MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Amazing food photography. Amazing recipes, too.  (Read 16650 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: February 17, 2011, 18:44 »
0
For almost a year I've been following Aran Goyoaga's blog:
http://cannelle-vanille.blogspot.com/
Her food photography is feast for the eyes and her recipes (I've tried a few) are just amazing.
They are also quite healthy, too.


WarrenPrice

« Reply #1 on: February 17, 2011, 18:50 »
0
For almost a year I've been following Aran Goyoaga's blog:
http://cannelle-vanille.blogspot.com/
Her food photography is feast for the eyes and her recipes (I've tried a few) are just amazing.
They are also quite healthy, too.


Thanks, very unique style ... unusual?

I've found food fun to photograph ... and CHEAP.  Open a can of tomato soup, heat it, photograph it, eat it.  
Sometimes I even talk my wife into "cooking" for a picture.   :P

ED:  PS; is she selling stock?

« Reply #2 on: February 17, 2011, 18:50 »
0
Very nice stuff, Hmmmmmm!

« Reply #3 on: February 17, 2011, 19:00 »
0
Fantastic Food and pictures! Thank you very much for sharing!

lisafx

« Reply #4 on: February 17, 2011, 19:10 »
0
Delicious looking food!  Her daughter (I assume?) is adorable too!  Reminds me of this picture:  

http://www.xmission.com/~tssphoto/vt/bpg/35.html
« Last Edit: February 17, 2011, 19:41 by lisafx »

« Reply #5 on: February 17, 2011, 19:15 »
0
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

« Reply #6 on: February 17, 2011, 20:52 »
0
@WarrenPrice - I don't think she is selling stock though agencies, although there is a "licensing" link on her page. I love her style, it's very soft and consistent, too. She does work for cookbooks (right now she is working on her own).

@Mantis  - it's the old argument about shallow DOF versus all-sharp:) It's a matter of preference, really. Both styles work when done properly. For me, shallow DOF is the way to go - makes images more "airy" and draws attention to detail without making the image too busy. For a while all cookbooks and food magazines were shallow DOF only, now some are switching to "all in focus" and I don't quite like it.

« Reply #7 on: February 17, 2011, 21:21 »
0
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.

« Reply #8 on: February 17, 2011, 21:25 »
0
I love the natural soft lighting and DOF of these. Makes me just want to plop at her table and enjoy.  So inviting.

« Reply #9 on: February 18, 2011, 05:52 »
0
Thanks for the spot Elena. Lovely pictures and nice to read

Microbius

« Reply #10 on: February 18, 2011, 06:00 »
0
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.

Beat me to it, look at any one of the photos in that portfolio, does it make you imagine that the food has genuinely been cooked to be eaten or that there is a dinner party or busy kitchen just out of shot?
Glossy artificial eye candy is micro bread and butter, but I'll take the more naturalistic style any day.
« Last Edit: February 18, 2011, 06:03 by Microbius »

OM

« Reply #11 on: February 18, 2011, 06:48 »
0
Thanks for posting Elena. Excellent work.

+1 Gostwyck.

« Reply #12 on: February 18, 2011, 07:59 »
0
Beautifully styled, beautifully lit... Absolutely love them! Thanks for posting!

« Reply #13 on: February 18, 2011, 08:04 »
0
thanks.  I added her blog to my rss reader.

« Reply #14 on: February 18, 2011, 08:44 »
0
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


Nice image, but done in a 1960s style. As other have stated her images are the trend in food photography now.

« Reply #15 on: February 18, 2011, 08:45 »
0
Good photos, thanks to the naf touch they have.

« Reply #16 on: February 18, 2011, 09:03 »
0
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.


Well, like I said, I wasn't trying to be disrespectful.  But I have been around a long time doing commercial set photography since the early 1980's.  And as a buyer those images don't reach out and say "eat me"...if you get my point. Anyway, that's why forums are a nice tool....varying opinions make them worthwhile so we don't have anything but Kum Bah Ya posts.
« Last Edit: February 18, 2011, 09:10 by Mantis »

« Reply #17 on: February 18, 2011, 10:09 »
0
Very nice to look at.  Bright, focused, good composition.

« Reply #18 on: February 18, 2011, 10:17 »
0
I like the brightness and colors, and I like shallow dof on food shots, but personally I think they are a tad too shallow. I like to see a little more of the food in focus.

« Reply #19 on: February 18, 2011, 10:26 »
0
Well, like I said, I wasn't trying to be disrespectful.  But I have been around a long time doing commercial set photography since the early 1980's.  And as a buyer those images don't reach out and say "eat me"...if you get my point. Anyway, that's why forums are a nice tool....varying opinions make them worthwhile so we don't have anything but Kum Bah Ya posts.


Judging by the example you used you're still in the 1980's __ if not the 70's. Shiny, perfect plastic-looking food images, printed on full gloss paper, were all the rage back then. Mind you, the horrible, back-lit studio backdrop has never been 'in' for food. Nowaday rustic, crumbs-and-all, grainy images on matte are far more popular.

Here's the proof. Your man's port on IS;

http://www.istockphoto.com/marcomayer

And now what the buyers actually spend their credits on. Istock's very own 'food pornographer';

http://www.istockphoto.com/kcline

« Reply #20 on: February 18, 2011, 10:31 »
0
Well, like I said, I wasn't trying to be disrespectful.  But I have been around a long time doing commercial set photography since the early 1980's.  And as a buyer those images don't reach out and say "eat me"...if you get my point. Anyway, that's why forums are a nice tool....varying opinions make them worthwhile so we don't have anything but Kum Bah Ya posts.


Judging by the example you used you're still in the 1980's __ if not the 70's. Shiny, perfect plastic-looking food images, printed on full gloss paper, were all the rage back then. Mind you, the horrible, back-lit studio backdrop has never been 'in' for food. Nowaday rustic, crumbs-and-all, grainy images on matte are far more popular.

Here's the proof. Your man's port on IS;

http://www.istockphoto.com/marcomayer

And now what the buyers actually spend their credits on. Istock's very own 'food pornographer';

http://www.istockphoto.com/kcline


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.

« Reply #21 on: February 18, 2011, 10:52 »
0
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'.

traveler1116

« Reply #22 on: February 18, 2011, 11:28 »
0
I like some of it but is that just cause it was with a tilt shift lens?

« Reply #23 on: February 18, 2011, 11:42 »
0
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


I think either work. I don't do much design work anymore, but I always looked for things with vibrant color schemes that were going to mesh with whatever design idea I wanted to put together. Both examples fit that criteria. Depth of field and other criteria don't really matter to me. Just, will it look nice? Maybe, that is a designer mentality.  ;D

« Reply #24 on: February 18, 2011, 11:49 »
0
It's very interesting how some people perceive shallow DOF and muted colors as a "bad quality" photos. I guess it's like cilantro - some people love it, some people hate it, to some it tastes citrusy, to some it tastes like soap. A couple of years ago I opened an issue of National Geographic magazine and was amazed by ethereal, very artistic, very shallow dof and all blurry images of plants and flowers (I wish I remembered with issue it was). Sure enough, the next issue contained a very angry letter from some photographer saying how disappointed he was with NG for printing "bad quality" and "out of focus" and "amateur" photos, and how could they lower their standards so much.
It is that some people get so preoccupied with technical characteristic of the photos that it totally blocks their artistic vision? Or is it indeed like cilantro - to some it's soap, to some it's citrus, and nothing can be done about it?...
I am soo putting these thoughts into my next blog post:)  

« Reply #25 on: February 18, 2011, 12:05 »
0
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.  ;)

« Reply #26 on: February 18, 2011, 12:10 »
0

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.

« Reply #27 on: February 18, 2011, 12:26 »
0

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.

 :D
« Last Edit: February 18, 2011, 13:12 by cclapper »

« Reply #28 on: February 18, 2011, 12:34 »
0
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 »
0
OMG!!  ROFL!!  As a mother, I am truly horrified, but that is just so  funny!  ;D

BTW, notice the fanny pack when she stands up.  Really completes the ensemble...
« Last Edit: February 18, 2011, 13:46 by lisafx »

« Reply #30 on: February 18, 2011, 13:47 »
0
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.

« Reply #31 on: February 18, 2011, 13:58 »
0
That video made my day! Mom too, but that is hilarious!

Caz

« Reply #32 on: February 18, 2011, 13:59 »
0
Thanks for posting the link. Aran's photography is delicious, very much in fashion for food photography now and I love it.

« Reply #33 on: February 18, 2011, 14:44 »
0
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
:)

« Reply #34 on: February 18, 2011, 15:11 »
0
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.

« Reply #35 on: March 22, 2011, 21:26 »
0
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
« Last Edit: March 22, 2011, 21:51 by BaldricksTrousers »

« Reply #36 on: March 24, 2011, 06:38 »
0
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 »
0



 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!

« Reply #38 on: March 24, 2011, 10:54 »
0
I've had her bookmarked for a while now.
Love  her style and composition of shooting food!

« Reply #39 on: April 15, 2011, 22:18 »
0
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  8)

« Reply #40 on: April 16, 2011, 18:48 »
0
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!!! ^_^


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
5 Replies
3420 Views
Last post February 28, 2008, 10:35
by Pixart
13 Replies
4914 Views
Last post August 26, 2010, 17:04
by rubyroo
3 Replies
2523 Views
Last post November 09, 2010, 14:00
by lagereek
18 Replies
7008 Views
Last post February 08, 2011, 10:00
by Noctiluxx
0 Replies
1474 Views
Last post December 12, 2020, 16:13
by fotoluminate

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle