Photographing food with one external flash?

tomah

tomah

Suspended / Banned
Messages
91
Edit My Images
No
I'm wanting to help my wife with her food photography.

She's not wanting to be a pro, or go to extensive lengths to get it to look perfect, but just so that it looks more presentable. She bakes and cooks a lot and likes to record it.

My thoughts were (with my limited knowledge) that an external flash aimed at the ceiling or at a wall would do the trick, so I'm about to get her a 430ex ii.

However, I had a quick look on YouTube, and all the videos of food photographers were massive set ups.

Am I naive, or is it possible to get respectable food shots from one external flash diffused in some way?
 
Well. food photography is very hard, but...

You already have more than one light, you can balance flash with natural light, you can use reflectors, you can do all sorts. The main issue is that the lighting needed for a bowl of soup is very different to that needed for a scone or burger etc.. Food lighting inst a one trick pony
 
Richard King said:
Well. food photography is very hard, but...

You already have more than one light, you can balance flash with natural light, you can use reflectors, you can do all sorts. The main issue is that the lighting needed for a bowl of soup is very different to that needed for a scone or burger etc.. Food lighting inst a one trick pony
Click to expand...

Thanks, Richard.

I appreciate that there's skill involved. That's clear by some of the videos I watched.

My wife's images always look dull, or have strong shadows if she used the built in flash.

I think just getting the tripod out and going for longer exposures, combined with reflectors, a 430ex, and a bit of practice and we could get acceptable results.

Are there any online tutorials you know of?
 
tomah said:
Thanks, Richard.

I appreciate that there's skill involved. That's clear by some of the videos I watched.

My wife's images always look dull, or have strong shadows if she used the built in flash.

I think just getting the tripod out and going for longer exposures, combined with reflectors, a 430ex, and a bit of practice and we could get acceptable results.

Are there any online tutorials you know of?
Click to expand...

nope. For starters I recommend booking in with a training day with Garry Edwards, you will find him on this forum
 
You can do literally anything with literally any equipment but...
It's a difficult subject and both knowledge and equipment are needed if you want anything better than just plain average.

This thread is well worth reading. It's a bit of a marathon but basically the OP went from absolutely nowhere to some pretty impressive results, with help from people here. Food is more complex than his subject - flowers - but the same principles apply.
 
tomah said:
Excellent links.

One of them led me here. It's brief, but helpful.
Click to expand...
The author, Brooks Short, is a very highly skilled photographer. We used to run that lighting forum between us, and ran a whole series of different lighting themes over a period of years, on solving different types of lighting problems. Unfortunately most of them have now been deleted.

Brooks, like me, is just a commercial/advertising photographer, he doesn't specialise in food. What he does specialise in is getting as much interest and contrast into a shot as he can, without losing essential detail - and you can do it too, we all can. It's all about controlling the light, and that really needs studio flash heads. He used 2 in that shot.
 
Selling light to someone interested in indoor photography must be an easy sell. Either that or you're just very good at it, Garry.

I've only arrived on this forum and I'm already contemplating getting a couple of continuous lights! They absolutely must wait, though. I'm about to buy a flash and another lens.

The shots on this site have always struck a cord with my wife. I think she'd love to know how these were taken: http://thestonesoup.com/blog/

Can you work out what they're using, or at least tell me what I'd need to achieve that effect?
 
Actually, I'm the worlds' worst salesman:) I'm just a photographer.

My advice is to buy studio flash, it's much more controllable than continuous light. A typical studio flash can adjust from full power to something like 1/16th or 1/32nd power, continuous lighting typically only adjusts from full power to half power. If more adjustment is needed (and it is) you have to move the light further away, which changes the quality of the light.

It's actually pretty easy to 'deconstruct' images and work out how they were lit - just look at the shadows to work out where the light is coming from and look at the softness or otherwise to work out what type of light modifier was used.

I'm glad that your wife likes those shots, personally I think they're terrible but at least you won't have any problems matching them. In fact I think my cat could produce similar shots, and I haven't even got a cat:)

Just a single softbox, above and slightly behind the food.
 
I did some foody shots for the recipe section of a sea fishing mag. Just used open shade and a 28" softbox and a reflector and it turned out okay. Also did some indoor shots using window lights as the main lights and the softbox as the fill
 
The reason I say continuous is because we also do videos. Don't shoot me, but we've actually been using two site lights for our work thus far :exit:
 
tomah said:
The reason I say continuous is because we also do videos. Don't shoot me, but we've actually been using two site lights for our work thus far :exit:
Click to expand...
That's fine, whatever works for you. You wouldn't believe some of the lighting that I've used in the past, but better tools make the job easier.

A continuous light in a softbox will easily produce the sort of shots that your wife likes, as long as you can exclude other light from the room, so that it doesn't contaminate the light.
 
Garry Edwards said:
That's fine, whatever works for you. You wouldn't believe some of the lighting that I've used in the past, but better tools make the job easier.

A continuous light in a softbox will easily produce the sort of shots that your wife likes, as long as you can exclude other light from the room, so that it doesn't contaminate the light.
Click to expand...

The site lights only work because of the ability to change the kelvin temperature within the camera. However, they are very, very hot. One day I tried to diffuse the light with greaseproof paper, and even though you can use that stuff in an oven, the lights smouldered the paper.

Anyway, that light is not too bad (price I mean). What sort of stand would I require?
 
tomah said:
The site lights only work because of the ability to change the kelvin temperature within the camera. However, they are very, very hot. One day I tried to diffuse the light with greaseproof paper, and even though you can use that stuff in an oven, the lights smouldered the paper.

Anyway, that light is not too bad (price I mean). What sort of stand would I require?
Click to expand...
This one if you need to buy one. Any stand designed for studio lighting (standard 16mm/5/8" spigot) if you already have one
 
Just be aware that continuous light will give off heat for linger, drying the food out. Glycerine, oil and even hair spray can add a sheen to make it look juicy but once the colour goes its a pain, ad I found out with a turbot that had been cooked the previous day and left under clingfilm in the conservatory..... Looked repulsive !!
 
specialman said:
Just be aware that continuous light will give off heat for linger, drying the food out. Glycerine, oil and even hair spray can add a sheen to make it look juicy but once the colour goes its a pain, ad I found out with a turbot that had been cooked the previous day and left under clingfilm in the conservatory..... Looked repulsive !!
Click to expand...

It's not for pro work. My wife has a website, and has to this point largely refrained from posting images of her cooking, because they mostly don't come out that well.

She just needs to be able to get a decent shot without too much stress, and yet be confident that they look acceptable for the web. She's a dietitian, so having naff shots don't help her to look serious. If she was able to get something like stonesoup, though far from professional, she'd be content that they were sufficient.
 
tomah said:
It's not for pro work. My wife has a website, and has to this point largely refrained from posting images of her cooking, because they mostly don't come out that well.

She just needs to be able to get a decent shot without too much stress, and yet be confident that they look acceptable for the web. She's a dietitian, so having naff shots don't help her to look serious. If she was able to get something like stonesoup, though far from professional, she'd be content that they were sufficient.
Click to expand...

I would be inclined to go with the "naturally lit" lifestyle shot. Its a cop out in a way, but technically a lot easier to pull off. With he addition of reflectors and a smattering of flash, you can get really great results, with very little gear

See this
http://www.learnfoodphotography.com/interview-scott-suchman/
 
My view is that using natural light normally involves one of two extremes...
1. It doesn't matter and I don't care enough or know enough to do it properly so I'll just use whatever light happens to be there
2. Highly skilled, careful use of a tool that's never in the right place at the right time and which is always either dull when it needs to be bright or vice versa.

In other words, you can use natural light but it's hard. Just get a light, to make your life easier and to get things under your control. Tell your wife it's a combined wedding anniversary, christmas and birthday present to her...
 
Didn't get chance to listen to the whole interview but that overhead shot ha a lot of processing on it. A LOT.

From the halos on the ribs I'd guess he's a fan of Topaz. Nothing wrong with that but it all looks like flat light + very contrasty processing to me.
 
I think the key point in his interview is the emphasis on editorial as opposed to commercial. I figured that fitted with the OP needs, especially as he shoots dishes on location, as the chef cooks them (as opposed to preparing a plate full of stuff that looks like great food)

With regards to the reflectors, you can use sliver foil, pieces of card. sheets of white board, anything that comes to hand.. or you can use commercial reflectors, choice is yours

here is a good facebook group: http://www.facebook.com/groups/2710770419/
 
Last edited:
@Garry
No doubt you're right. I know I'm getting a 430ex no matter what. So I think I'll go progressively; buy the flash, add reflectors, get a stand and umbrella, and then another light if necessary.

Don't worry though. If/when I need a decent light, I'm sold on Lencarta.

@Richard
You've got good discernment. It's more food blogger images, rather than commercial/professional images that we're wanting. Also, I've found reflectors at a certain online store for peanuts. Not worth making when they sell for a few quid.
 
tomah said:
@Garry
No doubt you're right. I know I'm getting a 430ex no matter what. So I think I'll go progressively; buy the flash, add reflectors, get a stand and umbrella, and then another light if necessary.

Don't worry though. If/when I need a decent light, I'm sold on Lencarta.

@Richard
You've got good discernment. It's more food blogger images, rather than commercial/professional images that we're wanting. Also, I've found reflectors at a certain online store for peanuts. Not worth making when they sell for a few quid.
Click to expand...

In my goodie box, that is left in the car, even at weddings, I have blu-tac, double sided tape, tape, a handful of the silver/white lids they you find on takeaways, paper, cotton, nylon cord, sissors, razor blades, craft knife, paperclips, pins, pens, silver foil, a pack of sheets of paper of all sorts of colour and finish, boob tape, mattifying primer, croquet hook, fabric repair kit an assortment of makups, small hair spray, water sprayer (small), pegs, bulldog clips, piece of black material, piece of white material, an assortment of handtools...The box is one of those B&Q tool boxes, and has simple things you have in your house.

In my camera bag has a lenser p7 torch (hint) in it, and I use that for a quick fill light all over the place. In my car, I have a couple of medium power LED flood lights, and a couple of whopping great big halogen torches. Sometimes I use them for lighting, sometimes so I can see where I am going in the dark

Being a photographer is about being resourceful, and recycling all the stuff that is around you. Some things are so obvious, they are a no brainier - go to hobby craft, and look at the sheets of card and paper that are available

Those 5 in 1 reflectors are brilliant, its worth getting a very small set and a very big set
 
Richard King said:
In my goodie box, that is left in the car, even at weddings, I have blu-tac, double sided tape, tape, a handful of the silver/white lids they you find on takeaways, paper, cotton, nylon cord, sissors, razor blades, craft knife, paperclips, pins, pens, silver foil, a pack of sheets of paper of all sorts of colour and finish, boob tape, mattifying primer, croquet hook, fabric repair kit an assortment of makups, small hair spray, water sprayer (small), pegs, bulldog clips, piece of black material, piece of white material, an assortment of handtools...The box is one of those B&Q tool boxes, and has simple things you have in your house.

In my camera bag has a lenser p7 torch (hint) in it, and I use that for a quick fill light all over the place. In my car, I have a couple of medium power LED flood lights, and a couple of whopping great big halogen torches. Sometimes I use them for lighting, sometimes so I can see where I am going in the dark

Being a photographer is about being resourceful, and recycling all the stuff that is around you. Some things are so obvious, they are a no brainier - go to hobby craft, and look at the sheets of card and paper that are available

Those 5 in 1 reflectors are brilliant, its worth getting a very small set and a very big set
Click to expand...

Excellent! I already own a Lenser p7. An awesome little torch it is, too :D
 
I know this is going to make steam come out of Garry's ears....but the 2 trends I see in food blog photography right now are

1. Available light with shallow DOF. For example, take a look at these http://www.hefe-und-mehr.de/2011/11/yeastspotting-2/ (shot by lots of different bakers but you can kind of see a theme). Shove a camera that can handle high ISO well as close as you can and shoot.

2. Like the Stone Soup site - fly a big soft box over the top with a bit of angle on it. This produces more pop and richer colours and of course more depth of field. In fact I've seen whole recipe books shot like this.

It may not be the most artistic lighting but most people interested in food rather than lighting will react well to either of those. And the second will probably seem more "professional" to them.

Proper editorial styled photography is still the preserve of the expert but it seems far less common than a couple of years ago. For some of the very best current work check out the Waitrose magazine.
 
I think you are right Jonathan

There are plenty of ways to skin a rabbit, and we cant ignore the fact that we are bombarded with food imagery on the TV, in books, blogs, magazines all of the time, and less and less of it is shot in a studio. The link I popped up discusses the practical side of producing shots for editorial work, and the bottom line is the guy needs to get in, shoot, get out in a very short amount of time, and make very little impact on the diner/resturant he is working in. He makes the distinction between shooting real food served on real plates in real time by the real chefs in the actual place it is served as opposed to staging everything to look at its very very best

In a way, the blogs, the cookery books, the editorial photographers are leaning towards a fairly honest photograph of the food, which sits well with the viewer/consumer
 
Yes and no. No to the steam coming out of my ears, yes to your general points...

I feel that basically the current trend of shooting at high ISO and low DOF really started with lack of equipment and knowledge - the very best food photography has always been done with monorail cameras and that nice Mr Scheimpflug has always been our best friend.

A lot of clients still appreciate it and are happy to pay for it but the number of photographers able to provide it has diminished - so enter the guys with a digicam who think "how hard can this be" and who are good at telling their clients that what they're personally capable of producing is modern and exciting... Usually it's total crap, but if the prep, the cooking and the food is top quality then yes, it can be modern and exciting.

A bit like photojournalist wedding photography - done well, it's superb but very often it isn't really pj at all, it's just some bloke with a camera who has no training and who has no idea how to actually control the photography, and who just takes snapshots of whatever happens in front of him.

Overhead softbox? Yes, nothing wrong with that for plain, boring illustrative shots. But adding just one more hard light source and a reflector is usually enough to lift a dull, boring shot that just shows what the food looks like to an exciting shot that makes people want to reach out and eat it:)
 
Last edited:
JonathanRyan said:
2. Like the Stone Soup site - fly a big soft box over the top with a bit of angle on it. This produces more pop and richer colours and of course more depth of field. In fact I've seen whole recipe books shot like this.

It may not be the most artistic lighting but most people interested in food rather than lighting will react well to either of those. And the second will probably seem more "professional" to them.
Click to expand...

That's bang on.

These photos are appealing to the masses. They may not be technically accurate, but they are sharp, earthy, and real to life, and assuming they're composed reasonably well, they are engaging to most who come across them.
 
Garry Edwards said:
Yes and no. No to the steam coming out of my ears, yes to your general points...

I feel that basically the current trend of shooting at high ISO and low DOF really started with lack of equipment and knowledge - the very best food photography has always been done with monorail cameras and that nice Mr Scheimpflug has always been our best friend.

A lot of clients still appreciate it and are happy to pay for it but the number of photographers able to provide it has diminished - so enter the guys with a digicam who think "how hard can this be" and who are good at telling their clients that what they're personally capable of producing is modern and exciting... Usually it's total crap, but if the prep, the cooking and the food is top quality then yes, it can be modern and exciting.

A bit like photojournalist wedding photography - done well, it's superb but very often it isn't really pj at all, it's just some bloke with a camera who has no training and who has no idea how to actually control the photography, and who just takes snapshots of whatever happens in front of him.

Overhead softbox? Yes, nothing wrong with that for plain, boring illustrative shots. But adding just one more hard light source and a reflector is usually enough to lift a dull, boring shot that just shows what the food looks like to an exciting shot that makes people want to reach out and eat it:)
Click to expand...

I agree with your sentiment, but the world isn't that black and white. On the one hand, there will always be the high paying food company, who will pay for a very good, well lit shot that takes a team of 4 people all day to shoot in a studio. And those shots will be used in top end advertising and the like

On the other hand, the demand for quick, honest, simple lifestyle type of photography, to illustrate short snappy articles has exploded. People are self publishing, the attention span of internet users magazine readers is very small, and the need for shots that set the mood has increased accordingly. There are many very skilled photographers who have out of necessity, dumped "most" of the lighting gear, and still produce great work

As with all things, there is a hardcore of very talented very skilled professionals at the top of the game, and there are masses of very good photographers in the middle, and yes, there are a few digicam touting wannabes at the bottom of the pile

No mater if we like it or not, most of the work is not going to be done by the elite few at the top any more, those days are long gone. The mainstream demand and taste for that work seems to have gone a little too. The demand most certainly seems to be for more photography, in context

The high ISO comments are interesting, and I have certainly seen the effect in weddings, but not noticed it in food photography. In weddings, a few photographers seem to want to replace using "any lighting at all" with high ISO shots, and yes the results are certainly dull and lifeless, and yes it irritates the hell out of me. What is a "vintage wedding photographer" anyway?
 
Richard King said:
The high ISO comments are interesting, and I have certainly seen the effect in weddings, but not noticed it in food photography.
Click to expand...

It's harder to spot. But on a typical day right now it's pretty dark (in fact it won't get light here today). Add to that that most shots are done quickly indoors and you're in a very dark environment.

Historically you either needed a tripod or supplementary light. With cameras that can easily handle 6,400 ISO at sufficient quality for web the game changes. Now it's a simple matter to open the lens wide, push the ISO as far as you dare and take a shot. No need to even think about lighting........ :nuts:

BTW if you want to see this exact thing in a different arena, take a look at Etsy. Photography flat enough to make an expert weep. But overall the effect is very pleasant.
 
JonathanRyan said:
It's harder to spot. But on a typical day right now it's pretty dark (in fact it won't get light here today). Add to that that most shots are done quickly indoors and you're in a very dark environment.

Historically you either needed a tripod or supplementary light. With cameras that can easily handle 6,400 ISO at sufficient quality for web the game changes. Now it's a simple matter to open the lens wide, push the ISO as far as you dare and take a shot. No need to even think about lighting........ :nuts:

BTW if you want to see this exact thing in a different arena, take a look at Etsy. Photography flat enough to make an expert weep. But overall the effect is very pleasant.
Click to expand...

I have to agree with Jonathan here. However, I would also say that anyone taking the time and effort to light a setting, will provide images that will set their client apart from the their competition. If a prospective client can see a difference that can set them apart, they will usually pay for it.
 
Yeah I'm bored of theory ;)

Couple of quick shots. These were all taken in the dining room table with a single light. As it happened I used a Nikon speed light in an Apollo but there's no reason I couldn't have used studio flash and other modifiers.

rolls.jpg


Personally I'd prefer a tougher lighting to them but I think they fit reasonably well with current food blog trends.

Or if you prefer editing to distort reality.....

processed%20roll.jpg
 
Can someone please explain to me why flash is better for product photography in a studio. Surly, artfully orchestrated and controlled permanent lighting (WYSIWYG) has to be better that a flashbang of light. I'm sorry but I just don't get the theory, who in their right mind would think that an explosion of split second lighting would be more controllable than continuous light aimed with artful skil, adjustment and previewed to perfection!
 
Steve T said:
Can someone please explain to me why flash is better for product photography in a studio. Surly, artfully orchestrated and controlled permanent lighting (WYSIWYG) has to be better that a flashbang of light. I'm sorry but I just don't get the theory, who in their right mind would think that an explosion of split second lighting would be more controllable than continuous light aimed with artful skil, adjustment and previewed to perfection!
Click to expand...

Control.
1. Adjustment. Flash typically can be adjusted from full power to 1/16th or 1/32nd power (a few makes have more adjustment but the colour temperature of those I've tested is terrible at very low settings). Continuous light can typically be adjusted from full power to either a half or a quarter power, or sometimes not at all. Adjustment is normally achieved simply by switching one or more lamps off. If more adjustment is required (and it will be) the only options left are neutral density gels or moving the light further away. And moving it further away totally changes the quality of the light.
2. Modifiers. Pretty much all but the insanely expensive continuous lights don't have any modifiers at all.The problem with the fluorescent ones is that there are several bulbs (needed because of the low power) and those bulbs are physically big, which means that the modifiers used for flash can't fit. If you're lucky, you might get a fluorescent fitting that will take both a softbox and a reflector, and that's about it. As modifers/light shapers are the most important aspect of lighting, that's a biggie.
3. Heat. Halogen are extremely hot, which causes its own problems with modifiers. HMR are less hot but very expensive. Fluorescent are OK but, as mentioned above, have their own problems.
4. Colour temperature. No problem with HMI, very little problem with fluorescent, massive problem with anything else. Colour temp of halogen is typically stated to be around 3200K but in reality it's normally around 2900K when plugged into a domestic circuit - until your other half plugs the electric kettle in, then it drops with a jerk. Although you can always correct PP, you may have to correct each shot individually because of the voltage fluctuations.
5. CRI, or color rendition index. Anything less than 100 produces false colour that can't be put right (in practical terms) in PP. Daylight, tungsten lights and flash produce a CRI of 100, fluorescent lights are typically around 90 for reasonably priced ones (the junk ones sold on fleabay are typically less than F70 though). Reds become orange, oranges become yellow and so on.Fuorescents are discontinuous spectrum lights, they lack magenta, this causes more problems.
6. Power. They are (mainly) pitifully weak. Not a problem with still life as long as you don't allow light pollution from any source, i.e. OK if you can shut out the daylight and turn off all the overhead lighting. Flash doesn't have that problem because it has power and to spare.

And cost. If you want to avoid (some of) the problems outlined above, you have to spend A LOT of money.

That's the short answer, if you want a more detailed answer just let me know and I'll tell you where to go:lol:
 
OP, you could try a light tent - 80cm 'cube' from evilbay is around £15, stick it next to a window and point your speedlight onto it on the 'dark' side, really softens the light and you can get some reasonably good effects very cheaply. I've just had to do this type of photography for my college course, some images on my flickr if you want to have a look.
 
HopefulM said:
OP, you could try a light tent - 80cm 'cube' from evilbay is around £15, stick it next to a window and point your speedlight onto it on the 'dark' side, really softens the light and you can get some reasonably good effects very cheaply. I've just had to do this type of photography for my college course, some images on my flickr if you want to have a look.
Click to expand...

Yes, it works. However, it also means you get no shadows, so the image looks flat. You also can't develop the food texture or catch those lovely specular highlights we love to see.
A light tent will get you a usable image, even fairly pleasant. I doubt it will stir the desire to rush in and buy the food though, which is what food photography is about.
 
Thanks Garry, but I still think I could light that bowl of bread better with my continuous lighting stuff, than I could with a flash.

Mind you, that's probably because I know b****r all about most of the stuff you guys talk about:lol:
 
Steve T said:
Thanks Garry, but I still think I could light that bowl of bread better with my continuous lighting stuff, than I could with a flash.
Click to expand...

Prove it.

Seriously - we learn through doing. Go grab some bread rolls and take a pic with your continuous lights. My guess is that nobody could tell which was which. But there's no need for us to guess.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top