4 ms·
I was always under the impression that most food photography was not just using different ingredients, but that they were actually using inedible materials (pai
by chadrs 14y ago
I was always under the impression that most food photography was not just using different ingredients, but that they were actually using inedible materials (paint, glue, clay, etc.) on/for the food in the pictures.
- tptacek 14y agoLikewise, and from talking to food stylists, not just from reading about it. Again: totally possible McD doesn't do that anywhere.
- lmkg 14y agoI'm trying to reconcile this (which I've heard before) with what other people are saying about advertising laws, and I've got two hypotheses. 1. Not all food photography is advertising. For example, food magazines: They're not actually selling what's on the cover. They're well within their rights that the covershoot consists entirely of wax models of tomatoes rather than real tomatoes[1]. The same would apply to the Food or Recipes sections in generic lifestyle magazines. 2. The things that are "not the food itself" is interpreted very broadly. As others have noted, you can use white glue for milk if you're hawking cereal. If you're selling tomatoes, you can probably still dip them in wax varnish to make them shine, and add "water" drops made of epoxy to sexy them up[2]. [1] That is to say, "real" wax models, not Roma tomatoes. [2] I mean "sexy" literally. It's called "food porn" for a reason. The photographic techniques and cinematographic styles are apparently very similar.