Using a D60 to shoot a cookbook

[Fat Guy]

Okay, so I've got the D60 (thanks so much for all the advice leading up to the purchase) and I've been thrilled with it thus far.

As I mentioned before, the primary use for this camera is food photography. I've found that most of the magazines I write about food for are pretty accepting of digital photography, and most of the newspapers actually require it.

But now I have a mission: I'm trying to make the case to an art director that we should shoot a cookbook in digital. The target of this campaign is a traditionalist who has yet to be convinced that digital is now right up there with film for images at this size.

Precedent-wise, is anybody here aware of any high-quality four-color glossy cookbooks or books with similar properties (collections of still-life images) that have been done in digital with equipment on the level of a D60?

What other arguments might I make?

Oh, and here's a first-generation food shot. The camera is still new to my household, but perhaps those of you who enjoy Indian food will like to see some Bhel Puri.

http://egullet.com/imgs/pilafter.jpg
(constructive criticism welcome, of course!)

Thanks.

[jmublueduck]

congrats on the D60... it'll serve you very well providing you manipulate the lighting conditions effectively.

constructive criticsm on your image:

1. the depth of field is way too shallow. limited DOF can be used well, but this is extreme... try bumping it up at least to the f/4-5.6 range to gather more of a range of detail in the subject, being that you do want to show off more than a few grains of rice (or whatever). my guess is you used f/1.4-2.8 in this, right?

2. good job w/ the lighting... everything is evenly lit & there are no harsh shadows.

3. in my opinion, the thing is too centered. the symmetry is good, and if that's what you're after, good work... but it's boring to my eye. i'd try a few different angles.

then again, i don't know anything about food photography... so i could be way off, but i think you're on the right track nonetheless... & sorry, i'm not sure of any good examples to check out...

cheers,
~ scott

[Fat Guy]

You're right -- it's at f/1.4 with the 50mm USM non-L lens.

Shallow depth of field appears to be the trend in food photography these days. If you look at the leading-edge magazines in the area, like Art Culinaire, Food Arts, and Saveur, you'll see some pretty extreme examples -- you know, one grape or one grain of rice in focus. It's not exactly to my taste but it's what editors seem to want. That being said, yes I think 1.4 was too extreme. I should have posted a better image.

I agree about the symmetry too. What I posted was one of fifty or so shots taken at various depths of field, some on tripod (like the one here) and some handheld for a bit more panache and asymmetry. I'd love to post them all but wouldn't want to subject you to a million photos of Bhel Puri!

Lighting was with an el-cheapo 3-light setup -- 250 watt tungstens from Smith-Victor, consisting of 2 floods and a spot. Floods basically coming in at 45 degrees from each side and the spot over the photographer's right shoulder. Not a brilliant setup but functional. Lighting is something I'm not particularly good at, and I'd love to learn more. Any advice?

[Mike D]

Hi Fat-Guy

Great website, too bad it's so "east coast" . C'mon out to LA!

I used to shoot a ton of food photography for magazines and restaurants.

Instead of lights at a 45 degree angle, move at least one around to the rear or above and to the rear (but not directly behind, or you might end up with a glare problem).This will bring out the shape and texture of the food. Also try with one light and a reflector card to bounce light into the shadows.
I don't really like to shoot food on a black or too dark of a background.
And I agree that the DOF is way too shallow and it also has no "point of view" or why is that area selected to be sharp?

Mike

[Mike D]

What is the size of the cookbook? The D60 is only good up to a point unless you are really good at tweaking the images.

Mike

[digijim]

I liked all the comments so far.

I owned two high-end scanners in a former business I had until '94. I have viewed images on hi end monitors, Macs and PCs, and presently have several Macs. I have yet to see a scanned image any better than first off images from my D60. Now, when I shoot catalog shots, or any commercial stuff for that matter, I shoot raw images and convert. It makes a big difference.

Another suggestion I haven't read in this group, is try backing up a bit, and use a zoom lens. This can do a couple things. 1.) it will allow you breathing room on the set. 2.) Depth of field changes with telephoto... you might like the results. 3.) You can start close in and back up or viseversa, then because you're working digital, erase what you don't like! and 4.) Tighten down the f-stop. Because you're on the set you can take longer exposures. Noise is pretty low when shooting raw. Or, crank up the lights and turn down the f.

[digijim]

Mike D wrote:
What is the size of the cookbook? The D60 is only good up to a point unless you are really good at tweaking the images.

Mike

Mike,
My D60 will, and has produced images that I've reproduced up to 12x18 at 300dpi. I think the prints I've made that are in the 16x20 and 20x30 range look better than film from a 35. I have two Canon EOS N1's, and am using the optics interchangabley.

[Fat Guy]

These comments are all very much appreciated. I'm going to do some more shooting over the next couple of days and I'll post another photo or two. Thanks!

Size of book, probably 7x9 with the largest photo being a full borderless page.

[Mike D]

The D60 should work out great for a book printed that size. Are you planning to shoot RAW format or the HQ Jpeg?
The reason I asked about size is that many cookbooks are still shot with medium and large format cameras partly due to the limited DOF that is so popular these days.

Mike D

[Fat Guy]

Probably RAW, and the images would likely be delivered in TIFF.

[digijim]

Yes Steve,

Convert to jpg files, then in Photoshop, do your thing, and save as a psd file for archive and redo, then flatten and change modes to cmyk for your printer. Your monitor will provide a resemblence to the final if you are calibrated in rgb. Calibration is a whole other issue though. Save as a cmyk tif file.

[reittila]

http://www.prfoto.com/lautaset/index.htm
Shot @RAW with D30.
8"x12" prints without problems.

-------------------------------
Edited after this.

Forgot to mention that lens used was 50mm/1.4 @ f13

[digijim]

try this, you may find an improvement. 3 minutes in Photoshop7. Some artful dodging/burning, and an increase of saturation overall then in the reds and magentas. Could have done better with the original, and another 20 minutes.
http://www.d-pro.com/sesamkanasalaattiL.html

Works for me!

[reittila]

Those pics were shot for prints, not for web anyway ;)

[Mike D]

Steve,

If you are not familiar with doing CMYK conversions, it can be a bit tricky. Just a straight Photoshop mode change will get you in the ballpark, but check with your printer or somebody with experience doing this. It would be almost essential to have Kodak Approval Proofs made to check the colors.

Mike

[reittila]

digijim wrote:
try this, you may find an improvement. 3 minutes in Photoshop7. Some artful dodging/burning, and an increase of saturation overall then in the reds and magentas. Could have done better with the original, and another 20 minutes.
http://www.d-pro.com/sesamkanasalaattiL.html

Works for me!

Jim, did you read the Digimark Watermark information on the photo you copied ?

[digijim]

reittila wrote:
digijim wrote:
try this, you may find an improvement. 3 minutes in Photoshop7. Some artful dodging/burning, and an increase of saturation overall then in the reds and magentas. Could have done better with the original, and another 20 minutes.
http://www.d-pro.com/sesamkanasalaattiL.html

Works for me!

Jim, did you read the Digimark Watermark information on the photo you copied ?

_____________________

No, I didn't didn't keep it long enough to look for one. I was only trying to show you something, not trying to use the photo in any way other than in this forum. the image was trashed after I sent you my reply... Why do you ask?

[reittila]

digijim wrote:
reittila wrote:
digijim wrote:
try this, you may find an improvement. 3 minutes in Photoshop7. Some artful dodging/burning, and an increase of saturation overall then in the reds and magentas. Could have done better with the original, and another 20 minutes.
http://www.d-pro.com/sesamkanasalaattiL.html

Works for me!

Jim, did you read the Digimark Watermark information on the photo you copied ?

_____________________

No, I didn't didn't keep it long enough to look for one. I was only trying to show you something, not trying to use the photo in any way other than in this forum. the image was trashed after I sent you my reply... Why do you ask?

I ask, because I personally ask permission _before_ I copy copyrighted photos on my disk.
Btw. I didn't like your editing.

[reittila]

digijim wrote:
reittila wrote:
digijim wrote:
try this, you may find an improvement. 3 minutes in Photoshop7. Some artful dodging/burning, and an increase of saturation overall then in the reds and magentas. Could have done better with the original, and another 20 minutes.
http://www.d-pro.com/sesamkanasalaattiL.html

Works for me!

Jim, did you read the Digimark Watermark information on the photo you copied ?

_____________________

No, I didn't didn't keep it long enough to look for one. I was only trying to show you something, not trying to use the photo in any way other than in this forum. the image was trashed after I sent you my reply... Why do you ask?

I ask, because I personally ask permission _before_ I copy copyrighted photos on my disk.
Btw. I didn't like your editing.

[SteveCliff]

reittila wrote:
I ask, because I personally ask permission _before_ I copy copyrighted photos on my disk.


Sorry to butt in Reittila but one of the things that help me when I try to get to grips with various photography issues is how incredibly helpful people on this forum are. I thought your answer to digijim was a bit harsh!

I fully understand the copyright issue thing - I'm in a similar situation myself on the best way to protect the investment, time and skill (?!) I have spent .... but we are all trying to help each other .... lets not deliberately put stumbling blocks in each others way ?

NB. I don't mean to upset you with this comment and I hope you take it in the way it's meant! As we are a bit off-topic though and you want to email me further, feel free to use my personal email.

[reittila]

SteveCliff wrote:
reittila wrote:
I ask, because I personally ask permission _before_ I copy copyrighted photos on my disk.


Sorry to butt in Reittila but one of the things that help me when I try to get to grips with various photography issues is how incredibly helpful people on this forum are. I thought your answer to digijim was a bit harsh!

I fully understand the copyright issue thing - I'm in a similar situation myself on the best way to protect the investment, time and skill (?!) I have spent .... but we are all trying to help each other .... lets not deliberately put stumbling blocks in each others way ?

NB. I don't mean to upset you with this comment and I hope you take it in the way it's meant! As we are a bit off-topic though and you want to email me further, feel free to use my personal email.



I see your point. I just tried to underline the fact that Copyrighted photos are someones property and according to good manners one should ask permission to copy and edit these photos.
That's at least what I do.

[Etrigan63]

True, but in this case, digijim was trying to make a point and give an example of technique not violate copyright law. He was not seeking monetary compensation or claiming that this was his original work.

If you must be a stickler, a simple disclaimer at the bottom of the post would have alleviated your worries.

[reittila]

Etrigan63 wrote:
True, but in this case, digijim was trying to make a point and give an example of technique not violate copyright law. He was not seeking monetary compensation or claiming that this was his original work.

If you must be a stickler, a simple disclaimer at the bottom of the post would have alleviated your worries.

True, but I have had some nasty experience with someone who did that and that's why I might be a little jumpy.
Sorry if I offended anyone.

[reittila]

Etrigan63 wrote:
True, but in this case, digijim was trying to make a point and give an example of technique not violate copyright law. He was not seeking monetary compensation or claiming that this was his original work.

If you must be a stickler, a simple disclaimer at the bottom of the post would have alleviated your worries.

True, but I have had some nasty experience with someone who did that and that's why I might be a little jumpy.
Sorry if I offended anyone.

[50/1.4]

Fat Guy - I just started here and saw your question about lighting. I have some definite thoughts about your setup and will post tomorrow if you are still interested? BTW - That is a GREAT lens you are using!!!