Cooking with Raymond (Italian) - Flamed Pepper/Mozzarella/tomato salad + Pancetta/Liver/Mushroom Tag

I for one love the effects of Raymond's photos - furthermore, having seen some of his professional photos (ones he is paid for) he's a remarkable photographer, and from what I know, seems to know a little bit more than most people making ignorant comments.

However, art is subjective, so I can understand that some people don't get it.... However, I think he captured the important elements perfectly and enough information was offered for the viewer to appreciate what was being cooked!

Anyway, back to the topic at hand, looks great - have made similar many times before - I love liver - it's delicious. :)
 
ignorant comments

Ignorant? You are allowed to dislike something without knowing about it in depth, especially when it comes to any form of art.

Anyway I did make this tonight and it was pretty good, the recipe is definitely sound, but I need to cook it a couple more times to get it right. I put the liver in slightly too early and the cream in slightly too late, although my house mate wanted the liver cooked a lot as he was a bit iffy about eating it. My recommendation to people doing this for the first time is don't over estimate how long it takes to cook liver, you basically just want to brown the surface and then immediately put in the cream and mushrooms, otherwise while the cream is simmering and reducing down the liver will be over cooking itself. If it takes more than 5-8 minutes from the liver going in to you serving it's likely to be over cooked.

(also, tip for making garlic a bit easier to chop - just crush it with the flat of the knife and the heel of your palm first, then it's really quick to reduce it to finely chopped consistency. it also bruises the garlic a bit and lets to juice out)
 
Last edited:
If you saw, I said that art was subjective, but Ray had explained the technical reasons for his photos, my comments were towards the ignorance at the lack of understanding of the technical reasons as to why Ray was taking photos in that way despite explaining it. :)
 
Ray had explained the technical reasons for his photos, my comments were towards the ignorance at the lack of understanding of the technical reasons as to why Ray was taking photos in that way

But the photos were taken in that particular way because of an active, aesthetic choice by Raymond, there's no 'technical reason' why they have to be taken that way, therefore even an opinion given on his method is still acceptable. Now if the situation had been that the camera was unable to focus at that close range without the peripheral blur then you would absolutely have a point, he would have no choice but to present the pictures as they are and we would have no grounds to criticise it (although a negative and subjective opinion could still be expressed).

Although as I'm typing this I'm getting this sinking feeling that that is exactly what happened and I am indeed ignorant as you suggest :p However I doubt it, I'm pretty sure you can focus a camera on close up objects without dof blurring.

edit: into debate mode now, typing purely for my own self indulgence, feel free to ignore :o
 
I don't mind you say the photos are bad or that you don't like shallow depth of field. But if you really want to understand, and want to talk about photography then I will explain it to you.

My kitchen has 3 lights, none of which are directly over the worktop OR cooker. To get the maximum amount of light, I need to open the lens up. Sure you can say I can up the ISO on my camera, it is a 5Dii right? Well, to me, that is the last thing i want to do because that is the last thing anyone does in a low light situation. It is not a style, it is what every photographer does. You would change aperture and shutter speed before you change ISO. That is a rule of thumb.

Given that fact, and the fact that my kitchen is dark, the way to lit the photo is to use wide aperture. Now thankfully I do own some fast glass that can let in a lot of light. So I use it. Even though I use a flash, it is bounced. I bounce it (off the ceiling and wall) because it gives a more diffused result than firing it directly. What happen when you do that is you get what is call a "dear in headlight" result. I light background by open up the lens, that gives the atmosphere.

I do all the above almost second nature, there is no intention of "blur". If there are any intention, my intention is make sure what I want in focus, IS IN focus. Whether it is a face, a ring, a flower, a pepper on a hob, parsley in a pan. I pick out a subject, focus on that, and that is that. The background is blur, it doesn't matter to me because that is NOT the point of the photograph.

That is the intention.

I don't mind you talking about photography, but to suggest I use it as a backdoor way to promote my business? Pepper on a hob? If I want to promote my business, you think I won't use a better and more relevant topic and subject ?

This is the techincal explanation I was driving at.

Ok maybe the word ignorant was a little harsh - but maybe, ill informed? Or jumping to conclusions?

Also, it's just a matter of style. Which as we agree is just different for different people's tastes! :)
 
Back
Top Bottom