lightroom/Photoshop, but nothing extreme, i am talking about sliding the exposure bar a bit, contrast and stuff. Simple stuff.
I don't really set these shots up that much, its pretty much how i work and cook in the kitchen. A lot of the time i just cook, then decide i want to take a pic, grab the camera and snap. Apart from placing the fork where i think it's best, positing the bowl where it has the best light, there is no set up.
very useful mondo. so a 16-35L would be better but a 50mm would be more than adequate.
Any good photography forums with a decent sale forum I can have a browse through?
very useful mondo. so a 16-35L would be better but a 50mm would be more than adequate.
Any good photography forums with a decent sale forum I can have a browse through?
erm, the 50mm is £80, a 16-35 is £1,000......
Start with the 50mm !
www.talkphotography.co.uk is where i frequent, there are people on there that does some food photography for living. :)
Ouch that must be one hell of a lens.
cheers will have a browse and a read.
sorry for being such a n00b and so many questions. but would a 350D be any good.
Also on the lenses you have f/x.x with numbers seeming running for around 1.4 upwards. what are these and what difference does it make.
The F number in essence is how big the lens can open. Imagine the lens as a water tap, and it opens up. A F/1.0 lens meaning it can open 100 percent, a F/2.0 lens meaning it can open 50%. As the math goes 1/2 = 50%. So a F/4.0 lens can open only 1/4=25%.
What does that translate? 2 things.
1 = Bigger (smaller numer F/1.0, F/2.0) so it let in more light
2 = You can more blur (photography term, bokeh, its japanese), as you can see in the pics, only what I want to be in focus is in focus, the rest (in front and behind) are out of focus. A F/2.0 lens' focal plane will be thinner than a F/4.0.
As for the 350D, it'll do the job but it is old, I would try a 20D, 30D, 450D secondhand.
The 16-35 is expensive because of its construction (weather sealed), its a constant F/2.8 zoom lens and it is WIDE. Canon doesn't make a lens for that focal length for a cropped body with that aperture. And I would really start with the 50mm, as you can see, you can't tell which one cost more, both taken on the same camera, jsut different lens. In fact, I prefer the coffee shot (even though it is the 50mmm F/1.4 version, not the F/1.8). But my point is, a 50mm 1.8 can give you the same result. So, don't worry too much about the lens...to a degree, the 50mm is a good starting point.
I really don't think you need to spend loads of money on lenses. The kit lens on a 350D takes superb pictures. Small tripod, job done.
That orange colouring is from the auto white balance. Back in the old days of film if you took pictures in different lights they came out funny colours; lightbulbs made them orange, striplights made them green and only outside was reliable. Cameras today meddle with the colour balance but most digi cameras will take an orange picture one minute, a blue one the next and so on, depending what you point the camera at. Best thing to do is use a fixed colour balance, which most cameras should allow you to do. The best camera I've had for this was a Sony and you could set an instant white balance setting by pointing the camera at a sheet of white paper. There it would stay and all your photos would be the same colour. It's a bit more involved with a 350D but you can do it :)
Taken on a compact while in a restaurant, not the best but it's okay under the conditions.
http://img242.imageshack.us/img242/4277/image6718.jpg (http://img242.imageshack.us/i/image6718.jpg/)
SidewinderINC
06-10-2009, 20:20
Looks like it's been quite heavily processed though, Mondo?
I've never managed to get such a narrow DOF on a compact.
The depth of field is from the camera, not processed. I only adjust exposure, contrast and add vignetting. The trick is to shoot in macro mode :)
SidewinderINC
06-10-2009, 20:37
The depth of field is from the camera, not processed. I only adjust exposure, contrast and add vignetting. The trick is to shoot in macro mode :)
Damn, just means I suck at photography then ;D :p
It's possible - but obviously not as controllable or predictable as on a DSLR.
vBulletin® v3.7.4, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.