Why is apparent dof in current food photography so shallow?

[rj__]

Historically, 4x5 has been the standard for food. Recent food

photographs have displayed very narrrow apparent depth of field.

Why? Is this a question of fashion or inherent to the

cameras/lenses that are being used?

 

I'm asking this because I'm about to start working with a very

accomplished chef on a book. Originally, we intended to use a

digital camera to record the food in a simple way and then revisit

the photography after the book has been written, using a specialist

in food photography.

 

For various reaons, including issues about seasonality, we have

decided to take a shot a doing the photography ourselves as we go

along. And we have decided to use a 4x5 camera to do the

recording. We may still use a professional food photographer for

some shots at the end, but we've decided that we want to do as much

as we can on our own.

 

This gives rise to the question about depth of field and whether

there is a technical reason, as distinct from fashion, for the

current predeliction for narrow depth.

 

This project also raises a couple of other questions, including:

 

Does it matter, based on the current practice of publishers, whether

the film is negative or transparency?

 

Either way, what film would you use for food photography?

 

Any other advice?

[brooks short]

RJ,

 

The shallow depth of field is a fashion, trend, artifice, whatever you want to call it. It's been happening for several years now and for me, it's starting to get old.

 

Using a view camera is a good way to achieve this effect because it's not just the use of a large aperture. It also involves movements of the lens and film plane to increase the lack of depth of field.

 

One of the side benefits is the ability to use small amounts of light either strobe or tungsten to facilitate a large aperture.

 

Another benefit is that there is less styling needed in the props, food and background since those things are out so far out of focus.

[brooks short]

RJ,

 

Almost forgot the second question. If you are shooting film, transparency film is the preferred choice for seperations and publishing. Most of the work done today in this field is actually digital capture using a MF digital back on a view camera.

 

The workflow when using digital capture is so much easier when you can evaluate a large image on a computer screen as it is captured. It's much easier to judge the details of the food and styling, the actual DOF, the color, the layout of the page at actual size and the exposure on the computer screen than it is on a 4x5 or even 8x10 polaroid.

 

I shoot a lot of food commercially. In the eighties much of the work was on 8x10 chromes. In the nineties budgets were smaller and 4x5 chromes were preferred. In the last 3 years almost all of my food work has been shot with MF digital capture.

[ellis_vener_photography]

A photo editors choice being aped by other art directors & photographers.

[james_baird]

I think it's for sort of the same reason you see so many shots in magazines these days

ostentatiously include the film border around the image (which in many cases are shot

digitally, with the border added by Photoshop afterwards. Sometimes they don't even

make sense - I've seen some color shots that had labels for B&W emulsions, and vice

versa)

 

In Paul Fussell's book "Class", an dissection of the American status system, he noted that

in every era, the upper class adopts more expensive, less convenient "antique" technology

in order to differentiate

themselves from the middle class, which is furiously trying to acquire the latest and

greatest things in order to stay "up to date" and in turn differentiate themselves from the

lower classes, who can't afford the latest toys.

 

So as film continues its march to obsolescense (please, no DvF flamefests - I am well

aware it is a long way away), the acoutrements of film - including an overly shallow depth

of field that revels in the very thing you went to such lengths to avoid back when you

actually were shooting 4x5 - acquire a mystical significance.

 

It's one of the reasons I think there will continue to be a demand for fiim-based wedding

shooters, particularly for high-end weddings. Shooting only on film is already starting to

be seen as having more "class"...

[johndc]

I know this is OT but I agree 100% with James.

 

I also get a kick out of seeing color pictures with a 125PX border.

[markci]

The type of digital cameras & backs used to do product photography are capable of plenty shallow dof, so the film/digital thing is a canard.

 

It's just the current fad.

[johndc]

If anything, I would think the use of 6x6 or 6x9 backs would result in more depth of field since the lenses appropriate to those image sizes are shorter.

 

I don't know this for sure, though. I'm just hypothesizing. Hopefully one of the more experienced folks can tell me if I'm on the right track.

[carl smith]

Tis a fad, and I too get a giggle when they mismatch the "film type" border with the actual image.

[john_cook1]

The world of advertising photography is extremely competitive. Twenty years ago there was a massive glut of excellent photographers. Since then it has gotten horribly worse. Much easier these days to break into move acting than photography.

 

Very young art directors right out of school are absolutely buried in photo portfolios of technically exquisite work from hopeful vendors. Their eyes soon glaze over from looking at one magnificent masterwork after another.

 

One way to stand out from the crowd is to purposely shoot some technically amateurish garbage and try to convince these kids that it is Art. Surprisingly easy scam to pull off on these naive youngsters. Very trendy, you know.

 

The great photographer Todd Walker used to define "Sensitive and Poetic" as "Out of focus and Funny Color".

[peter k]

Hi RJ, some tricks regarding food shots. For gravy use motor oil. It shines more and looks better than regular gravy. Whipped cream use shaving cream it retains its form longer under the lights. These two substitutions are OK to use for a Cook Book but not for advertising shots. For advertising shots you must use the real food. Regards Peter

[d._kevin_gibson]

And mashed potato for vanilla ice cream etc etc. Setting up food and food substitutes for this kind of work is a whole highly specialised skill in itself. You would do well to hire someone to do this whole side of the shoot - the set dressing/food prep for shots and so on.

 

"These two substitutions are OK to use for a Cook Book but not for advertising shots. For advertising shots you must use the real food."

 

Where did you get that little gem from Peter? Doesn't stand for 90% of the advertising I've ever seen in production (or done) - it's all mostly fiction.

[brooks short]

Here's the deal for substituting food items in food photography for advertising. You can't alter the food that is being advertised. You can substitute anything for a food item that's in the shot as long as it is not the item being sold.

 

So, if you were shooting an ad for ice cream, you have to use the real ice cream but you could use anything for the chocolate syrup that's on the ice cream.

 

If you were shooting an ad for just the chocolate syrup, you have to use the real chocolate syrup but you could substitute mashed potatoes for ice cream.

[User_503771]

Your questions about how to proceed, towards the end of the post, piqued my interest because they involve something I'm a little familiar with -- book design and production.

 

Something not mentioned thus far is the fact that the type of paper you'll print onto and the press techniques used to get the ink onto the paper will have an effect on how the end result looks.

 

How far along is your project? Have you actually designed your book yet? Is there a designer working with you on this? Do you have a publisher yet? If so, then you know by now what kind of paper will be used for the pages, and possibly also who will do the prepress and press work.

 

Assuming that this is the case, you might want to do a little additional research, and "work backwards" from the finished product.

 

You can do this by looking at other books that have been produced by the same publisher/printer. Look at the color rendition. You could contact the printer and find out how the prepress work was done, and who it was done by. You might even be able to find out what kind of film was used for the photos in the first place.

 

Tell both the printer and the prepress people that you want to know about any color matching issues that you might need to address to get a satisfactory result. You'll probably find them to be helpful in answering any questions you have. You can ask them about best practices for your type of project, and what kinds of problems they've had to solve in the past.

 

You can find out the pros and cons of using various different papers, and you'll find that there's a wide variety of ways to get the ink onto the paper, and the whole thing bound and ready for the book store, for a wide range of prices.

 

My whole point is that you might be able to save yourself -- and subsequent workers on your project -- a fair amount of time and expense in color correction and other chores if you establish what paper you'll print onto, and who will do the prepress and printing work, before you even start shooting. Then you can handle as much color correction *for that process* as possible in the camera, instead of at the prepress or printing stage.

 

Prepress work (scanning and sizing) will typically be charged by the hour. Adjustments to color at the printing stage (on the press) would also add time. Printing is very expensive and a book project will usually have to be produced within a very specific budget. So if you pick a film and, if necessary, filtration scheme -- and paper to be printed onto -- that are easy for the prepress and press people to work with, you'll get a better result in the end, with fewer opportunities for error.

 

Some printing houses are set up specifically for printing books. Thus the difference in pricing from one house to another for your kind of project. Look at samples of their work before you commit your project to them.

 

I know that my comments might raise more questions than answers in a way, but these questions can only be answered for your particular project. But don't be dismayed. Do your homework, and you'll find that all your questions and concerns can be answered by experienced well-trained vendors who have decent equipment and can deliver your books for reasonable prices.

[dai_hunter]

John De Cristofaro , oct 01, 2004; 11:54 p.m.said: I also get a kick out of seeing color pictures with a 125PX border.

 

Strange that you mention that - I have taken to using a PS action that simulates a single frame film border with or without the film type data added - I have chosen on most examples not to include film type but instead substitute my © notice there as a subdued text line. Look at Adobe Studio site for the "BBfilmstrip" action (free download - site registration required)<div></div>

[peter k]

Hi Kevin, Brooks is exactly correct. Here in Canada the food inspector may just be there and heaven only can help you if you are using substitutes. Also usually the Food store will bring in the food by the case just to be sure there is enough there to do the job. The set up and lighting takes quite a bit of time as you probably know and the stuff gets wilted etc. very fast. A friend of mine is in the business he had to shoot a Heinz Can of Tomato Paste. (The Can not the tomato's). To make the Tomato on top of the can look more pleasing and glowing one of the young assistants put one of the little red christmas lights inside the Tomato and turned on the power. The shot was the keeper sold and printed you will see it on the Heinz Tomato cans etc.Remember they were selling the can with the sauce or paste and not the Tomato. Regards Peter

Regards Peter

[rj__]

Thanks very much for these responses. I'm not surprised that several people think that this is largely a question of fashion. It may also be a result of how current cookbooks are produced. In most cases, the chef is fronting a book that is actually put together by others. I suspect that the photographs are done in a few marathon sessions and that time is at a premium. This is especially likely to be the case where the book contains a photograph of each dish, which can easily result in the need to cook and photograph about 100 items. The current photographic style almost certainly speeds up the workflow in this kind of situation. I suspect that a lot of the current photography is being done on an assembly line basis.

 

In our case, the chef is going to do the cooking and recipe writing himself and the book will be produced gradually. This means that we can do the photography at a much more leisurely pace, which in turn means that we can work on atmosphere, props, etc. The cooking will be done in a place where there is a great deal of natural light, and we can produce the dishes at times to accomodate that light, which should simplify the whole issue of lighting.

 

Maybe I'll learn otherwise, but I don't see the need to "enhance" the look of the food with fake anything. The one issue I see is that we will need to work particularly quickly when we are photographing things like ice and sorbet. This should be possible if the photographic set and focusing is set up in advance of putting the actual food in front of the camera.

 

One of the things that is clear from the responses is that we need to settle on one film and use it throughout. Now we just have to select that film :)

 

I do hope that I'm not being naive about all this. Guess I'll find out soon enough.

[brooks short]

RJ,

 

This shallow depth of field technique is not done ot speed up the workflow it's purely a fashion and visual choice. It's not necessarily faster to shoot this way. In fact there can be quite a bit of kevetching about just how out of focus the image should be. It's much easier to achieve a sharp image with deep depth of field.

 

There's a difference between a chef's presentation and a food stylists presentation. Often a food stylist is needed because if you completely cook many foods they look awful. Some chef's can do it, some can't. You should have both on the set.

 

Though some food photography is done with natural light, the majority os lit professionally. There are so many more effects achievable with studio lighting than there arew with daylight. When a cloud crossed the sun your color balance, contrast, shadow edge transfers and specular highlights all change. And the sun is moving constantly changing the direction of the light. Doing your own lighting is more efficient in every way and strobe is the choice for food. Natural light will complicate the shoot, not simplify it.

 

You'll want fake ice-cubes in any drinks and spritz on cold glasses and other items. You will probably need Kitchem Bouquet to brown undercooked food. Fully cooked food can look dry and dead.

 

Some people like Fuji and some people like Kodak film. I prefer Kodak EPP transparency.

 

In a food shoot one shot can take 3-4 hours or longer. Sometimes it takes all day. You start with stand-in food to adjust your lighting, composition and propping and then cook the hero food. It all takes a lot of time.

 

Pre-production meetings are a good idea to decide on the china, tablecloths silver ware, styling, backgrounds, propping etc. Then there's prop buying, food buying and so on. It can be a big production.

 

Your chef will be cooking things at least twice if not 3-4 times. Does he have the temperment for that?

 

Here's a shot that took about 4 hours. Digital capture on a ProBack Plus MF digital back and Sinar Camera. Strobe lighting simulating daylight.<div></div>

[rj__]

Brooks,

 

Thanks very much for your further comments. We start this project on Thursday and we have some decisions to make about how to handle the photography. I think that we will take a run at this and then evaluate how it is going.

 

I know, from personal knowledge, that the photographs for three books produced in France in the last couple of years by a guy who is probably the world's most important chef were done essentially on an assembly-line basis. I suspect that this is characteristic of a lot of the books being published. It isn't just a question of depth of field. If you look at current books, the photos of the food tend to be closeups and there is no set to speak of, except sometimes a white background. I think that there is a reason for this, which is that the production costs of photographing every dish in a book with the kind of sophistication and dedication of time demonstrated in your own photograph would be astronomical.

 

In any event, we should have a pretty good idea of whether we are over our heads pretty early on, probably by the end of next week.

[brooks short]

RJ,

 

Good luck with your project. If you can post a sample here. I'd love to see how they come out.

[rj__]

Brooks,

 

If the work looks good, I will indeed post a sample.

 

This is a situation where the chef and I are good friends and he's going to do the cooking and I'm going to do the writing. We are not in a hurry. The question that we're trying to come to grips with is what to do about the photography. There are really two choices.

 

One choice is to try and do it ourselves. I do have real doubts about whether we have the expertise, as amateur photographers, to do the job. However, there is a reason to try. We are pretty sure that the alternative, taking into account time and costs, is an assembly-line approach and a book that will look like just about everthing else on the market.

 

We'll know soon enough. In a couple of months, we'll be meeting with a publisher. No doubt we'll be told whether we are on the right track about a number of things, including the photography. If the photos aren't working, the job will simply be turned over to a pro.

[tim_atherton2]

best cookbook I ever saw (looks wise) which I still have, was all shot in 8x10 polaroid emulsion transfers (where you float the emulsion off).

 

Never seen another like it....

[rj__]

Tiim,

 

I'd like to see that book. Could you give me the name of it?

[tim_atherton2]

Had to go dig it out of the cookbook cupboard..

 

Lorenza's Pasta by Lorenza de'Medici and Photos by Gus Filgate

 

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0517704404/qid=1096922399/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/103-6109555-0759856?v=glance&s=books

 

another one whos photos I especially like (mainly due tot he obviously hand painted backdrops + the simplicity etc is

 

In and Out of the Kitchen : Fresh, Fast and Easy Meals in 15 Minutes by Anne Willan

 

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0847819132/qid=1096922678/sr=1-2/ref=sr_1_2/103-6109555-0759856?v=glance&s=books

[rj__]

Tim,

Thanks. These books won Beard Foundation awards for their photography in '97 and '96 respectively. I'll have a look at them in the next day or two.