Natural Lighting

[tylermoney]

So I'm a graphic designer at an Ad Agency in Pittsburgh, PA and I've started playing with photography over the last couple of years. I finally bought a camera in the beginning of december (40d). As a designer, I constantly work with photography..be it food, people, pets, etc. We've been working on this new packaging the focuses strongly on the photography of the food product.

The photographer we used is Noel Barnhurst San Francisco. He shoots with only natural light (through the windows of his studio). I must say, the images he was able to produce for us were absolutely amazing. I'm not sure what he shoots with...I didn't get to go on the shoot and I'm not sure if my boss would notice something like that.

Anywho, has anyone dable in product/food/whatever studio photography? I'm not sure how well it works for everything, but it does amazing things for food. The natural light makes everything look so friggin' delicious. Google Noel and check out his work....then again, I guess I could put a link to his site: http://noelbarnhurst.com/

[Dchemist]

Intersting, thanks for the link. Dennis

[Gentleman Villain]

You're totally right about natural light! Actually, all continuous lighting has a similar quality. Some people say that it's not possible to see a difference between continous and strobes but that's not true....There is a difference but it's very subtle.

This is how I've learned to describe the quality....The difference between continous lighting and strobe is the difference between microwaving food or slow cooking food. Slow cooked food has more flavor.

I think that continous lighting has a "baked in" look...a slow cooked look. Hard to explain, but once you're aware of the look then you'll notice it all of the time. Continuous lighting has more flavor.

I spent a couple of years assisting for a photographer that shot a lot of food in San Francisco. We used several stylists from LA and San Fran. In my opinion, the real key to the success of the photographs in your link is the styling. The lighting and camer work is super simple (but very tastefully done). But the styling is TOP NOTCH...excellent styling.

The photographer is shooting in a traditional editorial style with a shallow depth of field. That type of photography usually works best with a camera system that has very high quality lenses that are free of aberrations at wide open apertures. Most of the best editorial type of food photography that I've seen has come from Hasselblad shooters or people working with similar high quality systems with great glass.

Food photography often has lots of shiny objects that will really show CAs and purple fringing from lower quality lenses. So it really takes something like Zeiss, Schneider or something like that to do it right.

Food styling is almost a black art. The people that are good at it generally didn't learn it in school. Chefs and good cooks generally aren't the best stylists. Some are...but most aren't. Food styling is really an art in itself. Also, prop styling is an art.

The real key to the food shots in your link is the food and prop styliing. Gorgeous stuff! But the photography itself is actually pretty simple.

The food photography that I worked on was the opposite of editorial style. We shot all 4x5 and had to get the entire image in focus from front to back. So it required a much different approach. We were often shooting at F22 and using really powerful strobes. Depending on the size of the job...it would sometimes take us up to 15 hours to do a single food shot.

[Gentleman Villain]

I'd like to add just one more thing even though some of the Canon people might wanna flame me a bit for saying it ... :)

A key factor in making food look appetizing is texture. CMOS camera systems tend to render texture in a plastic sort of way. CCD and film tend to render texture in a more lifelike manner.

I've always thought that good food photography really should be shot on CCD or film. That helps to bring out the natural appetizing texture of things like chocolate and strawberries etc. CMOS will often make those things look kind of plasticy and like fake food LOL...It's a subtle thing, but once a person is aware of it then it can make all the difference. The viewers definitely pick up on these things subconsciously whether they are aware of it or not.

I'm not saying that food can't be shot on CMOS cameras.... just saying that I'd choose CCD or film if possible.

[tylermoney]

Very interesting. Thanks for the info. I'm going to have to start playing around with this type of photography..spending a lot of time on styling the products. I really like the taste appeal I see in natural lighting photography.

[René Damkot]

You're totally right about natural light! Actually, all continuous lighting has a similar quality. Some people say that it's not possible to see a difference between continous and strobes but that's not true....There is a difference but it's very subtle.
I think it has more to do with light modifiers.

With flash, you don't always get WYSIWYG, since the flash bulb is in a slightly different place then the ML, and has a different shape.

Also, the modifier has a huge impact.

Window light is different from a softbox.

A key factor in making food look appetizing is texture. CMOS camera systems tend to render texture in a plastic sort of way. CCD and film tend to render texture in a more lifelike manner.

Sort of agree there (maybe), but will say that different software has an impact (Leaf Capture sharpens *very* different then ACR then C1 then DPP for instance), and IMO sensor size has a bigger impact.

(My 1D is more similar to my 1D2 then to a Leaf Aptus I'd say)

[RileyLewis]

Very cool shots.

Food pictures make me hungry :(