Hi guys, I start today a new segment of this blog and my intent is to do this at least once a month: Questions and Answers.

I really appreciate all of your comments and questions; not only they are a tangible sign of your interest but also they give me a chance to go back to a topic I might have discussed in a previous post and add elements to it or clear any doubts that might have arisen in the Reader's mind.

So, without further hesitating this is the comment, and question, of Christopher Cina in response to the post Building Portfolio of April 16th 2010.

" Enjoyed your post. I understand the concept of having a portfolio, but if youâ??re just getting your start, how big or small should your print portfolio be? And why would you consider that better than a digital portfolio?

Thanks,
Chris "

First of all, thank you Christopher for your question; two questions, actually.

.....if you're just getting started.... Stop! that's a big IF, and there is also a big IT DEPENDS coming right after it; let me explain: If you meant " ... if you are just getting started with a career in food photography", then yes I reckon it would be recommendable to print your portfolio; how big ? not too big, not too small....maybe 25 pictures or so. If you're just getting started, your body of work cannot be that big, no?

On the other hand, if you are just getting started taking pictures of food with no real intention to earn a living out of it, then you probably won't need a print copy of your portfolio; or maybe you do want to make some money out of your food photography and you decide to sell your pictures to stock photo agencies: well, in this case too you wouldn't need a printed portfolio. If that is the case though, you definitely want to dig Yuri Arcurs website and videos, as he is the world's top selling microstock photographer.

So, it depends.

The Portfolio should really represent the best of your work, hence you should be quite severe with yourself . If a picture isn't really great then it doesn't belong there.

And it's important that you seek feedback about your work; read John Paul Caponigro blog "... seek feedback from people who know you; they will understand personal dimensions of your work others wonâ??t be privy to. Seek feedback from those who donâ??t know you; they wonâ??t make assumptions based on your personal past or allowances based on friendship. Seek feedback from professionals.......seek feedback from people without expertise in your field....seek feedback from people who appreciate the type of art you create..." "Remember, no matter what kind of feedback you get or who you get it from, you are the ultimate authority on your work. Feedback is only useful if you use it."

It's a great read, really.

Now, getting back to Christpher's question: why would I consider a printed Portfolio better than a digital one?

Because, ( big if ) IF I want to present myself and my work in a professional way, then it's absolutely crucial that I pay maximum attention to colour management and I want to make sure that what I see is also what the client sees. This is not me saying, but it's a fact that images on screen look different from what they look in print. It really sucks to spend time and energies to get the colours the way you want them and then people look at your photos on a crappy laptop screen and get a totally different feeling about your work.

Ideally, all monitors should have the same brightness, contrast and color temperature. In reality this doesn't happen, for a number of reasons that it would be too tedious to illustrate here. How many of you have ever calibrated their monitors? If you'd like to learn more, this is an article you can read; plenty of infos and tutorials out there, just dig it.

And if you decide to embrace colour management and take your work to the next level, there are a number of softwares you can purchase for different prices and needs; I use ColorMunki.

Right, time to wrap things up everybody; if you decide to go ahead and get a printed Portfolio, select only your best images, choose a professional Lab and make sure what you see is what you get, and print nice and big ( otherwise you don't need a 12 megapixels expensive camera ).

Keep shooting your questions guys and help me to make this blog as interactive as possible; it's the best way to learn.

> Read More

Posted in Questions, amp;, Answers

comments

Hi guys, I start today a new segment of this blog and my intent is to do this at least once a month: Questions and Answers.

I really appreciate all of your comments and questions; not only they are a tangible sign of your interest but also they give me a chance to go back to a topic I might have discussed in a previous post and add elements to it or clear any doubts that might have arisen in the Reader's mind.

So, without further hesitating this is the comment, and question, of Christopher Cina in response to the post Building Portfolio of April 16th 2010.

" Enjoyed your post. I understand the concept of having a portfolio, but if youâ??re just getting your start, how big or small should your print portfolio be? And why would you consider that better than a digital portfolio?

Thanks,
Chris "

First of all, thank you Christopher for your question; two questions, actually.

.....if you're just getting started.... Stop! that's a big IF, and there is also a big IT DEPENDS coming right after it; let me explain: If you meant " ... if you are just getting started with a career in food photography", then yes I reckon it would be recommendable to print your portfolio; how big ? not too big, not too small....maybe 25 pictures or so. If you're just getting started, your body of work cannot be that big, no?

On the other hand, if you are just getting started taking pictures of food with no real intention to earn a living out of it, then you probably won't need a print copy of your portfolio; or maybe you do want to make some money out of your food photography and you decide to sell your pictures to stock photo agencies: well, in this case too you wouldn't need a printed portfolio. If that is the case though, you definitely want to dig Yuri Arcurs website and videos, as he is the world's top selling microstock photographer.

So, it depends.

The Portfolio should really represent the best of your work, hence you should be quite severe with yourself . If a picture isn't really great then it doesn't belong there.

And it's important that you seek feedback about your work; read John Paul Caponigro blog "... seek feedback from people who know you; they will understand personal dimensions of your work others wonâ??t be privy to. Seek feedback from those who donâ??t know you; they wonâ??t make assumptions based on your personal past or allowances based on friendship. Seek feedback from professionals.......seek feedback from people without expertise in your field....seek feedback from people who appreciate the type of art you create..." "Remember, no matter what kind of feedback you get or who you get it from, you are the ultimate authority on your work. Feedback is only useful if you use it."

It's a great read, really.

Now, getting back to Christpher's question: why would I consider a printed Portfolio better than a digital one?

Because, ( big if ) IF I want to present myself and my work in a professional way, then it's absolutely crucial that I pay maximum attention to colour management and I want to make sure that what I see is also what the client sees. This is not me saying, but it's a fact that images on screen look different from what they look in print. It really sucks to spend time and energies to get the colours the way you want them and then people look at your photos on a crappy laptop screen and get a totally different feeling about your work.

Ideally, all monitors should have the same brightness, contrast and color temperature. In reality this doesn't happen, for a number of reasons that it would be too tedious to illustrate here. How many of you have ever calibrated their monitors? If you'd like to learn more, this is an article you can read; plenty of infos and tutorials out there, just dig it.

And if you decide to embrace colour management and take your work to the next level, there are a number of softwares you can purchase for different prices and needs; I use ColorMunki.

Right, time to wrap things up everybody; if you decide to go ahead and get a printed Portfolio, select only your best images, choose a professional Lab and make sure what you see is what you get, and print nice and big ( otherwise you don't need a 12 megapixels expensive camera ).

Keep shooting your questions guys and help me to make this blog as interactive as possible; it's the best way to learn.

> Read More

Posted in Food, pixels

comments

Hey foodies, welcome back. We just left April behind and it has been a good month; Food Pixels blog and web site have seen an increment of around 25% in number of visitors and the feedback is great; I'm happy, thank you all for reading!

The shot above is a still life I did a couple of days ago, using just what I could find around the house and inside the fridge.

But what is still life photography ?

Wikipedia says: " Still life photography is the depiction of inanimate subject matter, most typically a small grouping of objects. Still life photography, ....... gives the photographer more leeway in the arrangement of design elements within a composition.

Still life photography is a demanding art, one in which the photographers are expected to be able to form their work with a refined sense of lighting, coupled with compositional skills. The still life photographer makes pictures rather than takes them. Knowing where to look for propping and surfaces also is a required skill ".

I underlined the last sentence because it's really relevant to the point I want to make here: still life photography is a form of art, and a great way to exercise and improve your photographic skills; lighting, composition, framing, styling and propping.... they all play a part in the " making " of the final image.

I will show you, with a series of frames grouped in a slideshow, how I " made " the still life at the top of the page; you'll see how I first determine the camera angle and the main light position, using just the tin to lock in the focus and the basic exposure, and how then I start adding elements to the composition, moving them around to find the best balance, as well as I add reflectors and extra lights to reach the desired effect.

[slideshow]

The camera settings for the final image were : ISO 100, f 4, s 1/25, focal lenght 105 mm.

And this is the lighting set up diagram ( hope you'll forgive my poor drawing skills...)

The main light is a SB900 fired through the soft box at 1 p.m.

Knowing how the props are gonna be placed on the table and knowing the camera angle, I decide that I am gonna be shooting at f 4 to have a nice small depth of field; I use a light meter to determine the SB900 power ( which I think it was 1/4 - soft box was double diffused ) and then I up / down my shutter speed value to let less/more window light in.

This is gonna affect mainly the way the backdrop will look like: at ISO 100 and with the window way back into the room, I have to shoot at 1/25 sec to make that wall look grey, or else it would be pitch black. This circumstance of course calls for a tripod otherwise camera shake would definitely ruin my shot.

Finally I dial in some extra fill light, bouncing another SB900 of the ceiling and straight on the shooting table. No need to use a light meter here, just season to taste.

One last consideration on this image: the combination of a tin ( a burnt tin ) and fresh produce can tell a story or two and this makes it a more powerful image.

What is the story you read in between the lines of that newspaper?

> Read More

Posted in Food, Styling

comments