Photographing food for my cookbook

[grandioso]

Hey guys.

I'm not a photographer. I'm an author / entrepreneur. I've worked with Photoshop, but that's all. I'm currently working on a cookbook and I want it to look nice and professional. I own a GoPro3+ Black and a Nexus 5, which is not exactly pro equip.

I've been thinking about outsourcing all the photographing and just paying a one time fee to the photographer. The one I've talked to is not a pro and I've been thinking...

I would likely pay a couple of hundred euros for the photos and there's no guarantee they would be up to par. It would also be awkward to work out, as I'd need to prepare most of the foods and she would have to come over, or we'd need to cook at her place. Either way, this kind of thing can't be done in one or two (or even a dozen) sittings. I would also like the photos to be coherent and be shot in the same environment.

So I thought I might as well invest the money in a semi-decent camera and take the photos myself, at home. This way I can do it calmly and whenever I want.

So my question is... do you think this can be done by me (a non photographer willing to learn)? How much do I need to spend on a camera to make decent food pics? What kind of camera / lens would you recommend? Do I need any other equip to take decent food pics at home?

Honestly, I would like to keep the budget around 500€. Obviously, after I'm done with this project, I would still like to keep the camera.

Thanks for the advice.

 

[dennybeall]

You can do it but keep in mind that most of the food you see on TV and in magazine photos is faux food made from plastic and/or sprayed with chemicals that nobody would actually want to eat.
About any digital camera with 10 mpg or more would capture the images. You need good depth of field so the lens and the lighting setup would be the important part after knowing the tricks of the food photo trade.
Obviously my opinion is "Hire a pro that knows how to do it." if you want top quality photos to help sell your cookbook.

 

[waday]

You don't need a top-notch camera to do this--in fact, you should probably just buy used. You'll need: camera body, lens, tripod, post-processing software, and possibly a flash, if you have poor lighting (no offense, but most likely you do).

I know the kit lens isn't the best, but they work well enough with good lighting and a little bit of love in post-processing.

I don't think a pro would work for 500 euros to do multiple sessions (12+). If you don't want to learn yourself, give your friend the 500 and make up the difference in cooked food.

 

[grandioso]

Throughout the years I've learned that it's seldom a good idea to buy used electronics. I'd rather get a new one.

I already have a tripod and I use Photoshop for editing. Flash is horrible for food photo from what I learned (today, haha).

I got a recommendation for a Nikon D3200. I found one with a 18-55 lens for 350€. I'd still have enough budget left for a softbox. Lowel Ego is one I found with a good review but is unavailable in my country (Slovakia).

What do you think about the cam / softbox?

 

[Light Guru]

Worry more about the lighting then the camera. Just about any camera can take an acceptable picture, but even the best and most expensive camera won't be able to make a good photo of food with bad lighting.

You say you have a tripod, but my guess is its a cheep $20 tripod, if thats the case you will want to get a much better one.

 

[matthias bader]

You could probably do all the photos with you phone. There's just the problem, that you like to print it (I guess) - and therefore resolution is the key. I don't know how many megapixel your phone has, if more then 12 it should work for printing.

The camera you choose is a nice one, you can't do any wrong with an Nikon or Canon DSLR, the all make good quality pictures. The lens....it's a kit-lens, so its okay, but not the best out there. Most recommend either a 50mm f/1.8 (cost around 100 USD new)- if you get a good deal for a f/1.4, take this- or an more expensive 90 or 100mm Macro-Lens. The first one is pretty good for foodphotography and cheap, the second one (the Macro)....well I am saving for that one You will get some pictures with the kit-lens (18-55) but i would recommend to search a lens with an aperture from f/2.8 or smaller.

It's possible to do it by yourself. Altho a pro would get you better images in a shorter time (no offense too, it just quite a learn-curve you have to take until you got decent pixs). If your really interested I would recommend you some books, which are available over Amazon.

> Food Photography: From Snapshots to Great Shots (Nicole S. Young)
> Plate to Pixel (Helen Dujardin)
> Focus on Food Photography for Bloggers (Matt Armendariz)

All of them cover the basic knowledge for foodphotography and I found it very helpful. You don't have to buy all three, one is enough for a start

Good luck!

 

[KenC]

As you probably have seen by now, there's a lot to know about this - food photography is a specialty within photography. Not only is there lighting to worry about, but I understand that professionals do spray a lot of chemicals on food so it looks "natural" and "fresh" even though it is sitting out for a while during the process. If you expect to make money on the book, it would be worth the investment to hire a pro. If not, and you have the time, then you could learn enough to do a decent job, but it might take a while to get the results you want.

 

[KmH]

Yes. Lighting and using light modifiers will be the key to professional looking and consistent looking photos of your food.
Light Science and Magic: An Introduction to Photographic Lighting

Since your subject won't be moving you can use constant lights along with a good stable tripod. With constant lights you can see how a particular set up will light your food as you adjust the set up. With flash you have to change the set up, shoot, look at the photo, adjust the set up, shoot, look at the photo, etc. A disadvantage of constant lights is that to get as much light as a flash provides the constant lights have to be very bright, which means they get hot.

Pro photographers often hire a 'food stylist' that knows how to make food look particularly appealing.

 

[astroNikon]

I'm not a pro but Adding to the above info. You've probably seen food photos with "steam" rising on them, normally done with incense or other methods.

Also, with only one lighting source the photos may not be as high caliber as you would like. You'd probably see a pro use 2 or 3 off camera lights with difusers if you are setting it up on a table type scenario (not a white box). But natural lighting is also good. Also you may want to add what is around the food. Nice wine glass, wine, utensils .. creating an ambience of just not the food.

here's a few links to get your started
I read this a while ago when I was doing some food photo, a good short intro ==> How to Photograph Food For Professional-Standard Shots

This shows some pretty good basic examples in regards to lighting ==> Artificial Lighting Tips for Food Photography - Pinch of Yum

 

[TCampbell]

Food photography is (good food photography) is somewhat involved. There might be a lot of lights, a lot of reflectors, and usually a long focal length, low focal ratio lens (when I shoot food, I primarily use my EF 100mm f/2.8 macro lens. A 60mm f/2.8 macro lens would work on a DSLR with an APS-C size sensor.)

There's also the notion of the food stylist. This involves setting the table with the food (e.g. plated, etc.) and whatever else you want in the scene... arranged for the composition you are trying to achieve through the lens of the camera. Think "fashion designer"... but they're just primping the food and the settings that will be visible through the lens (e.g. the rest of the table).

When you're shooting "art" which involves food, the food doesn't have to be real. When you're shooting food for commercial reasons, usually the rules (laws vary) require that the food be "real" to avoid being accused of false advertising. But the problem with "real" food is that it's appearance will change over time and temperature. That means you usually completely prepare the place setting WITHOUT the food (put a stand-in where the food should appear), and you work out the lighting, composition, exposure, etc. When you're completely ready with the camera, you bring out the food which is quickly plated and primped to look it's best... THEN start shooting.

Experienced food photographers know how to do all of this and they are masters of lighting food, getting the exposure right (it's never shot on 'automatic' -- that means you'd have to learn all about how to shoot on manual ... and especially how to use focal length and aperture to control the depth of field), and also how to style and primp the food to make it look its best.

The lighting and lens are significantly more important than the camera body (though the camera body should be a DSLR... this wouldn't work well with a point & shoot.)

 

[grandioso]

Wow, so many helpful people on this forum. Love it. Thank you all.

The photos don't need to be THAT professional. They do need to look nice, but the book will sell without super high grade photos as well. Content is the key here

I'm planning to eat my subjects too, so no deadly chemicals. Really, I wanted to pay 500-1k€ for the photos, but I'll rather spend the money on a camera and learn something new (as I always do). It's also great to have enough time to take photos of 1-2 meals a day rather than somehow bring them to a studio (can't really imagine that). And yeah, I'll probably need to shoot more meals after the project is done, so it would be nice to have a "home food studio"

I have around a month and a half before I begin shooting - I'm going abroad, to get some quality sunshine among other things During that I will have time enough to study the books you recommended and to play around with the new camera I get.

I'll sleep on it, but I'm probably ordering the D3200 if I don't find something better by tomorrow. I need the camera now if I want to take it with me on the trip, as I have only 3 business days left.

 

[photog15]

The D3200 is a solid choice, what has lead you to choose it if I may ask?

 

[grandioso]

My photographer friend whom I mentioned in the first post has it and she has made very decent food pics with it.

Also snapsort.com.

 

[Light Guru]

The photos don't need to be THAT professional. They do need to look nice, but the book will sell without super high grade photos as well. Content is the key here

People don't read the content before they look at the photos. If the photos are bad they won't bother to read the content.

 

[matthias bader]

The photos don't need to be THAT professional. They do need to look nice, but the book will sell without super high grade photos as well. Content is the key here

People don't read the content before they look at the photos. If the photos are bad they won't bother to read the content.

Good Point!
I choose cookbooks mostly because of the photos and the layout. They have all good recipes in it, but only if the food looks good too, i'll buy it. The photos should make the viewer interested in the recipe. If the food looks grows, nobody is willing to cook that :S And unfortunately food looks quite fast "not so appealing" on a picture. Just think about: A picture says more than a thousand words