Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies. Read More.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Photography Talk by Genre Food Photography Talk
Thread started 09 May 2014 (Friday) 18:41
Prev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)

Old photos of ugly food

 
OhLook
Spiderwoman
OhLook's Avatar
15,173 posts
Gallery: 64 photos
Joined Dec 2012
California: SF Bay Area
May 09, 2014 18:41 |  #1

Okay, I confess, the main thing this page has going for it is that it's hilarious. If you remember green Jell-O with raw veggies and mayo folded in, or ham loaves coated with off-white goo, the recipes will bring back that old nostalgia.

21 Truly Upsetting Vintage Recipesexternal link

But the illustrations are relevant to photography. They look like reproductions from ads and articles in women's magazines or the Home/Family sections of newspapers from mostly the 1950s. The standard way of photographing food then seems to have included uniform lighting and a large depth of field. Nowadays it's the opposite. Light comes from one direction, and fields are sliced thinner than prosciutto.


PRONOUN ADVISORY: OhLook is a she. | A FEW CORRECT SPELLINGS FOR YOU: lens, aperture, amateur, hobbyist, per se, raccoon, whoa, more so (2 wds.) | IMAGE EDITING OK

LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)
Bad ­ Habit
Goldmember
Bad Habit's Avatar
Joined Apr 2011
If I'm not here, I must be someplace else
May 09, 2014 18:53 |  #2

that's disturbing


JR / flickrexternal link

LOG IN TO REPLY
phantelope
Goldmember
phantelope's Avatar
Joined Sep 2008
NorCal
May 09, 2014 19:09 |  #3

that Americans survived the 60es and 70es is pretty amazing ;-)a

The tiny DOF nowadays is so overused and often badly used IMO. It can work if the important things of a meal are clearly visible, too often they're not, seems more like some photog showing off how tiny that slice of focus can be, like a photo taken from a book explaining DOF and fstop correlation. But looking at more recent cook books, it seems like the trend is reverting to bright light and larger or even full DOF. Better I think, a cookbook should show it all, not some artistic slice.

Now, for that banana candle......


40D, 5D3, a bunch of lenses and other things :cool:

LOG IN TO REPLY
OhLook
THREAD ­ STARTER
Spiderwoman
OhLook's Avatar
15,173 posts
Gallery: 64 photos
Joined Dec 2012
California: SF Bay Area
May 09, 2014 19:32 |  #4

phantelope wrote in post #16893867external link
looking at more recent cook books, it seems like the trend is reverting to bright light and larger or even full DOF

Good! I can understand using a somewhat shallow field to direct attention to detail where it's important. Say you have a restaurant scene with a filled plate as the star of the show and some wineglasses and a basket of bread farther back. The glasses and bread are basically props. They can be merely suggested (i.e., blurred). But I don't see the point of extreme blur on the farther half of the entrée plate, so that a third of the meat is clear and nothing of the vegetables is. It seems like self-conscious, pretentious, la-de-dah faddishness. Maybe someone who knows the history of food photography can explain why this style became popular.


PRONOUN ADVISORY: OhLook is a she. | A FEW CORRECT SPELLINGS FOR YOU: lens, aperture, amateur, hobbyist, per se, raccoon, whoa, more so (2 wds.) | IMAGE EDITING OK

LOG IN TO REPLY
phantelope
Goldmember
phantelope's Avatar
Joined Sep 2008
NorCal
May 09, 2014 19:35 |  #5

I'm pretty sure it's a fad, somebody started with somewhat shallow DOF, next guy went "oh, I can do that better" and eventually we see nothing, LOL
I own some 300 or so cookbooks and stopped buying for the most part, but still look at them, lately I've seen less shallow DOF and more 'environment' or just a focus on the food from top or the side. Which makes sense, since you want to know how to plate something, not guess. Of course, the food stylists still seem to forget to include this or that ingredient, maybe because it's not pretty enough.

ETA, it's all fine if it's an artistic food photo, but for an instructional book things should be completely visible, as well as for food/restaurant reviews. I can get into my own haze to reduce DOF just fine ;-p


40D, 5D3, a bunch of lenses and other things :cool:

LOG IN TO REPLY
Picture ­ North ­ Carolina
Gaaaaa! DOH!! Oops!
8,985 posts
Joined Apr 2006
North Carolina
May 10, 2014 07:09 |  #6

Well, one thing salvageable would be part of a recipe: jello and cottage cheese.

And that pic of the banana candle? Well, not much can be mentioned here. Probably best to serve that at a ladies-only luncheon.


Website (external link) |

LOG IN TO REPLY
Levina ­ de ­ Ruijter
I'm a bloody goody two-shoes!
Levina de Ruijter's Avatar
Joined Sep 2008
Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Jul 27, 2014 07:25 |  #7

That banana candle was really frightening...


Levina
Please quote when responding to a post!!!
There is no such thing as ect. It's etc. (with period) from latin et cetera.
Colours are not complimentary but complementary.
My flickr (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
Jeff ­ Colburn
Member
Jeff Colburn's Avatar
200 posts
Joined Nov 2009
Sedona, Arizona
Jul 29, 2014 14:03 |  #8

Levina de Ruijter wrote in post #17058860external link
That banana candle was really frightening...

That banana candle would get you arrested in some southern states.

Have Fun,
Jeff


If you're interested in photography, stock images of Arizona and Fine Art Prints of Arizona, visit www.JeffColburn.comexternal link

LOG IN TO REPLY
tcphoto1
Senior Member
tcphoto1's Avatar
Joined Sep 2005
Madison, Ga
Aug 01, 2014 14:55 |  #9

Disturbing on so many levels, I'll have to share it with a Food Stylist friend of mine.


www.tonyclarkphoto.comexternal link
www.tcphoto.orgexternal link

LOG IN TO REPLY
Xyclopx
Goldmember
Joined Jul 2008
San Jose, CA
Aug 15, 2014 10:56 as a reply to tcphoto1's post |  #10

I bet u someday pictures of steak will be part of some old pics of disturbing food gallery sometime in the future.


Dean Chiang (external link) | Facebook (external link) | Blog (external link) | Gear (external link)
My Photos (external link)
Instagram @xyclopx (external link) @feetandeyes (external link) @gastramour (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
RMH
Senior Member
RMH's Avatar
998 posts
Joined Jan 2011
Canterbury
Aug 19, 2014 15:37 |  #11

and people say British food is/was bad?!?

IMAGE: http://www.jecottrell.com/Other/Gifs/i-BDDZL2K/0/S/puke-S.gif


All the stuff I've owned at one time or another

LOG IN TO REPLY
Clean ­ Gene
Goldmember
1,014 posts
Joined Nov 2010
Aug 25, 2014 03:13 |  #12

My favorite was probably the spam and limas, simply because I find the laziness of it hilarious. At least with many of the others, it seemed like someone went to some effort to actually make something (as horrible as that thing may be). Then there's that recipe that basically appears to amount to "take spam, dump lima beans on it."




LOG IN TO REPLY
Mike-DT6
Goldmember
Mike-DT6's Avatar
3,955 posts
Joined Oct 2007
The Jurassic Coast, Dorset, England.
Nov 06, 2014 20:47 |  #13

I quite liked the look of the Spam and limas as well.

The one that I found most disturbing was No.16, which I think might only be suitable for a very romantic date, or perhaps not! :lol:


Gear list

LOG IN TO REPLY
dave63
Goldmember
dave63's Avatar
1,269 posts
Joined Aug 2008
In the ether between Denver and Boulder
Dec 01, 2014 19:13 |  #14

Levina de Ruijter wrote in post #17058860external link
That banana candle was really frightening...

If by "frightening" you mean "spawning uncomfortable, edgy bouts of silence at the ladies' end of the Rotary Club luncheon table", then...yes.



LOG IN TO REPLY
ERabbit
Member
ERabbit's Avatar
81 posts
Joined May 2011
Newport Beach
Dec 01, 2014 19:45 |  #15

That made me a little nauseated


70D|30D|18-135 STM|18-55|50 1.8 II|55-250 IS II|100-400L

LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)

8,309 views & 0 likes for this thread
Old photos of ugly food
FORUMS Photography Talk by Genre Food Photography Talk


Not a member yet? Click here to register to the forums.
Registered members get all the features: search, following threads, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, settings, view hosted photos, own reviews and more...


AAA

Send feedback to staff    •   Jump to forum...    •   Rules    •   Index    •   New posts    •   RTAT    •   'Best of'    •   Gallery    •   Gear    •   Reviews    •   Polls

COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies. Privacy policy and cookie usage info.

POWERED BY AMASS 1.4version 1.4
made in Finland
by Pekka Saarinen
for photography-on-the.net
Spent 0.00134 for 4 database queries.
PAGE COMPLETED IN 0.04s
Latest registered member is shapps
958 guests, 470 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 6106, that happened on Jun 09, 2016