Author Topic: Amazing food photography. Amazing recipes, too. (Read 15857 times)

cathyslife · « **Reply #25 on:** February 18, 2011, 12:05 »

Quote from: gostwyck on February 18, 2011, 10:52

Quote from: cclapper on February 18, 2011, 10:31
I think some of marcomayer's images are good, but I notice he is not exclusive. Not really a fair comparison...kelly cline was in on the ground floor at IS, always an exclusive, and is one of the top dogs, almost like Yuri (the exception being I don't think she employs a whole staff of people...but I could be wrong on that). marcomayer's images, even if good, are going to be buried, for the most part.

You're still hung-up on the 'exclusives get higher placement' issue? Other than Vetta and Agency images I can find no evidence of that and Yuri's success is the obvious example.

Kelly's success is primary due to her being a professional food-stylist before she ever picked up a camera, so she totally understands her subject. Kelly's food therefore looks 'real'. Marco, on the other hand, is a fashion photographer so he shoots food in the same way with everything being perfectly coiffed and wearing full make-up __ and therefore completely 'unreal'.

Well, you call it "hung up", I call it facts.

But you are certainly entitled to your opinion, and I am certainly entitled to mine.

gostwyck · « **Reply #26 on:** February 18, 2011, 12:10 »

Quote from: cclapper on February 18, 2011, 12:05

Well, you call it "hung up", I call it facts.
[/quote]

Please feel free to illustrate your 'facts' with some actual examples or other evidence. Good luck with finding any.

cathyslife · « **Reply #27 on:** February 18, 2011, 12:26 »

Quote from: gostwyck on February 18, 2011, 12:10

Quote from: cclapper on February 18, 2011, 12:05

Well, you call it "hung up", I call it facts.
Please feel free to illustrate your 'facts' with some actual examples or other evidence. Good luck with finding any.

cthoman · « **Reply #28 on:** February 18, 2011, 12:34 »

You two need to kick back and relax like this baby...

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cds7lSHawAw[/youtube]

Happy Friday!

lisafx · « **Reply #29 on:** February 18, 2011, 13:38 »

OMG!! ROFL!! As a mother, I am truly horrified, but that is just so funny!

BTW, notice the fanny pack when she stands up. Really completes the ensemble...

pancaketom · « **Reply #30 on:** February 18, 2011, 13:47 »

Some of those pics, made me blink a few times like I had some crud in my eye messing up the focus, or maybe my glasses were smudged... to me that is taking the reverse tilt-shift / shallow DOF too far (unless you are trying to sell optical services). In some others it worked well for me. In general I am not super happy with really shallow depth of field images (for example when the nose, eyelashes, and anything behind the edge of the eyes is out of focus in a portrait). I realize that is just my personal taste though and every once in a while a shallow DOF image grabs me though, so it isn't always bad.

Maybe the only thing that annoys me more than the reverse tilt shift shallow depth of field slice is when it is done in PS so it is some weird stripe across the image in focus that has nothing to do with the distance from the lens.

On the flip side I like harsh shadows and dark images, so I haven't completely gone for the microstock kool-aid.

Blufish · « **Reply #31 on:** February 18, 2011, 13:58 »

That video made my day! Mom too, but that is hilarious!

Caz · « **Reply #32 on:** February 18, 2011, 13:59 »

Thanks for posting the link. Aran's photography is delicious, very much in fashion for food photography now and I love it.

Elenathewise · « **Reply #33 on:** February 18, 2011, 14:44 »

Quote from: pancaketom on February 18, 2011, 13:47

Some of those pics, made me blink a few times like I had some crud in my eye messing up the focus, or maybe my glasses were smudged... to me that is taking the reverse tilt-shift / shallow DOF too far (unless you are trying to sell optical services). In some others it worked well for me. In general I am not super happy with really shallow depth of field images (for example when the nose, eyelashes, and anything behind the edge of the eyes is out of focus in a portrait). I realize that is just my personal taste though and every once in a while a shallow DOF image grabs me though, so it isn't always bad.

Maybe the only thing that annoys me more than the reverse tilt shift shallow depth of field slice is when it is done in PS so it is some weird stripe across the image in focus that has nothing to do with the distance from the lens.

On the flip side I like harsh shadows and dark images, so I haven't completely gone for the microstock kool-aid.

Of course it can be just a matter of personal preference, and nothing's wrong with that. People don't like same things, it would be boring. However, you may try not to focus so much on focus issues (har har), but step away from the image and see it as a whole. Like when you're looking at a paining, you don't inspect every single brush stroke, but seeing entire piece from several feet away.
I just wrote more about this in my new blog post: http://blog.elenaphoto.com/?p=88

pancaketom · « **Reply #34 on:** February 18, 2011, 15:11 »

Certainly some shallow DOF images work well, maybe it is just that I am a bit of an odd duck and I often want to look at something other than the tiny bit in focus and get frustrated. I do find it useful to think about why someone chose the DOF they did and the specific focus point. It is a quite powerful tool to direct the viewers attention. Stepping back and looking at the image as a whole is also a good exercise.
W/ macros you are almost forced to use a shallow DOF anyway unless you want to do focus stacking, so you might as well use it. I do wish the stocks took more shallow DOF images for macros.

I do quite like cilantro, although I can taste the soapy flavor too.

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #35 on:** March 22, 2011, 21:26 »

Quote from: gostwyck on February 17, 2011, 21:21

Quote from: Mantis on February 17, 2011, 19:15
To me these are nothing special, especially when I see the awesome work of some of the food microstockers. Nothing against her work just that there is much better work out there. Something like this is more what I consider very good.

http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-56135239/stock-photo-ingredients-for-homemade-pizza.html

You have to be kidding __ either that or you don't understand anything about food photography. The example you've posted is completely unnatural and looks like the contrived photo-set-up it obviously is.

Aran's style is very much in keeping with what's hot in food photography today. If she wanted too she'd easily be giving Kelly Kline a run for her money in microstock.

Nice spot Elena, thanks for posting.

Whether you like his style or not, Marco is one of the fastest selling food photographers in microstock, so the artificial look must be pretty hot, too.

To get to $10,000 from nowhere in a year, his Shutterstock sales alone must now be up around $2,000 a month http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=99892

gostwyck · « **Reply #36 on:** March 24, 2011, 06:38 »

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on March 22, 2011, 21:26

Whether you like his style or not, Marco is one of the fastest selling food photographers in microstock, so the artificial look must be pretty hot, too.

To get to $10,000 from nowhere in a year, his Shutterstock sales alone must now be up around $2,000 a month

Not really. He's mainly achieved it by sheer volume having uploaded 5500 new images in a year (and thereby enjoying the immediate boost to earnings that fresh content generates). That means his 'earnings from new content' over that year is less than $2 per image which is actually quite low. I expect 'average' food images to generate at least double that figure. Good food images, in the style the OP provided for discussion, would probably average at least $10 per image, possibly a lot higher.

Think about it. There's a certain food photographer on IS (with a style very similar to the subject of this post) who, when such data was available, was about 4x more 'efficient' than you and I in that she had double our sales with half the size of port. If she were to give up her crown and upload her port to SS over the course of one year do you think she would average just $2 per image? Not a chance. More like $20 per image.

grp_photo · « **Reply #37 on:** March 24, 2011, 06:56 »

Quote from: gostwyck on March 24, 2011, 06:38

Good food images, in the style the OP provided for discussion, would probably average at least $10 per image, possibly a lot higher.

These Images would probably do well on macro but they won't do anything any good on micros many wouldn't even get accepted on micros for several reasons. Any comparsion to an exklusive that is on IS for many years is crap, none of these exklusives wouldn't reach these status again neither as an independent or as an exklusive they had the luck of good timing.
I personally like more the portfolio from the blog but on micros the SS-Portfolio will do much better!

Sandralise · « **Reply #38 on:** March 24, 2011, 10:54 »

I've had her bookmarked for a while now.
Love her style and composition of shooting food!

oxman · « **Reply #39 on:** April 15, 2011, 22:18 »

Those images are about 80/20. 20% are really great and the others are too busy or just lacking that artistic soul and warmth. Just don't connect with some -- but that is how i feel about my own work too.

there you have it

seawhisper · « **Reply #40 on:** April 16, 2011, 18:48 »

You know I might not like all that dreamy look in photographs (and I do have a feeling these photos in some points are simply too blurry), but OMG this all looks so sweet thanks that specific blurry - pastel feeling. I mean I could virtually eat all these photos!!! ^_^

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Amazing food photography. Amazing recipes, too. (Read 15857 times)

cathyslife

gostwyck

cathyslife

cthoman

lisafx

pancaketom

Blufish

Caz

Elenathewise

pancaketom

BaldricksTrousers

gostwyck

grp_photo

Sandralise

oxman

seawhisper

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors