9 ms·
Secrets of food photography
- dharma1 11y agoIt really is all about the lighting, presentation and a decent macro lens. My favourite food cinematographers: http://foodfilm.fr http://foodfilm.fr Incredible stuff. Filmed with Red Epics mostly in slow motion, these guys really understand lighting and choreography
- stats_lly 11y agoTotally agreed! Their M&S ads are just irresistible!
- StavrosK 11y ago> It really is all about the lighting, presentation and a decent macro lens. That pretty much sums up all of photography, though. It's like saying "programming is all about structuring the code". The devil is in the details.
- dingaling 11y ago> and a decent macro lens. Often a tilt-shift lens. That's how they place the plane of focus horizontally across a plate so that the food is in crisp focus but the table is softened. Most photography is nowadays done with vertical planes of focus ( thanks for nothing, SLRs ) but choosing your plane used to be as integral as choosing shutter speed and aperture.
- amelius 11y agoThis reminded me of the hamburger scene in the movie "Falling Down" with Michael Douglas: [1] [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zJs9p-VNORw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zJs9p-VNORw
- branchless 11y ago15 submissions for theguardian.com in the last 24 hours to HN. I really am thinking about not bothering so much.
- marincounty 11y agoIf this was my website. The software would reject too many submissions from the same website.
- branchless 11y agoIt's spammy. No way has the guardian produced 15 thought-provoking articles in the last 24 hours. I doubt it has in the last 24 weeks. I also have a hard time believing that 15 people who have no vested interest in the Guardian have decided having read these that others must see it too.
- dang 11y agoI don't see any reason to suspect that the Guardian is spamming HN. Most of those submitters submit all kinds of things. People just submit a ton of stories. Most don't make the front page, including most from the Guardian.
- probably_wrong 11y agoMcDonalds made a video[1] in which they show how a typical photo shoot for a hamburger. All elements in that video are actual stuff that you can eat (unless the one mentioned in the article), but it's hard to say whether that's how they always do it or if they just made an exception for the video. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oSd0keSj2W8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oSd0keSj2W8
- chiph 11y agoEverything you get on the burger is there in the photo (pickles, onions, ketchup), but it's been pushed to the side of the bun closest to the camera to make it more visually attractive. So honest in one sense (everything is shown that will be on your burger), but misleading in that the burger that you buy won't be nearly as attractive.
- jgeada 11y agoNot just "won't be nearly as attractive". We assume that food of that type (burger, sandwich, etc) will be symmetrical: if it has visible lettuce etc on the side you're seeing, one assumes that the density will be equal everywhere else, meaning not only the other side, but also on the underneath the bun. The image is false not just because the picture is "more attractive", it is false because it is implying a density of ingredients that just isn't there. This is just plain false advertising, no more, no less.
- Elvie 11y agoReminds me of an old German site where they photographed food in advertising vs reality http://www.pundo3000.com/werbunggegenrealitaet3000.htm http://www.pundo3000.com/werbunggegenrealitaet3000.htm Many food companies now feature windows on their packaging to prevent this disparity showing transparency in their foods.
- isabelrotton 11y agoNever believe in Photos! Photos gives no truths nowadays. We knew the photos of food are fake a long time ago. Now, even the human portraits are fake. There are too many PS apps developed in Asia to make people look more beautiful.