Food photography for cookbook - D200 vs upgrade to D7100 or D600?

[roger_s]

<p>This is a "should I upgrade" question - with a different slant.<br /><br />The first edition of a cookbook was published using photos taken with a D200 - photos always taken using tripod and studio lighting, at 400 ISO (a pro photographer advised to shoot the food photos at 400 rather than minimum ISO). Hence, when considering whether to upgrade to either a D7100 or D600/800, in this instance the vast improvement in high ISO performance is not relevant, since photos are taken at a lower ISO.<br /><br />Also, the photos are published as a cookbook, so the dynamic range of the photos is compressed by virtue of the limited dynamic range of paper used for cookbook publishing. Hence, one has to consider whether the extra dynamic range of the latest DSLRs is going to be visible in photos on printed book paper.<br /><br />I'm asking this question on behalf of a friend - and I don't believe that the lenses she used are the top range pro-level Nikon lenses which have the highest resolving power, often recommended for these high megapixel new model DSLRs at 24,36MP. (If I find out, in fact, she does have the high level pro lenses, I'll update this post later).<br /><br />It is appreciated that if she moves from DX to Full Frame, it will require purchasing new Full Frame lenses.<br /><br />So the question is: would upgrading from the D200 to the newest DX body (D7100), or transitioning to Full Fame (D600 or D800), make a substantial difference to the food photographs that appear on the printed page of a cookbook (assuming normal level of print quality as seen in good quality cookbooks, rather than going for absolute top level technology like Ansel Adams portfolio books).<br /><br />I compared the photos from the 1st edition of her cookbook, compared to photos appearing in a recent Jamie Oliver cookbook, and I couldn't see much difference in the tonal range of the two cookbooks.<br /><br />So I suspect that she won't be gaining much from upgrading from the D200.<br /><br />But I'd be particularly interested to hear everyone's comments, and particularly from photographers who have experience in food and product photography that is intended for the printed page.</p>

[roger_s]

<p>p/s She was told, by a professional food photographer to shoot at 400 ISO on the D200, rather than minimum ISO. I wonder why? Any comments on that too?</p>

[mike_halliwell]

<p>If the first book with D200 pictures was well received and the aim of book 2 is to continue with a similar style of shots, I'd stay with the camera.</p>

<p>However, if the wish is to change the style somewhat, with extremely shallow DOF shots, like one leaf being in sharp focus from within a big salad, then either moving to FX or investing in a fast DX lens will make such effects easier.</p>

<p>What lenses does she have already? The idea that shifting from DX to FX is prohibitively expensive optically, assumes the current lenses are all DX in the first place. This may be incorrect.</p>

<p>With book printing such as this, the quality of the paper plays as big, if not a bigger part, to the final visual quality of the book's images. Poor paper, with notable bleed, appears very muted with low contrast and weak colours, not to mention read-through, ie the paper is thin enough to see the text from the other side, through the paper. High-end, heavy, coated papers will make the best of the image as captured in camera.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>and I couldn't see much difference in the tonal range of the two cookbooks.</p>

</blockquote>

<p><em>Much</em> difference or <em>any</em> difference??</p>

<p>It sounds as if Book 1 was printed nicely, so I'd probably not upgrade the camera. Optics is another question, we need more info!<br>

______<br>

Late Edit......I have no idea why it should be used at ISO400 for food photography. The link below implies there's no odd behavior as to why this should be done.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Cameras/Camera-Sensor-Database/Nikon/D200">http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Cameras/Camera-Sensor-Database/Nikon/D200</a></p>

[leslie_cheung]

<p>ISO 400 is probably the best compromise between IQ (noise level) and aperture needed to extend DOF in macro like setting for food photography. ISO 800 could do too (if properly exposed) and DR isn't a huge concern, to step down the aperture...</p>

[robert_k1]

<p>Agreed with Mike.</p>

<p>A critical printer would notice and care about the difference between a monitor image and a print. A critical book publisher would notice and care about the difference between a print and a published book page. For them,</p>

<p>Holy Grail #1: Able to make prints closely matching what are on the monitor.<br /> Holy Grail #2: Able to make books closely matching the prints.</p>

<p>But most (cook)book readers, without knowing what the monitor image and print looks like, can't really tell the difference, and won't care. OP's comparison between Book1 and Jamie Oliver's book is a good example.</p>

<p>It seems like OP's friend has neither the lens nor the skills to get the most out of a camera body, D200 or upgrade. So why bother upgrading? If anything, the friend should start with a better lens, and learn to get the most out of the D200.</p>

<p>With the D200 on a tripod, studio lighting, and food as subject, I am perplexed by the ISO 400 suggestion.</p>

[andylynn]

<p>Without more to go on, the question is basically, "can cookbook-quality photos be done with a D200 and the rest of the kit as appropriate?" I don't see why it wouldn't be, as long as it has the resolution the publisher wants, and it's used skillfully, with good lighting setups, and appropriate lenses etc. - but that would have to be true regardless of the camera body.</p>

[roger_s]

<p>These are the lenses she has that were used for the food photography:<br /> AF Micro-Nikkor 105mm f2.8 (not an AF-S)<br /> AF Micro-Nikkor 60mm f2.8 (not an AF-S)<br /> DX AF-S Nikkor 18-70 mm f3.5-4.5 G-ED<br>

The cookbook is a hardback and was not printed with cheap paper. The cookbook sold out its first print run, and went to a second printing.</p>

[Matt Laur]

<p>I agree. Can't understand the ISO 400 business. Unless "studio lighting" means low-power hot lights or something else that wasn't really up to the job. The D200 is <em>not</em> at its finest at ISO 400. There's already noise creeping in, and a tangible loss of dynamic range. Sure, the book printing process does its own damage, but better to start with something that has a little more oomph to it. If nothing else, that means shooting the D200 in its sweetest spot, which is definitely ISO 100.<br /><br />In real terms, the food styling, lighting, and composition are going to dramatically eclipse the camera body's performance when it comes to whether or not the images are compelling. But foodies are basically fetishists, and every little bit matters when you're looking to maximize those reviews on Amazon to sell more books.<br /><br />There's nothing about this project that requires an FX body (not that it would hurt, with an expensive couple of new lenses). But if we're dealing with the limited light that I suspect we're dealing with, the D7100 would make a real difference ... especially if some of those shots might get used in other ways (like, on the cover/reverse of the book, or in other media like on a poster, etc). <br /><br />I'd like to hear more about the lighting and the lenses available.</p>

[roger_s]

<p>Matt, I've given lens information in the post above yours. What information do you need about lighting - photographic floodlights were used, I know that much.<br>

In case you're wondering, the cookbook writer is also an avid photographer, so she decided to cook the food and take the photos herself.</p>

[andylynn]

<p>Those lenses are good for this sort of thing, and she could pair them with a DX or FX camera. Is there some shortcoming in particular she wants to address?</p>

[brian yarvin]

<p>Roger, it sounds to me like the biggest gain in image quality here would be going from iso 400 to 200. I've done my share of cookbooks (http://astore.amazon.com/brianyarvinco-20 to see them) and can say that the first upgrade to consider is lighting.</p>

<p>If the "photographic floodlights" being used are tungsten, it's time to upgrade to studio flash. This will make a big and visible difference. It will allow the iso to be dropped and give far better control of lighting.</p>

<p>Best of luck with this from a fellow cookbook author/photographer!</p>

[roger_s]

<p>Andy L., I don't get the impression there was anything shortcomings, rather a wondering whether it might be time to upgrade from 7-year-old technology which presumably would give better results.<br /> But her single concern is producing new photos for the next edition of the cookbook -- which is a different criteria for most people upgrading their DSLRs. Since the sole criteria was whether it will produce a better end result in the book pages, it occurred to me that many of the D7100 or D600's benefits might largely be nullified by the paper printing process, such that the gains might actually not be that noticeable to justify the extra costs in gear.<br /> In other words, upgrading from D200 to the latest might seem a no-brainer to most areas of photography, but when the output is a printed page ... maybe not so?</p>

[roger_s]

<p>Brian, I think she used floodlights. For a beginner food photographer, I guess that floodlights allowed her to see what the lighting would look like before taking the shots, and maybe easier for one not so experienced in food photography to obtain a good result.</p>

[roger_s]

<p>So the consensus would be to use flash, to enable using the D200 at ISO 100 - would be just as good as upgrading to a D7100 or D600 ... for this particular circumstance.</p>

[brian yarvin]

<p>Roger; while there will be some gain in upgrading cameras, it's nothing compared to upgrading lighting. It sounds like it's time to move up to studio flash.</p>

[Matt Laur]

<p>Studio flash for the win! Yes, the difference between ISO 400 and ISO 100 on a D200 is dramatic (sorry I missed the lens info in that other post). But the quality of light from properly used strobes and modifiers is going to completely change the results and the process. And they don't have to be hideously expensive. Even modest Alien Bees would be a revelation, here. </p>

[Two23]

<p>I would get the D7100 since she is shooting at a relatively low ISO. With the money saved I would buy a new Samyang 24mm tilt/shift lens when it comes out in Nikon mount (already being released in Canon mount.) Another thought is the older Nikon 85mm t/s lens. A tilt/shift lens will make much more difference for this kind of photography than a camera will. My first "photo" job was working as an assistant to a commercial photographer who did product shots for catalogs. He shot everything on 4x5, then a Fuji 680. The difference the lens movements made in the overall look of the photos was quite noticeable. Finally, as a pro photographer he was always looking for ways to lower his costs. That allowed him to put more $$ into his pocket. The one place he did NOT cut corners was with lighting however. It is the most crucial ingredient. ;-)</p>

<p>I believe the native ISO of the D200 sensor is ISO 200, so that is what I'd use. I would not use ISO 400 since you can control the light and the subject is not moving.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

[andylynn]

<p>Since you said she wasn't very experienced in the used of studio lighting, I'd add that if she upgrades her lighting equipment, she should also take a class on how to use it. (E.g., there's a school of photography near me that has open enrollment workshops and has a 2-day one on studio lighting for still life.) Also, if she plans to do the shooting over a long period - e.g., as she develops the recipes she writes up and photographs each dish in turn - she'd probably need to own the lighting rig. If she plans to come up with the recipes and then at the end make the styled plates and photograph them all in a short time, she could rent the equipment.</p>

[devon_mccarroll]

Another vote for studio flash. I can't imagine using hot lights for my food photos. Using flash allows more time to work the shot without

wilting fragile foods under the hot lights.

[mike_halliwell]

<p>The larger CFL photographic lights (and modifiers) would give the visual benefit of continuous lighting rather than the limited worth of modelling lights built into flash units. They also run cold. </p>

[kohanmike]

<p>A few years ago I shot food for a delicatessen here in Los Angeles that were used for their menus and for 3x3 (about 1 meter x 1meter) light boxes hanging on the walls. I used a D70s (6.1Mpxl), Nikon 24-85mm f/2.8-4 Macro and two SB600 strobes. I knew I did not have the most ideal equipment, but even I was amazed at how good the shots came out. The blow ups for the light boxes were especially good.</p>

[mihai_ciuca]

<p>I'm the only one not seeing why this lady needs to invest $$$ in Alien Bees, Einsteins or other expensive lighting gear. She can do pictures at ISO200 with the equipment she owns. Aperture priority, desired aperture, ISO200, sturdy tripod, cable release... camera decides shooter speed. As long there are not living creatures in the food that are still moving in the plate there is no reason to not go this way. :)</p>

<p>I have a friend that's passionate for food photography and he does not own any light... he is using exclusively windows light and home-made reflectors... His results are stunning.</p>

<p>IMHO if she has some funds available and she has a passion for photography the best way to use her money is to purchase a D7100 or a D600. A new camera will open new horizons for her passion but not necessary for her book in work.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>the key here is that the d200 was used in the first book, so results will be similar if you use it for the second book. OTOH, more resolution = well, more resolution. 24mp opens up the possibility of much larger prints, even if they're not used for the book. and it is possible that it would make a difference in how the photos look, possibly making them more detailed. if she does decide to upgrade, both of the macro lenses are fine for either d7100 or d600, although working distance will change if she goes FX. i would consider possibly upgrading the zoom in any event, definitely with a d600, and probably with a d7100 as well, to a constant 2.8 lens. if you do upgrade, camera shake will be more noticeable unless you're on a tripod. most of the tips are telling you that lighting is what makes the most difference, so i would pay attention to that. ultimately, this could go either way; it's like, do i order the same roast beef sandwich i've had in the past, or do i take a chance on the new cilantro-lime-pesto turkey wrap.</p>

[rp1512]

<p>For the OP, you can get this job done with any capable Nikon DX body (with CLS) and a couple speedlights IMO. A softbox and some warming gels will help.</p>

<p>I've been shooting food shots for a local bar's website and have been pleasantly surprised at the results I'm getting. I use a D90, SB700 and SB600. Nothing fancy in the lens department: 35mm/2.0 and an 18-55mm zoom.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>"Optimum" quality does not necessarily, indeed rarely, means "minimum" ISO.</p>

<p>You need to find out what the "native" ISO of the particular camera is. Using that will usually produce the "optimum" quality.</p>

<p>I can't, however, imagine that this ISO question is critical in the application at hand unless you stretch it either low or high, nor can I imagine that a new camera is a <em>necessity</em>. If someone wants to buy a new, more feature-rich camera, that's fine, of course.</p>

<p> </p>