-= T2i / 550D users UNITE! (3) =-

Wide Boy wrote in post #13498756
...Best just to smile and always be prepared to show them you have just deleted the picture you have taken of them if they ask you to.

especially if they dont know what RAW is.. LOL you'll have that one still on your camera!!!!

That's much better now DT, now I think I like your edit better, maybe ......

Some "product" pictures of my wife's cookies...

They're like a sugar cookie cake, w/ green sprinkles and crushed peppermint on top... sandwiching a chocolate sauce w/ peppermint in it... sooo good. You can get the recipe from arismenu.com

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by FLICKR

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by FLICKR

Wide Boy wrote in post #13498766
I see what you have done DT, and I see why you have done it, but to be honest, looking at the 2 together I prefer my edit. It is more 'real' and has a bit more feeling to it, a bit more tactile, and film like. I honestly don't mind things a little soft, life is not as sharp as a digital photo!

Wide Boy wrote in post #13498777
Maybe your edit looks a lot better before you post it, I know a lot of mine do.

Wide Boy wrote in post #13498856
That's much better now DT, now I think I like your edit better, maybe ......

it did .. it had more punch to it.. idk i hate posting images i edit because they do not come out exactly as the actual edit.. for some reason it looses color and detail.. idk.. oh well i tried.. glad u kinda like it ..lol

Yep, you need a lot more light, but after the comments I have had about my pics being underexposed, I will keep my mouth shut.

For my business, I print postcards for photographers and a few food and still life photographers. Now apart from having superb light, and superb macro lenses, they will all spend hours placing the product till it is just right in the frame. Your shots look as if you have just placed the cakes and the candy anywhere and just taken the first couple of shots and thought "that will do".
Some guys I know will spend 10 hours in a dark room placing each individual speck of candy, in this case, until every one is in the exact right place with the light hitting at just the right angle.
With food photography you want to make the viewer want to eat those cakes, I have no intention of eating them, even though I am sure they are very nice, they just don't look it.

Well, you did ask!!!

Wide Boy wrote in post #13498976
Yep, you need a lot more light, but after the comments I have had about my pics being underexposed, I will keep my mouth shut.

For my business, I print postcards for photographers and a few food and still life photographers. Now apart from having superb light, and superb macro lenses, they will all spend hours placing the product till it is just right in the frame. Your shots look as if you have just placed the cakes and the candy anywhere and just taken the first couple of shots and thought "that will do".
Some guys I know will spend 10 hours in a dark room placing each individual speck of candy, in this case, until every one is in the exact right place with the light hitting at just the right angle.
With food photography you want to make the viewer want to eat those cakes, I have no intention of eating them, even though I am sure they are very nice, they just don't look it.

Well, you did ask!!!

Correct, this was a lunch break photo session with some cookies that my wife made and is shipping off. I didn't have any intentions of spending hours manipulating the cookies to look perfect, nor the candy. The only reason they're in the box is to isolate them from the background and show off the cookies... I'll probably have to reshoot them tonight with more light.. (my 3x100w lights are out of commission right now, and this was shot with a single bounced speedlite ON camera).

wtb: 100mm macro lens.

And by the way, I hope you didn't take my post as scathing in any way, it wasn't meant to be, but reading it back it kind of did sound that way. So sorry if I cam across as a bit of an arse, I am but I don't like to be!!!

dendywongcunhan wrote in post #13497345
Snip!

Now that's pretty!

Here's one I stumbled upon yesterday from earlier this year. Sorry about the FB upload! If I were to revisit my post work I'd apply a little more sharpening to the eyes (and, y'know, not upload it with FB).

HTTP response: 400 | MIME changed to 'text/html'

DigitalTuned wrote in post #13499036
sorry st3venb..
im trying to figure out why my edits loose detail, color, etc.. may be its a setting or something.. but i used urs for my next edit.. hope u dont mind

edit* why does it look pale.. or is me??? WTF idk i give up

Don't mind at all, I'm gonna reshoot the cookies tonight with more light so it doesn't have to be artificially raised.

I do like the way your edit looks, it makes the chocolate come out more.

Here are a couple more, again from the warmer months- these I missed focus on and was/am pretty bummed about... they had potential!

HTTP response: 400 | MIME changed to 'text/html'

HTTP response: 400 | MIME changed to 'text/html'

HTTP response: 400 | MIME changed to 'text/html'

st3venb wrote in post #13499050
Don't mind at all, I'm gonna reshoot the cookies tonight with more light so it doesn't have to be artificially raised.

I do like the way your edit looks, it makes the chocolate come out more.

i hear ya about the raise of artificial light.. im on the same boat. its better if its done right off the cam. well at least you guys like some of the edit.. im just puzzled how it looses so much detail and color when i post.. i use so many different image hosts and they all suck.. thats why i usually dont post pics that much.. i guess comcast is the better one of all

Cattle Egret

1.

Now whilst we are on the subject of food and still life I thought I would take a couple of pictures of the remnants of my lunch, with my camera set to take raw and large jpeg. Very minimal work was done to the raw, 30 seconds to brighten slightly, sharpen a bit and a bit of fill light. I was surprised at how good the jpeg was, but I suppose it leaves a lot less latitude should I wish to edit it;

jpeg

bobobird wrote in post #13499324
Cattle Egret.

1.

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'image/png' | Byte size: ZERO

2.

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'image/png' | Byte size: ZERO

3.

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'image/png' | Byte size: ZERO

4.

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'image/png' | Byte size: ZERO

5.

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'image/png' | Byte size: ZERO

OMG bobo, you have surpassed yourself with this series