DSLRUsers.com

Hi all

I have been looking into a bit more food photography in recent times and I have noticed that in the large proportion of cases in food magazines and recipe books the photos have a very shallow DOF. Im interested to know if this is generally achieved in camera (ie. shooting low F stops) or alternatively if it is done in post processing.

My latest attempts (shot using diffused light with a 50mm 1.4 at about F1.8 ) were rejected by the client due to their perceived lack of quality - im still trying to decipher exactly what they mean by this by they arent returning calls right now (sorry I cant share the photos as they are sitting on the clients computer).

Do you have any experience in this field? If you could please let me know about how you set up you images, what pitfalls should I be looking out for with low DOF and what style of lighting have you used? Is it possible to get marketable shots using natural difused light or is it mainly done in the magic of a studio?

Feel free to post any examples (I will work on getting my images back) or any other useful links

Many thanks
Steve

Hey Steve,

I would assume that a shallow DOF is achieved in camera, so I dont understand what your client is on about (assuming that the photos look good to you). BUT it does worry me that you do not have copy of YOUR photos, and that the client is now not answering your phone calls. I hope you have an exif embedded comment or copyright as I would be starting to think that the client has run off with your photos and is not going to pay you for them, or give you credit.

google could be your friend with this Steve...i found a lot of sites with lots of hints...here's one from utube link below...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9HMAHlqm4GU

Steve,

Willy wombat wrote:(sorry I cant share the photos as they are sitting on the clients computer).

May one ask how this has come to pass?

The images would surely have been shot on your memory card, and which you should be transferring, as a matter of course, to several other locations before you begin any form of PP.

? Is it possible to get marketable shots using natural difused light or is it mainly done in the magic of a studio?

Yes.

I would consider that f/1.8 is too wide an aperture for these sorts of shots: you inherently have a very shallow DoF plane, and you are nowhere near your lens's sweet spot.

Let's start by remembering that as you move closer to your subject, your available DoF decreases.

Assuming a focal plane to subject distance of about two feet, I would be of the opinion that your in-focus plane is going to still be pretty shallow, even at f/8. Depending upon your angle of view towards the subject, this is likely to be a critical point. While you may be of the opinion that f/8 may not offer you enough DoF, given the proximity of the subject, this is probably not quite as you expect it to be.

aim54x wrote:Hey Steve,

I would assume that a shallow DOF is achieved in camera, so I dont understand what your client is on about (assuming that the photos look good to you). BUT it does worry me that you do not have copy of YOUR photos, and that the client is now not answering your phone calls. I hope you have an exif embedded comment or copyright as I would be starting to think that the client has run off with your photos and is not going to pay you for them, or give you credit.

Thanks very much for your concern (I think I made it sound a little worse than it is).

I came in to this at the 11th hour to shoot for someone that had fallen through, and when the story was submitted it was the client of the client (the editor) who knocked them back (the original client was happy). Its difficult to get info out of a second hand source. Bit of a strange one but all groups involved are trustworthy. (I think )

Pa wrote:google could be your friend with this Steve...i found a lot of sites with lots of hints...here's one from utube link below...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9HMAHlqm4GU

Pa - Thanks for the link - That video made me hungry, and there was some interesting footage of the studio setup.

Willy wombat wrote:

aim54x wrote:Hey Steve,

I would assume that a shallow DOF is achieved in camera, so I dont understand what your client is on about (assuming that the photos look good to you). BUT it does worry me that you do not have copy of YOUR photos, and that the client is now not answering your phone calls. I hope you have an exif embedded comment or copyright as I would be starting to think that the client has run off with your photos and is not going to pay you for them, or give you credit.

Thanks very much for your concern (I think I made it sound a little worse than it is).

I came in to this at the 11th hour to shoot for someone that had fallen through, and when the story was submitted it was the client of the client (the editor) who knocked them back (the original client was happy). Its difficult to get info out of a second hand source. Bit of a strange one but all groups involved are trustworthy. (I think )

I was a little worried when I read your original post. Hope this goes well for you. I wish I had some tips but I have not had a lot of exp with shooting food.

gstark wrote:Steve,

Willy wombat wrote:(sorry I cant share the photos as they are sitting on the clients computer).

May one ask how this has come to pass?

The images would surely have been shot on your memory card, and which you should be transferring, as a matter of course, to several other locations before you begin any form of PP.

Gary - It certainly is unusual and not something that I would normally be doing. As I highlighted above I was filling in for another tog. The client (a freelancer) wanted me to shoot the food for an article which they needed to submit that night. I didnt have my computer with me so the writer grabbed the images off my card after the shoot had wrapped up. rather than copying them they cut them from the card, but I wasnt upset by this at the time but looking back now I think there is a lesson to be learned . Be good to review them for feedback purposes.

Thanks for the reminder about DOF and proximity to subject. I did start the shoot around the F8 mark but the client suggested they wanted less DOF when reviewing the shots. Perhaps a wider angle lens and getting closer to the subject would have been a better option in that case?

Willy wombat wrote:I didnt have my computer with me so the writer grabbed the images off my card after the shoot had wrapped up. rather than copying them they cut them from the card, but I wasnt upset by this at the time but looking back now I think there is a lesson to be learned . Be good to review them for feedback purposes.

Have you used the card subsequently? If not, it may be possible to retrieve the files from the card using some file recovery software.

If you have, recovery may still be possible, but perhaps more difficult.

Thanks for the reminder about DOF and proximity to subject. I did start the shoot around the F8 mark but the client suggested they wanted less DOF when reviewing the shots. Perhaps a wider angle lens and getting closer to the subject would have been a better option in that case?

I would be sticking with the 50, or even going to longer glass: 85 or 105. The longer glass will let you attain shallower DoF and increase your camera to subject distance, while still using and aperture in the range of f/5.6 - f/8. Or maybe even f/11. Going wider and shooting closer is likely to induce some distortion into the subject. Fair enough if this was the snout of a suckling pig, but I'm not sure that other subjects might fare as well.

The problem with too shallow a DoF is that you then need to decide which plane of your subject to hold sharp focus onto. The front? The back? Is there a particular item that's needed in focus?

As an observation, not having your PC there is problematic: if your client was determining that DoF wasn't good enough based upon chimping the LCD, I'd be a little wary of that sort of a decision: I don't think that the camera's LCD is good enough for that sort of a determination.

gstark wrote:I would be sticking with the 50, or even going to longer glass: 85 or 105.

I agree with that. Going to longer glass has generally been my solution to this problem.

Consider hiring the 85mm PC lens.

It gives you all the control you ever need for product photography.

And eventually you will lust to buy one if your style is in product/food photography.

go for a PC or a micro lens to get the DOF.

Thanks for the tips guys