Author Topic: Food photos ? (Read 14576 times)

Old Hippy · « **on:** May 27, 2009, 12:03 »

OK !

i want to sell food pics on micros.

BUT ... check this for instance
http://www.istockphoto.com/file_search.php?action=file&text=chicken+tandoori

they're all professional pix !
how can i sell my scruffy food images taken in real street restaurants ?
is there any chance or the only things selling good are these fake food plates
made in a studio with perfect lighting etc ?

my pics are real deal, you can see the cigs packet next to the beer too,
stains on the table, dirt, and mosquitos included ...

MichaelJay · « **Reply #1 on:** May 27, 2009, 12:07 »

Quote from: Old Hippy on May 27, 2009, 12:03

my pics are real deal, you can see the cigs packet next to the beer too,
stains on the table, dirt, and mosquitos included ...

I'm sure there are lots of people who want to advertise their business with images like that, yeah.

bittersweet · « **Reply #2 on:** May 27, 2009, 12:15 »

Quote from: Old Hippy on May 27, 2009, 12:03

OK !

i want to sell food pics on micros.

BUT ... check this for instance
http://www.istockphoto.com/file_search.php?action=file&text=chicken+tandoori

they're all professional pix !
how can i sell my scruffy food images taken in real street restaurants ?
is there any chance or the only things selling good are these fake food plates
made in a studio with perfect lighting etc ?

my pics are real deal, you can see the cigs packet next to the beer too,
stains on the table, dirt, and mosquitos included ...

professional? studio? perfect lighting?

on microstock??!

surely you jest.

Old Hippy · « **Reply #3 on:** May 27, 2009, 12:18 »

i'm not expert at all regarding food photography but to me those pics look very good.

even searching for the least downloaded ones, i can't find a single "real" food picture on istock.
i think they don't even accept them ?

gostwyck · « **Reply #4 on:** May 27, 2009, 12:37 »

Quote from: Old Hippy on May 27, 2009, 12:18

i'm not expert at all regarding food photography but to me those pics look very good.

even searching for the least downloaded ones, i can't find a single "real" food picture on istock.
i think they don't even accept them ?

I do food and it's getting tougher every week. Basically if your images aren't amongst the very best in their subject matter then you will be wasting your time. But that's microstock for you, it's getting to be the same with every subject to be honest __ you have to specialise and you have to be amongst the best in your particular niche to be successful.

Microstock food images are far better than 90% of what's on the trads and far more numerous too. You'd probably have more success on the trads. Just try a few simple searches on both to see what I mean.

Xalanx · « **Reply #5 on:** May 27, 2009, 12:55 »

so let me get this straight - food on macrostock is mostly shots of exactly what was there at the moment? with the available light? just the "real life"?

Then it's bad news. Because microstock food shots are done in studio, using controlled light and perfect looking products. Even if they're not studio shots they look like they sell that product.

Keep this in mind: microstock food shots aim to make people BUY that food.

Do not mistake editorial for commercial. Editorial is what you do, commercial is what it sells on micro. And it has to be perfect, did I mentioned that?

robynmac · « **Reply #6 on:** May 27, 2009, 14:47 »

Quote from: Xalanx on May 27, 2009, 12:55

so let me get this straight - food on macrostock is mostly shots of exactly what was there at the moment? with the available light? just the "real life"?

Then it's bad news. Because microstock food shots are done in studio, using controlled light and perfect looking products. Even if they're not studio shots they look like they sell that product.

Keep this in mind: microstock food shots aim to make people BUY that food.

Do not mistake editorial for commercial. Editorial is what you do, commercial is what it sells on micro. And it has to be perfect, did I mentioned that?

I do a lot of food photography (one of my shots comes up in the link to "chicken tandoori"

. My shots are generally of home-cooked food, with natural lighting. Usually I shoot it, then eat it. You don't have to have a studio set-up - just need to make the food look appealing.

Xalanx · « **Reply #7 on:** May 27, 2009, 15:34 »

Quote from: robynmac on May 27, 2009, 14:47

You don't have to have a studio set-up - just need to make the food look appealing.

That's what I said.

Quote from: Xalanx on May 27, 2009, 12:55

Even if they're not studio shots they look like they sell that product.

Susan S. · « **Reply #8 on:** May 27, 2009, 21:41 »

The odd food shots I have are available light and usually are either restaurant meals or something I made myself (shot on the kitchen table with one el cheapo flash bounced off the white kitchen cupboards plus a reflector for fill). Getting reasonable food images acceptable to istock is easy. Producing high volumes of the good stuff that really sells is much harder.

Mine sell from time to time, but not in the volumes that the shiny happy food specialist images sell. There are some pretty good food photographers there, and some of them use food stylists to get the effects they need to make difficult subjects look pretty. They do that because they can shift the volume to make it pay. Not worth my while as I don't have the volume - it's just a hobby for me. Every now and then I see a gap and fill it with a found image. To make money at this stuff you have to provide high volumes of images. I don't. It's a hobby.

thomasw · « **Reply #9 on:** May 27, 2009, 22:59 »

Need to think of what will sell. Take hamburgers

Would you rather buy an image that looks like perfection (glossy ads) or the mashed, crushed, mushed burger that you'd unwrap from a burger joint?

eppic · « **Reply #10 on:** May 27, 2009, 23:42 »

Judging from his/ her/ it's posts, I'd say Old Hippie is just messing with all of you.

Old Hippy · « **Reply #11 on:** May 28, 2009, 02:06 »

Quote from: eppic on May 27, 2009, 23:42

Judging from his/ her/ it's posts, I'd say Old Hippie is just messing with all of you.

i'm just curious about certain niches i could target on micros and i'm realizing
micros are definitely not my cup of tea.

on the other side, no offence, but i'm as well surprised by your sheer ignorance
towards macrostock but hey to each his own.

thomasw · « **Reply #12 on:** May 28, 2009, 02:53 »

on the other side, no offence, but i'm as well surprised by your sheer ignorance
towards macrostock but hey to each his own.
[/quote]

If what you say is true then please let the oh so mystical well of knowledge runith over!

Old Hippy · « **Reply #13 on:** May 28, 2009, 03:06 »

Quote from: thomasw on May 28, 2009, 02:53

on the other side, no offence, but i'm as well surprised by your sheer ignorance
towards macrostock but hey to each his own.

If what you say is true then please let the oh so mystical well of knowledge runith over!
[/quote]

i know crap about micros
you know crap about macros

but at least i'm trying to research about micros.

thomasw · « **Reply #14 on:** May 28, 2009, 03:58 »

Quote from: Old Hippy on May 28, 2009, 03:06

Quote from: thomasw on May 28, 2009, 02:53

on the other side, no offence, but i'm as well surprised by your sheer ignorance
towards macrostock but hey to each his own.

If what you say is true then please let the oh so mystical well of knowledge runith over!

i know crap about micros
you know crap about macros

but at least i'm trying to research about micros.
[/quote]

And when asked about macros you offer nothing but criticism of micros, seems to be a strange way of doing research.

Old Hippy · « **Reply #15 on:** May 28, 2009, 06:48 »

of course i do.

you only talk about the money you get from micros at the end of the month.
but this is a blind view on the phenomenon.

if the micro virus expand out of its natural borders it can very well destroy
the whole macro industry as we know it.

any macro photographer is rightfully scared by micros for very very good reasons.
one thing is to sell for few bucks your leftover pictures, another is selling Pro
for less than a coffee and in plus with RF licence !

it seems to me you don't grasp the big mistake you're doing with RF.
all you care is about money but one day you'll understand.

Suljo · « **Reply #16 on:** May 28, 2009, 21:46 »

Hi Hippie
Just for you I find some acceptable motives for micros

I hope that you recognize that comic and it will be helpful for you...

http://img8.imageshack.us/img8/8426/42153447.jpg

or

http://img132.imageshack.us/img132/8052/28507869.jpg

puravida · « **Reply #17 on:** May 29, 2009, 09:18 »

This blog is obsolete now
http://www.microstockgroup.com/general-stock-discussion/old-hippy-quits-!/msg100467/?topicseen#new

Old Hippy has left the building

or should it be "flown the coop"

Suljo · « **Reply #18 on:** June 03, 2009, 11:38 »

Old Hippie is this you

http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/abt62785.html

RacePhoto · « **Reply #19 on:** June 03, 2009, 12:46 »

Quote from: Suljo on June 03, 2009, 11:38

Old Hippie is this you

http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/abt62785.html

No it's some other clueless person. Although I suspect that Old Hippy was just yanking some chains to see what kind of reaction he got.

Here's part of the thread you linked to... The photos here were rejected 20 min after uploading and the comments had nothing to do with the actual photo, like: "You need 7 out of 10". So may I assume the person didn't read the submission policy or anything and just uploaded some photos? Then wrote, I don't have time to submit ten photos.

Not even accepted yet and he's writing notes on the BB saying I'm quitting. Pretty much the standard for people who complain before they read things, or think them out.

luceluceluce · « **Reply #20 on:** June 04, 2009, 00:29 »

hi food photographers

I read this stuff on color psychology:

Quote

While blue is one of the most popular colors it is one of the least appetizing. Blue food is rare in nature. Food researchers say that when humans searched for food, they learned to avoid toxic or spoiled objects, which were often blue, black, or purple. When food dyed blue is served to study subjects, they lose appetite.

Green, brown, and red are the most popular food colors. Red is often used in restaurant decorating schemes because it is an appetite stimulant.

http://www.infoplease.com/spot/colors1.html

Quote

Physiological Effect: Violet has shown to alleviate conditions such as sunburn due to its purifying and antiseptic effect. This color also suppresses hunger and balances the body's metabolism.

http://library.thinkquest.org/27066/psychology/nlcolorpsych.html

What has been your experience with the use of color in food images? Is what is being said relevent to the success of different food images? Do you stay away from using purples and blues in your images? What do you think?
Lucy x

luceluceluce · « **Reply #21 on:** June 04, 2009, 00:34 »

woah. only just read the whole thread.

Posted the last post in the wrong thread. Apologies for not realising what this was really about, currently backing away with my hands in the air...
x

thomasw · « **Reply #22 on:** June 04, 2009, 01:55 »

Actually Lucy your post maybe the most relevant and insightful one yet!

Karimala · « **Reply #23 on:** June 04, 2009, 11:35 »

I'd ordinarily try to help you and answer your questions, Old Hippy, but after reading numerous posts where you called us "microtards," I'm not feeling so inclined.

Old Hippy · « **Reply #24 on:** June 04, 2009, 11:47 »

Quote from: Karimala on June 04, 2009, 11:35

I'd ordinarily try to help you and answer your questions, Old Hippy, but after reading numerous posts where you called us "microtards," I'm not feeling so inclined.

ho ho ho

maybe becayse you are ?

graficallyminded · « **Reply #25 on:** June 04, 2009, 16:11 »

I'm a microtard

I like that! I'm gonna use that. Can I? I might even buy a hippy van and paint it on the side, but mine will have NOS and be a lot faster than yours.

Pheby · « **Reply #26 on:** June 05, 2009, 05:03 »

Quote from: luceluceluce on June 04, 2009, 00:29

hi food photographers

I read this stuff on color psychology:

Quote
While blue is one of the most popular colors it is one of the least appetizing. Blue food is rare in nature. Food researchers say that when humans searched for food, they learned to avoid toxic or spoiled objects, which were often blue, black, or purple. When food dyed blue is served to study subjects, they lose appetite.

Green, brown, and red are the most popular food colors. Red is often used in restaurant decorating schemes because it is an appetite stimulant.

http://www.infoplease.com/spot/colors1.html

Quote
Physiological Effect: Violet has shown to alleviate conditions such as sunburn due to its purifying and antiseptic effect. This color also suppresses hunger and balances the body's metabolism.

http://library.thinkquest.org/27066/psychology/nlcolorpsych.html

What has been your experience with the use of color in food images? Is what is being said relevent to the success of different food images? Do you stay away from using purples and blues in your images? What do you think?
Lucy x

I shoot nearly nothing else but food, and I'm aware of what psychologists say about blue, but I don't stay away from it. Blue and purple often give a nice contrast to the boring colour of pasta (yes, I know that pasta can look very yellow, but I don't like that look at all). Often, I use blue and white edible flowers to decorate arrangements, and it looks nice with pasta and very light green salad leafs, for example. Also, blueberries and blackberries seem to be very popular dessert ingredients for American buyers (Europeans seem to like raspberries and strawberries more, from what I can tell), and these "new" blue potatoes that are trendy now go well with lots of dishes (maybe not meat so much, though).
What I find most important in food photography is distracting the eye from parts of the dish that you just can't get to look appetizing: Chili con Carne or Bolognese sauce as such always will look awful and offputting. Lots of shots of those dishes don't distract the eye from the ugly bits, the really successful ones always do, though!

luceluceluce · « **Reply #27 on:** June 05, 2009, 09:15 »

thanks stardust, really useful post... I haven't attempted photographing actual cooked food yet but when i do i'll definitely keep what you said about the distracting the eye from the icky bits in mind...
x

Pheby · « **Reply #28 on:** June 05, 2009, 16:34 »

Try it out! It's so much fun!

Jonathan Ross · « **Reply #29 on:** June 06, 2009, 11:37 »

Hi Stardust,

Pink is the best color to support food shots at least last year. The agencies analyze what pix sold the best then try to see the results and build data from them. So model in waitress outfit holding plate of food would sell better on a soft pink background than a blue one. Interesting stuff. Buyers do follow a general pattern but it is not etched in stone as the only info to go by. Do some testing yourself and see. Maybe do one shot on different backgrounds and see which sells the best, your own personal color test : )

Best,
Jonathan

Pheby · « **Reply #30 on:** June 06, 2009, 11:42 »

Quote from: Jonathan Ross on June 06, 2009, 11:37

Hi Stardust,

Pink is the best color to support food shots at least last year. The agencies analyze what pix sold the best then try to see the results and build data from them. So model in waitress outfit holding plate of food would sell better on a soft pink background than a blue one. Interesting stuff. Buyers do follow a general pattern but it is not etched in stone as the only info to go by. Do some testing yourself and see. Maybe do one shot on different backgrounds and see which sells the best, your own personal color test : )

Best,
Jonathan

Hi Jonathan,
Thanks for the tip! I've heard generally about trends like that being analyzed, but I've never actually found concrete information on things like that.
Regards,
Barbara

luceluceluce · « **Reply #31 on:** June 06, 2009, 22:29 »

Quote from: Jonathan Ross on June 06, 2009, 11:37

Hi Stardust,

Pink is the best color to support food shots at least last year. The agencies analyze what pix sold the best then try to see the results and build data from them. So model in waitress outfit holding plate of food would sell better on a soft pink background than a blue one. Interesting stuff. Buyers do follow a general pattern but it is not etched in stone as the only info to go by. Do some testing yourself and see. Maybe do one shot on different backgrounds and see which sells the best, your own personal color test : )

Best,
Jonathan

Hi jonathan.... where do you come across your data? ...... (hopeful)..... : )

Its not really on the food topic - but I'm starting to focus exclusively on pale grey rendered backgrounds. Outsells all the other colors.

According to the psychologists grey will evoke feelings of loneliness and detachment so i reckon the buyers spend too much time online and not enough time outside playing in the sunshine.

I don't think these buyers need our images... i think they need our hugs x

Jonathan Ross · « **Reply #32 on:** June 07, 2009, 10:28 »

Hi Luce,

We all need some hugs

I am involved with Several Macro agencies that pay research companies to find this info out. There are people researching just about everything you can imagine. The food companies definitely do analysis to figure out the color that is most appealing and pink has won hands down for a while now. The grey thing is good I think because it is easy to cut out, it allows either black or white type face and doesn't compete or clash with what your model is wearing. The data is sent to me by several different Macro stock agencies. Hers is a fun one. Did you know that one of the leading money making stock shots ( I am talking huge money ) in 08 was a dripping ice burg. Wish I had thought of it but it is an excellent example of a photographer paying attention to the world around him before shooting. Something I need to get a lot better at.

Best,
Jonathan

gostwyck · « **Reply #33 on:** June 07, 2009, 11:26 »

I'm a little sceptical that the background colour of food shots is that important __ especially pink. After all a half-decent designer should be able to modify the background to any colour they choose.

Food is basically thousands of niche subjects, some of which are vastly more popular with buyers than others. Beef is generally the most popular meat for example and with Chinese food then shrimp dishes almost always outsell any other kind of meat or fish __ basically because they both look good and, being more expensive, are somewhat 'aspirational'. As they say 'stock imagery is about portraying the world as we'd like it to be not how it actually is'.

I doubt many buyers would search for something as unspecific as 'food' anyway. They'll be after a specific type of food like 'lasagna' or 'bacon sandwich'. That cuts choice down a lot. I'm sure even a marginally better image of a lasagna on almost any background will always outsell a worse portrayal on a pink background. Much better concentrating on getting the food and the photography right than thinking it's all about pink backgrounds.

Of course microstock vastly outsells the trad agencies in volume anyway which therefore provides much better data on what is popular. For example Lise on her own sells roughly the same amount of images per month on IS as the entire Alamy library does. The results of any popular search term at IS, sorted by best match, will tell you anything you want to know about what styles/colours/etc are currently popular with buyers.

luceluceluce · « **Reply #34 on:** June 07, 2009, 12:55 »

Quote from: Jonathan Ross on June 07, 2009, 10:28

We all need some hugs

I know! we do... especially recently... $:-\$

Quote

one of the leading money making stock shots ( I am talking huge money ) in 08 was a dripping ice burg.

: D I tried to get the same shot, but using lots of trickery and imagination. That photographer could have been me, if only I'd managed to find a way to staple the icecube to my studio wall : (

Lucy x

luceluceluce · « **Reply #35 on:** June 07, 2009, 13:02 »

Quote from: gostwyck on June 07, 2009, 11:26

Beef is generally the most popular meat for example and with Chinese food then shrimp dishes almost always outsell any other kind of meat or fish

That's so interesting. I wonder if it varies by country though.... Obviously beef is a big no no in India. Im right next to a Siva temple and my dog's a german shepherd so the right size bone for him is a cow bone. They're littered all over my garden and it's starting to nag at me... even though my neighbours have been too kind to mention it. Indians are really sweet like that. And they're a huuuuuuuuuge up and coming market. They call it 'veg'. Meat eaters are called 'non-veg'. It's like the opposite of Argentina.

x

gostwyck · « **Reply #36 on:** June 07, 2009, 13:11 »

Quote from: luceluceluce on June 07, 2009, 13:02

That's so interesting. I wonder if it varies by country though.... Obviously beef is a big no no in India.

Possibly in time but 90%-odd of our market is currently North America and Europe. Of course contributors are drawn to what the market wants too so the most popular selling subjects tend to be the most competitive with the very best exponents of the art attempting to exploit it. I would even think of doing battle with the giants of our industry (and their budgets) for 'business team' shots for example.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Food photos ? (Read 14576 times)

bittersweet

Xalanx

Xalanx

RacePhoto

graficallyminded

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors