Photographing food with one external flash?

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.

Mind you, that's probably because I know b****r all about most of the stuff you guys talk about:lol:
Click to expand...
Well, you asked a question and I answered it. Whether you accept that answer or not is up to you, and it doesn't matter to me.

But I'll say this - a plate of bread rolls can be lit very simply, and just about any tool can be used for that and produce OK results.

It's when you cut the bread open and fill it with a piece of juicy steak complete with lettuce, relish and whatever, all with different colours that need to be reproduced accurately, and all with different reflective qualities, some of which need to be suppressed and some which need to be emphasised, that it becomes important to use the right tools.
 
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.

Mind you, that's probably because I know b****r all about most of the stuff you guys talk about:lol:
Click to expand...

Forgetting the food photography... In reality you can. However just to compete in terms of power with the limited gear I have (and can carry with me), I can over power the sun easily with my flash gear you will need to consider that a film crew will use about 180000 - 20,000W of power per light bank to match outdoor daylight levels. To just balance daylight you need about 2000 to 5500 watts of lighting to power soft-boxes etc.

If you use tungsten, the light is the wrong colour, so you need to gel it. A 1000W gelled tungsten light throws the same amount of light as a 260W bulb. of course all of this lighting needs mains power not batteries.

Logistically, that gear is is heavy, expensive to run, runs hot, is more of a fire hazzard etc.

If you ask Garry what sized lights you need to match his studio gear... you will get a much higher figure

Forgetting the size, then there is control. On a flash head you can "Just pop on a snoot" Doing that on a continuous light poses even more problems to do with heat, and handling

Apart form the flash duration, if you have lots of £££ and lots of space, and lots of electricity, there is very little you cant do with continuous lighting, that you cant do with flash. However in practicable terms, we all use flash

As a tech foot note. If I have a flash head that is 800W/s it delivers the same amount of power as a 800W bulb does in 1 second, but it delivers it in about 1/1000th second. When you do the math, you see why we use flash
 
Last edited:
I am obviously wrong here but I will have a go at something and put it up and start a new thread.

Sorry OP, hijacked this a bit.
 
I think this thread has some useful info, but maybe people are getting a bit partisan:)
Forget about light tents, but all other options are valid - for someone.
Me? My type of clients are prepared to pay the going rate, and the photography cost is pretty modest compared to the other costs (stylists, chef, out-of-season ingredients) but other people shoot for different markets with different requirements.

Basically, if you're happy with the results you get (or can get) with flat lighting, or with what an ocf can produce, then there's no point in doing anything different.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top