'Apologies for photo quality, damn iPhone!'

kylew · 29 Jun 2011 at 18:05

AcidHell2 said:
and as others have said post some examples. As I can't think of one that does that.

I'll post of an example, however I'm not just talking about this forum, I'm talking about forums in general.

Cosimo · 29 Jun 2011 at 18:06

Mat said:
Splendid thread, splendid!

Indeed, splendid.

Morgoth · 29 Jun 2011 at 18:06

Actually the iPhone 3GS picture quality is pretty crap.

iPhone 4 is alright though.

Raymond Lin · 29 Jun 2011 at 18:07

Ahleckz said:
It's very odd. With the food, they make a plate of food and often post a recipe. However with the pictures they've zoomed in so much on one tiny aspect and render the rest of the plate obsolete. It just makes it look like they can't cook and have hidden that by posting a very small portion of the food. Why can't they drawback and take a picture of the entire plate/meal?
If they were just concentrating on one part of the dish then why post a recipe up for everything on the plate? Just put your delicious looking food on a plate and take a picture.

If it's a plate of spaghetti Bol, what difference does seeing 1/5th of the plate instead of the whole? You expect the second part of the dish on the other side would be made of completely different ingredients?

If I cook steak and chips, and I want to show the pinkness of the meat to show it's cooked perfectly to medium, I'd do that. The fact that the chips is out of focus is the POINT and not a problem. The point is to show the steak and how it's cooked. I don't want you to see the chips, not because im hiding bad chips it's because I think there's nothing special about chips and I want the viewer to pay their attention to the steak instead.

It is used to control what I want you to see, rather than not what I don't want you to see.

Ahleckz · 29 Jun 2011 at 18:08

In my opinion:

Good food picture:

Acceptable use of 'dof':

Poor picture, just a blurry mess:

Raymond, a lot of your pictures are fine but others just look messy and overly poncy. That picture does nothing, it doesn't show the 'subject'. It's just daft. That being said you have plenty of terrific pictures. But those pictures in food photography really get on my nipples.

Raymond Lin · 29 Jun 2011 at 18:10

kylew said:
I'd rather see "crappy phone quality" photos that are in focus, than someone attempt to take photos with a DLSR and the subject is out of focus in every shot, but you can see everything in the background in crisp clarity.

kylew said:
How can you tell me the subject is in focus when we're talking about a theoretical image, where the whole point of my complaint is about people who take photos where the subject isn't in focus, but the background is pin sharp?

Well, "every shot" suggest that you must come across it a lot. And if you see it a lot then it's not theoretical.

Examples please.

Skillmister · 29 Jun 2011 at 18:11

Now i'm all for dof in food shots and photos in general but i have to agree that ones a bit ridiculous. Like 4 tomatoes are in focus and i have no idea what the white stuff is?

Cosimo · 29 Jun 2011 at 18:15

Ahleckz said:
Uh oh, I've got the photography forum after me!

Don't worry they're only a bunch of amateurs.

Raymond Lin · 29 Jun 2011 at 18:16

Ahleckz said:
In my opinion:

Raymond, a lot of your pictures are fine but others just look messy and overly poncy. That picture does nothing, it doesn't show the 'subject'. It's just daft. That being said you have plenty of terrific pictures. But those pictures in food photography really get on my nipples.

I never claimed that to be a great photo but the photo is of cherry tomatoes and mozzarrella, seeing 1 or 10 tomatoes makes no difference IMO.

The restriction of that shot was taken with 35L, prime lens, the other ones you linked to are taken on a narrower lens. Meaning if I need to frame the photo with just the plate, I had to be at that distance. Why? If I stepped back you would see the mess in my kitchen! I could have taken out another lens but truth was that I cba lol

I agree, it's not a great shot by any means, but it's not a shot that's "the subject out of focus but the background is pin sharp" either.

Skillmister · 29 Jun 2011 at 18:20

I thought it was rice

explicit4u · 29 Jun 2011 at 18:21

lack of contrast between the white stuff (cheese?) and plate doesn't help.

Ahleckz · 29 Jun 2011 at 18:22

Raymond Lin said:
I never claimed that to be a great photo but the photo is of cherry tomatoes and mozzarrella, seeing 1 or 10 tomatoes makes no difference IMO.

The restriction of that shot was taken with 35L, prime lens, the other ones you linked to are taken on a narrower lens. Meaning if I need to frame the photo with just the plate, I had to be at that distance. Why? If I stepped back you would see the mess in my kitchen! I could have taken out another lens but truth was that I cba lol

I agree, it's not a great shot by any means, but it's not a shot that's "the subject out of focus but the background is pin sharp" either.

My main complaint was this - " I want to see the food, I don't want to see a fifth of it up close very clearly and the rest of the plate in a weird horrible looking fuzz.". Kylew was complaining about the out of focus/background sharpness thing. I was just agreeing with him that the current fascination to put loads of a picture out of focus is daft. The tomato picture confirms this.

Saying "seeing 1 or 10 tomatoes makes no difference" is a bit daft. You posted up pictures of your food, I and others want to see that. Yeah, by all means incorporate some artistic flair but please don't put the vast majority out of focus because it's 'artistic' and 'cool'. Amazingly, people that like food want to see the food. I'd much prefer to see an entire plate and all the different components of the dish working with each other and being presented in a good manner than seeing a tiny portion of one ingredient in great detail and the rest just an incomprehensible blur.

Raymond Lin · 29 Jun 2011 at 18:22

explicit4u said:
lack of contrast between the white stuff (cheese?) and plate doesn't help.

That's the problem with White plates

Cosimo · 29 Jun 2011 at 18:25

explicit4u said:
lack of contrast between the white stuff (cheese?) and plate doesn't help.

Wouldn't be a problem to a pro.

Raymond Lin · 29 Jun 2011 at 18:27

Ahleckz said:
My main complaint was this - " I want to see the food, I don't want to see a fifth of it up close very clearly and the rest of the plate in a weird horrible looking fuzz.". Kylew was complaining about the out of focus/background sharpness thing. I was just agreeing with him that the current fascination to put loads of a picture out of focus is daft. The tomato picture confirms this.

Saying "seeing 1 or 10 tomatoes makes no difference" is a bit daft. You posted up pictures of your food, I and others want to see that. Yeah, by all means incorporate some artistic flair but please don't put the vast majority out of focus because it's 'artistic' and 'cool'. Amazingly, people that like food want to see the food. I'd much prefer to see an entire plate and all the different components of the dish working with each other and being presented in a good manner than seeing a tiny portion of one ingredient in great detail and the rest just an incomprehensible blur.

Thankfully, photography is an art and I wholeheartedly disagree and I would choose to shoot at an aperture of my choosing. I don't do it to be cool, it's not a "current" fascination. This has been around for years, you just never seen it before.

Seriously, go open a cookbook, show me a shot that's taken at an angle with the whole plate in focus.

Ahleckz · 29 Jun 2011 at 18:27

Oh, may as well ask here. When you're (I'm speaking to the photographers here) taking pictures of people on the street, do you ask permission from them or just snap? Some look pretty candid but I can't help but feel it's a little inappropriate to just snap pictures of randomers.

uv · 29 Jun 2011 at 18:28

Raymond Lin said:
If I stepped back you would see the mess in my kitchen!

Ahleckz · 29 Jun 2011 at 18:30

Raymond Lin said:
Thankfully, photography is an art and I wholeheartedly disagree and I would choose to shoot at an aperture of my choosing. I don't do it to be cool, it's not a "current" fascination. This has been around for years, you just never seen it before.

Seriously, go open a cookbook, show me a shot that's taken at an angle with the whole plate in focus.

I have seen it plenty of times and it has always annoyed me as it's totally pointless. What is the point in showing a tiny portion of a plate if you're trying to show what a dish looks like in its entirety?
Just flicked through Delia Smith's cookbook (closest to hand, most of my cookbooks are at my Mum's due to a lack of space here) and pretty much all of her pictures are in focus. I browse foodgawker.com pretty much daily and there are shots of all sorts in there, but thankfully many show the entire dish so people who wish to make it can see what it looks like and get a better idea if they will enjoy it.

Raymond Lin · 29 Jun 2011 at 18:31

No, it's not illegal, so I don't need to. If I ask then it kinda defeats the purpose of the idea of candids don't you think?

Plus, I rarely do street photography unless I am on holiday anyway. And yes, I see a shot and I take that shot. It's about the moment, and the moment rarely last more than a few seconds in my experience.

Raikiri · 29 Jun 2011 at 18:33

Ahleckz said:
Oh, may as well ask here. When you're (I'm speaking to the photographers here) taking pictures of people on the street, do you ask permission from them or just snap? Some look pretty candid but I can't help but feel it's a little inappropriate to just snap pictures of randomers.

You're in Britain, you have your picture/video taken on a daily basis.

Ahleckz said:
I have seen it plenty of times and it has always annoyed me as it's totally pointless. What is the point in showing a tiny portion of a plate if you're trying to show what a dish looks like in its entirety?
J

Who says I am trying to show the entire dish? Just because you misinterpreted it.