Welcome, Anonymous (Profile, Private Messages)
Having trouble signing into the forums? Please [ logout ] and log back in.
 Log inLog in 
SEARCH:     » Advanced Search

Shutterstock Photographer Forum Forum Index : Critique / Tips / Tricks :
buckwheat, corn flakes and apricot
Page 1, 2  Next
 
Post new topic    Reply to topic
Author Message
marijasmnj


Joined: 26 Feb 2012
Posts: 6

Post Posted: Mon Feb 27, 2012 3:50 am     Reply with quote

Hi all,
could you please tell me what you think about these photos... critique everything that needs to be improved.composition, focus, subjects... more you say more I'll learn.
I plan to include these photos into my first submission, but really need help from someone to tell are they good for stock photography.
thank you for your time and effort in advance!



apricotforcritique.jpg
 Description:

Download
 Filename:  apricotforcritique.jpg
 Filesize:  183.14 KB
 Downloaded:  131 Time(s)


cornflakesforcritique.jpg
 Description:

Download
 Filename:  cornflakesforcritique.jpg
 Filesize:  190.62 KB
 Downloaded:  114 Time(s)


buckwheatforcritique.jpg
 Description:

Download
 Filename:  buckwheatforcritique.jpg
 Filesize:  222.68 KB
 Downloaded:  109 Time(s)

tverkhovynets


Joined: 12 Jun 2010
Posts: 753
Location: Kiev, Ukraine

Post Posted: Mon Feb 27, 2012 4:05 am     Reply with quote

Dave is an expert in food photography and he will give you better advice, but the first thing which came into my mind is that you styled your shots incorrectly. The dishes you used for food are not the best for it. It looks very odd in it. Use something more usual like plates e.t.c. Also the dishes should be perfectly clean. Noone would eat something from a dirty pot.

Apart from that I can see that you have some problems with DOF being too shallow. Also lighting could be a bit better.

Taras
marijasmnj


Joined: 26 Feb 2012
Posts: 6

Post Posted: Mon Feb 27, 2012 4:37 am     Reply with quote

First, thank you for a quick reply!
tverkhovynets wrote:
... but the first thing which came into my mind is that you styled your shots incorrectly. The dishes you used for food are not the best for it. It looks very odd in it. Use something more usual like plates e.t.c. Also the dishes should be perfectly clean. Noone would eat something from a dirty pot.

omg it didn't even cross my mind to think that way but now it seems to be logic :)
I was going for originality, to put the dishes that are not that common to mix with that food.
for apricots, I had doubts and you resolved them, I totally agree with what you said.
for buckwheat (and other cereals, grains etc.) I thought that clay pot goes with it, to gave some kind of feeling of old times...
white bucket whit corn flakes is just there to tell that corn flakes is eaten with milk.

tverkhovynets wrote:
Apart from that I can see that you have some problems with DOF being too shallow. Also lighting could be a bit better.

Taras


as for DOF, again, I did it intentionally, but, I can see now why that approach is wrong. I wanted the main subject in focus and dishes, as they are just an addition to the main subject, to be OOF.

thank you again Taras, it was very helpful!
digigandalf


Joined: 11 Jun 2005
Posts: 5452
Location: Twinsburg, OH

Post Posted: Mon Feb 27, 2012 6:50 am     Reply with quote

marijasmnj wrote:

as for DOF, again, I did it intentionally, but, I can see now why that approach is wrong. I wanted the main subject in focus and dishes, as they are just an addition to the main subject, to be OOF.


The problem is, the eye is drawn to the dishes since they are unusual, large, and also contain the food. That makes them more the main subject. The food scattered on the white surface is more like an "extra," and even there, not enough is in focus.
hhltdave5


Joined: 20 Jun 2006
Posts: 24304
Location: Our Stock, Food & Portrait photography books at www.rindersmithphotography.com

Post Posted: Mon Feb 27, 2012 7:41 am     Reply with quote

I would agree with what has been said so far. The two main issues I see are the lighting and as mentioned how they have been styled.

Doing isolations (yours are actually "on whites" because you have left some shadows) is not easy unless you have the right equipment and the proper technique. If you look at the apricot shot you can see the shadows have an orange cast to them. Also the light is too intense which has over exposed the shot and that washes out some of the color.

When it comes to putting food in a vessel that it normally does not go in you need to be careful. There are times when using different containers works and this is something that some restaurants are doing now. For instance they are putting french fries in little fryer baskets or buckets such as you have used here.

So, there is no set rule against it but what happens in stock is that you can be reducing your commercial value and that can reduce sales. A restaurant may want to do it because it shows that it is different and not like other restaurants and that can be a good things when it comes to bringing in customers.

I have done corn flake shots several ways, one showing it as it would be served and eaten and one in a more non traditional way which I have posted.



http://www.shutterstock.com/cat.mhtml?images_per_page=150&image_previews=off&gallery_username=hhltdave5&thumb_size=small&show_descriptions=off&safesearch=1&prev_sort_method=popular&sort_method=newest&page=1#id=59016334



http://www.shutterstock.com/cat.mhtml?images_per_page=150&image_previews=off&gallery_username=hhltdave5&thumb_size=small&show_descriptions=off&safesearch=1&prev_sort_method=popular&sort_method=newest&page=1#id=59016313


So you can be different just make sure that you do the shots well and that you don't get too different to the point that you are eliminating buyers.
marijasmnj


Joined: 26 Feb 2012
Posts: 6

Post Posted: Mon Feb 27, 2012 10:24 am     Reply with quote

digigandalf, thanks for explanation! now I realize...
hhltdave5 wrote:
I would agree with what has been said so far. The two main issues I see are the lighting and as mentioned how they have been styled.

the lighting is probably more of PP fault. but then, my lightbox is DIY kind. so it is both :) PP was correcting exposure and adding some vibrance in camera raw. But I guess the problem is that I choose my background to be completely and evenly white, I mean r255 g255 b 255 and more vibrance then it needed. applied a mask, did levels, eyedropper tool. and somewhere along pp I did wrong...
I would also appreciate some tips about a white background. I mean, how white the background have to be? of course I'll be reading other people's posts an maybe found answers for my questions.
hhltdave5 wrote:
Doing isolations (yours are actually "on whites" because you have left some shadows) is not easy unless you have the right equipment and the proper technique.

of course, so true! I'm taking shots with an olympus e520 and basic lens, my lightbox is diy kind of thing. I use CS5 for editing but I don't do much tweaking, I'm trying to get the best of me and my camera. Also I realize that I need to by more equipment for serious stock photography. but for now, I'm stuck with this one and I'm trying to learn as much as possible. Equipment is not important as a person behind it, of course. I'm at the beginning of learning stock and hope to change my way of thinking, and all of your answers have been very helpful.

hhltdave5 wrote:
When it comes to putting food in a vessel that it normally does not go in you need to be careful... So you can be different just make sure that you do the shots well and that you don't get too different to the point that you are eliminating buyers.

So, it's smarter not to take risks in stock. ok, so I have to think think and think about composition, backgrounds, dishes in my kichen...
Thanks a lot!
hhltdave5


Joined: 20 Jun 2006
Posts: 24304
Location: Our Stock, Food & Portrait photography books at www.rindersmithphotography.com

Post Posted: Mon Feb 27, 2012 11:17 am     Reply with quote

One issue you are having is the light box. Generally speaking most of us think light boxes are a waste of time and money. They restrict your ability to shoot from different angles and they have a tendency to bounce the light all over the place.

If you are going to do isolations or on whites it is best to use the right equipment and do it properly. This means that you light the background and the object of attention separately. Many of us light the background from underneath or behind.

What I also suggest is not to work on submitting isolations until you have the time to practice them and get them right. I would instead do them in a more natural setting, in other words a way you would see it in your home. For example think about doing the buckwheat on a cutting board or a counter top.
jeffbanke


Joined: 18 Dec 2005
Posts: 17518
Location: www.xlr8photo.com, The real California

Post Posted: Mon Feb 27, 2012 11:50 am     Reply with quote

The difference between "On-white" and an isolation is that with the isolation there are no shadows, and the background is 255,255,255, whereas "on-white" can actually be slightly off-white even grey, and may have shadows.

The trick is making the right choices for the users. I mean an isolation gives them the ability to cut it out and paste it anywhere easily, on-white less so, and must stand on its own which is why Dave mentioned the more natural setting which also must stand on their own, but have more potential use if done well.

Here are a couple of easy isolations:






Here a couple of on-white:





Here some similar subjects in a more natural environ:




Or as in this case light to the background evenly so that it can be used for text



or use DOF to bring attention to the subject of interest




However as we have pointed out the easiest to take are the natural setting images, this one is on a cheesecake manufacturers website



Finally don't forget that you do not need any lighting if you shoot outdoors. This was in sunlight, with a large diffuser between the sun and subject (here a large white sheet held between a couple of rods does the trick).
If you want a little more 'life' in the picture use a reflector (white, silver or gold depending on the effect wanted) to bounce more light into it.




The diagrams are lighting for good isolations



key, fill and boom with canon.jpg
 Description:
 Filesize:  102.4 KB
 Viewed:  962 Time(s)

key, fill and boom with canon.jpg



foamcore reflector 4 forum.jpg
 Description:
 Filesize:  88.48 KB
 Viewed:  962 Time(s)

foamcore reflector 4 forum.jpg


semmickphoto


Joined: 12 Feb 2012
Posts: 6632
Location: Stuck between a shutter and a hard place

Post Posted: Mon Feb 27, 2012 1:42 pm     Reply with quote

Is that a bucket of milk with the cereal? Must be for a hungry person then ;-)
marijasmnj


Joined: 26 Feb 2012
Posts: 6

Post Posted: Mon Feb 27, 2012 3:43 pm     Reply with quote

jeffbanke, I really appreciate your time and effort, examples and explanations are very helpful.
semmickphoto, :) what to say... except that I really like that bucket, but I'll have to find another way to incorporate it in a photo
mauijon


Joined: 02 Mar 2005
Posts: 4310
Location: Maui, Hawaii

Post Posted: Mon Feb 27, 2012 7:24 pm     Reply with quote

I thought upon looking at your three that the lighting was flat and they needed some contrast. I think it was your lightbox that caused the flatness.
jeffbanke


Joined: 18 Dec 2005
Posts: 17518
Location: www.xlr8photo.com, The real California

Post Posted: Tue Feb 28, 2012 2:18 am     Reply with quote

marijasmnj wrote:
jeffbanke, I really appreciate your time and effort, examples and explanations are very helpful.
semmickphoto, :) what to say... except that I really like that bucket, but I'll have to find another way to incorporate it in a photo


My pleasure :-)
marijasmnj


Joined: 26 Feb 2012
Posts: 6

Post Posted: Tue Feb 28, 2012 3:54 am     Reply with quote

hhltdave5, I forgot to thank you, sorry :)
mauijon, probably true. based on all replies I give up the lightbox, and going to my kitchen :)
hhltdave5


Joined: 20 Jun 2006
Posts: 24304
Location: Our Stock, Food & Portrait photography books at www.rindersmithphotography.com

Post Posted: Tue Feb 28, 2012 7:55 am     Reply with quote

marijasmnj wrote:
hhltdave5, I forgot to thank you, sorry :)
mauijon, probably true. based on all replies I give up the lightbox, and going to my kitchen :)


Remember one thing, capturing the light is what photography is all about. The word broken down actually means the capture or recording of light. Your job is to use that light properly by controlling its intensity and direction.

The light box was made to diffuse and reflect light which is something very easily done without sticking the object being photographed in a confining box.

Use a material similar to the light tent material to diffuse the light if necessary and then use a reflector of some sort to reflect the light. A simple piece of poster board works just fine. You can also buy a 5 in 1 reflector kit that has both diffusers as well as different reflectors made of material for about $35. Knowing how to control the light also works outside when photographing people or things.

The whole trick is to just learn to see the light and how the use and position of your controllers are managed. If you ever decide to move up to strobes then the job generally gets pretty easy.
geoffwnz


Joined: 10 Feb 2012
Posts: 174
Location: Wellington, New Zealand

Post Posted: Tue Feb 28, 2012 3:35 pm     Reply with quote

hhltdave5 wrote:
marijasmnj wrote:
hhltdave5, I forgot to thank you, sorry :)
mauijon, probably true. based on all replies I give up the lightbox, and going to my kitchen :)


You can also buy a 5 in 1 reflector kit that has both diffusers as well as different reflectors made of material for about $35.

Something like this?
Link
 
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 1 of 2 All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Page 1, 2  Next

 


Shutterstock Forum for Contributors