Show us your setup and the final result!

Cool. The few food photography I've done has been real food and no stylists (low budget jobs). Sometimes I've gotten to eat the food, sometimes nay.

I wonder how many tricks one is allowed to use nowadays, what with the regulating bodies demanding that the real product be portrayed lest it be deceiving the consumer and all.

OKAY, it's time to eat something! I'll be back.

Alveric wrote in post #18215715
Cool. The few food photography I've done has been real food and no stylists (low budget jobs). Sometimes I've gotten to eat the food, sometimes nay.

I wonder how many tricks one is allowed to use nowadays, what with the regulating bodies demanding that the real product be portrayed lest it be deceiving the consumer and all.

The FTC gets involved in the US. They approve retail package designs and is the reason that the catch-all phrase 'serving suggestion' is on most packaging. That phrase covers a lot of ground. I've had to certify the photography on lots of packages that the photos are representative of the product and food stylists have had to verify that the food was cooked in accordance with package instructions...(even if it's simply opening an oven door insert food, take out and put on the set)...but those were internal documents for the manufacturers to cover their butts. Generally speaking for packaging work, the food that's depicted on the front is what's inside (even if the food in the photo has been 'massaged' to look it's best). For advertising/pop/editor​ial, it's still the wild west with few rules.

Foodguy wrote in post #18215709
Not to minimize the tricks but the heavy handed use of non-edible additives was more so in the 'old days' when the goal was to make food look perfect. The trend now is more toward 'real' and the food stylists tend to be a little more natural in the handling using less weird stuff. Still use Armorall on lobsters to help them keep their shine though

Front and back...all real, just built for photography. The drip on there cheese is vegetable oil for a little added shine.

Hosted photo: posted by Foodguy in
./showthread.php?p=182​15709&i=i185720477
forum: Flash and Studio Lighting

My personal favorite though is ice cream...we usually get 2-3 gallons for each scoop so there's always lots left over.

Hosted photo: posted by Foodguy in
./showthread.php?p=182​15709&i=i138609990
forum: Flash and Studio Lighting

The ice cream image is awesome. The burger image lighting is to contrasty for me, I'd have a lighter background an some fill. Looks yummy though.

The more images I see from the 135L the more I want one.

nice shot...

I was thinking about posting in the "super macro and guess" thread, but I don't know if I can keep pace with y'all and the questions... Maybe later. So instead, I also found this "setup and behind the scenes" thread intriguing...

Here's the picture:

I've repurposed an old enlarger lens with a bellows unit. I've been using it for both macro as well as tilt-shift photography with longer focal length lenses. The working distance is really nice to work with. In this setup, it's a Nikon PB-4 bellows with a 135mm Nikkor enlarger lens attached. The aperture (set manually on the lens) is f/11.

Image hosted by forum (829854) © dasmith232 THIS IS A LOW QUALITY PREVIEW. Please log in to see the good quality stuff.

Foodguy wrote in post #18215726
The FTC gets involved in the US. They approve retail package designs and is the reason that the catch-all phrase 'serving suggestion' is on most packaging. That phrase covers a lot of ground. I've had to certify the photography on lots of packages that the photos are representative of the product and food stylists have had to verify that the food was cooked in accordance with package instructions...(even if it's simply opening an oven door insert food, take out and put on the set)...but those were internal documents for the manufacturers to cover their butts. Generally speaking for packaging work, the food that's depicted on the front is what's inside (even if the food in the photo has been 'massaged' to look it's best). For advertising/pop/editor​ial, it's still the wild west with few rules.

I remember an art director coming into the studio in great distress because the FTC had made a big deal with a soup manufacturer because they were using marbles in the broth to make the veggies, etc. stand up out in the pictures.
The company began using pictures of all the ingredients on a chopping block for its packaging art.

Even at the time, I appreciated the desire to ensure that the pictures were reasonably accurate depictions of the product.

As for ice cream, it was usually mashed potatoes so the hot lights wouldn't turn it into a blob.

My bare bones kit. RB-90 ricebowl and a Flashpoint Zoom Li-on R2 with the Sigma 85 Art.

Yikes, what's going on with her forehead? Is it something done in post or is it a bruise?

Looks like post. Otherwise she would not pose or smile!

JVthePT wrote in post #18217629
Yikes, what's going on with her forehead? Is it something done in post or is it a bruise?

This is what happens if you set a Canon EF 24 f/1.4L II to 85mm focal length...

I'm stuck in Chicago at my 83yo Mom's house because she needed some unexpected surgery. It is very cold and I have been very board. So i raided the fridge and added a few things from the local produce market.

I like it well enough. I might adjust black level when I get back home in a few days, hard to tell on my laptop.

Not often you see a starfruit in a still life.