I took these photos today within seconds of each other—No lights, tripod or fill cards, just me, the camera and the sun. First one is back lit, my personal favorite first go to light for most food things—and the second is straight on light, that was quite gentle since the day was fairly cloudy. There's a big difference and something worth exploring every time you shoot. It's not about camera gear, tricks or PhotoShop— It's LIGHT!, it's always about light. I'd like to hear what you guys think as far as what makes the more appealing photo and how you think about lighting food.And
now I ask, at the risk of sounding naive because we haven't been
growing tomatoes that long, I plucked these two tomatoes today,
September, 22 in Northeast Ohio. Is it odd to find two tomatoes with
such varying degrees of ripeness side by side at this late date?
Backlit for the win. No contest.
I love the photo with the straight on lighting. I love the posts, too, donna. keep 'em coming.
I would have a hard time preferring one photo over the other - I kind of like the backlit one - the red is so much . . . redder, and the picture is somehow softer. But the straight-on light makes the other so much brighter. I usually just ask my husband which picture he likes better.
As for the tomatoes - here in upstate NY I've still got blossoms, green tomatoes, halfway ripe and fully ripe fruit on most of my plants - yes, it's normal. 🙂
As a former TV lighting guy, I'm a little biased, but I agree entirely with description of photography as always being about the light. I, too, prefer the backlit image. I very much enjoy your work.
I'm be no means a photography expert, as you can tell by photos on my blog, but I prefer the straight on lighting in this case. It makes the tomatoes much more vibrant and inviting.
We have the same problems here in Michigan. I've got a raised bed garden with Roma and heirloom tomatoes. Hundreds of tomatoes, but all small and mostly green.
According to the recent Harris Seed email:
"Weather patterns throughout the country did little to encourage bountiful harvests, especially in the Northeast. Excessive rains in June and July were clearly detrimental to quality production of many vegetables and flowers. It is now September, and very few tomatoes have ripened. Likewise, many sweet peppers have yet to turn red, as sufficient heat units are essential for proper fruit set and growth."
I've been doing tomatoes in containers in the Chicago 'burbs since I moved out of my parent's house... this has been one of the oddest years I can recall. I had a lot of green tomatoes, then they all turned ripe, then... nothing. No more blossoms and my plants all went and died on me last week.
It seems to me--and perhaps this is a somewhat useful generalization--that the back lighting emphasizes the textures while the front lighting emphasizes the colors. In this case, the contrast between the two tomatoes is in the colors, and the front lighting photo brings that out much more vividly. So I like the front-lit photo better.
I too am no photography expert, but I agree that the backlit photo brings out the texture in the tomatoes, and were I to sit down and sketch them, I'd do so from the backlit angle.
Very interesting how even the preferences are for backlit or straight-on. I am more attracted to the backlit version because for me it tells a more interesting story. The front light photo is just a red and green tomato, but the backlit one shows more of the form of the tomatoes and especially the stem and therefore has a better composition. I can feel them in my hands. It's hard to articulate why I think backlit is so much more interesting but it may be explained by the fact that I wanted to look at the backlit one first. Does this make sense?
On Sep 23, 2009, at 8:09 AM, [email protected] wrote:
We've been growing tomatoes for years in the Cleveland area. It is completely normal to have tomatoes at different stages of ripeness at the same time, even on the same plant and even this late in the season. Though we're being inundated with ripe ones now, we've got lots of green ones too. We'll harvest any that are still green once frost comes, and put them in the basement on some newspaper to ripen; they usually do turn red in a few weeks.
And thank you Donna for all of the photography tips - I am enjoying learning from you!
Although I enjoy your photography, I'm going to have to unsubscribe from the Ruhlman blog. I really have no interest in photography, and this is just cluttering up my feed. Thanks for the great food writing, it's been swell.
Backlit! I like the definition on the stems etc in that one; although the colours are more vibrant in the other, I like the mood of the first one 😀
Another total novice chiming in here. Given that it must be one or the other, I would definitely go for the backlit photo. The little hairs on the stem, the difference in shape between the round red and the bumpy green, the dramatic shadows. I think it's the better photo. BUT, given the option, I'd prefer a teeny bit more color, particularly on the red. Too much of it is grey/black.
I'm going against the status quo and voting frontlit. Backlit seems to be the norm for Gourmet Magazine and their recent "rustic" layouts. That, or everything is shot a little darker.
It depends on your purpose for shooting and what the styling should be like. Do I want to see a visual menu with everything backlit? Nope. I want to see the appealing vibrant colors and whether or not they contrast and looking appetizing. I know, frontlit shots have the potential to be overexposed. Adjust accordingly with aperture, exposure and ISO.
I agree with Michael. Tricks aren't necessary. A decent camera and proper lighting win everytime.
Ruhlman, I'm sorry to say, I'm with Mike on this, regarding the increased focus on the photo stuff.
As someone who used to work in commercial and advertising photography, and now designs for information-heavy web sites, I really appreciate great pictures, and the work and thought that goes into them. I also recognize that "seeing" food and ingredients brings an important extra dimension to good food prose. Donna's photos (and I realize this particular post was about one of your photos) make for wonderful illustrations that greatly enhance your writing. But there seems to have been a strong focus as of late on the photography - and I've just started tuning out.
So, just a suggestion from a humble "client" of your site: Perhaps keep a prominent link in the sidebar to Donna's food photo site for those who care to explore the ins and outs of excellent food photography, and move the photo-specific discussion to that forum. It would be a good way for you to maintain that outlet while allowing this blog to focus on the writing and food-specific discussion.
You might also consider working with your designer/developer to make the "pop-up" window that appears when a photo is clicked contain extra text that provides technical details and commentary from you or Donna about the featured photo. This would allow those who have a specific interest in how or why the photos are what they are, access to more information via a single click.
FWIW...
OK - I'll take time in the penalty box. I usually access your site via an RSS reader, and just now noticed that this post is part of a "photography blog" that appears to be separate from the food writing blog.
So, as Emily Litella used to say, "Nevermind."
My apologies. : )
Thanks 123 for that apology, I was really getting confused by the comments. My page is just a new addition to the pages Michael has, like; books, about, FAQ and contact —on his tool bar. You can still just go to Ruhlman.com and read Michael's blog without then going to photo blog or Photo site. Michael's blog is the HOME page and only written by him and he doesn't write on the photo blog page at all. I'd hate to think my page is forcing people to leave. 🙁
On Sep 23, 2009, at 11:50 AM, [email protected] wrote:
To Mike, We're looking into the feed issue. Please check back
Donna
Thanks, Donna. As mentioned, I admire your work and was just confused based on how I normally access the site. It appears Mike who posted above me has a similar issue.
Just FYI, in feed readers (My Yahoo! and Firefox in my case) your photo blog posts appear as part of the overall blog.ruhlman.com feed, so as a casual reader I see your posts and Michael's posts undifferentiated in a single list - hence the confusion.
And, your posts won't cause me to leave - I'll look forward to checking in on what you are writing, as well as keeping up with Michael's posts! But with our information overload existence, it is nice to segregate content to preserve my sanity.
Thanks again!
It's interesting to read the differing opinions on the photos. While the backlit shot does seem to give more definition to the tomatoes, I think it's just too dark. I prefer the direct light photo.
I third the rss confusion.
As for the photos ... backlit for photography but natural light for the originality of the food. The second photo looks more the the actual tomatoes. Art vs reality.
I like the full on natural light and your explanation is why you also like black and white and why u get the big bucks. I have always known natural light is the best and since my move my kitchen has more light than one could wish to buy. Prior to that I lived in a rain forest with no light(yes it is true a condo built around an indoor rain forest complete with rain but another story), but then i didn't do much photography either.
If it is to be in color I need vibrance.
I like both, but in this case (while I like both pictures) I think the backlighting gives the photo more texture. Plus it has a nice autumn-dusk feel to it.
Backlit. I almost always prefer backlighting for food shots.
I dunno I get both feeds with different titles and sometimes the same day and I subscribe through google reader but then it doesn't matter to me who posts I am totally open to 'eating up everything i can' on the net...
Backlit... hands down. It has more depth. Yes the colors aren't quite as 'popping' but the backlit is better IMO. I love natural lighting through a window for shooting food, mainly because... I don't have the alternative - good mounted strobes, so it has forced me to work with what I've got.
Aren't tomatoes amazing! Even though tomatoes have been late to ripen all over Ohio, it is still normal to have green tomatoes and reds on the same vine at the end of the season. If they are just a little green, you can use the age old technique of placing the tomato in a sunny place inside (windowsills are good) and it will ripen after a day or so.
I like the back lit best too, though the front lit better shows the ripening degree of the maters.
As a photographer, I love the backlit image -- that's the one I want to look at for a while.
But as a foodie, the straight-on lighting works best, because it makes me want to EAT the tomato (the ripe one, of course).
So I say it depends on the goal of the image. If it aspires to be art, the backlit version is more successful. If its goal is more commercial -- to sell tomatoes -- I think the straight-on lighting works best.
BTW, we've had plenty of green tomatoes next to reds on all different varieties of tomatoes. 🙂
I prefer the 2nd photo. For some reason, the 1st photo draws my eye past the tomatoes.
I may not know photography but I'm a pretty good gardner and ALL of my colleagues are scratching our heads about how to judge if the season is a success? I know of tomato contests that were pushed back a month because nothing had ripened by the due date. Maybe its like they say in sports, "One of those rebuilding years".
I prefer the Second picture.
Food photography is more about the texture and color for me. Not just about highlighting shapes.
You still get the specular highlight to show the round shape, but having the face of the tomato fully exposed makes it more appealing.
Also, having the tomatoes ripen at different rates allows for a longer harvesting season. It's a feature, not a bug so to speak.
If we're photographing food for the purpose of 'watering the mouth', front lit.
But the first shot is what I could see being hung on a wall. (I don't want to salivate when walking from one room to another)
The backlit one, by far; just more interesting as a photo.
I've only been gardening a little while, but I reckon it's normal to have two tomatoes side-by-side, one ripe, one not: that's what all my plants do. It's pretty frustrating: I can't clip off the whole bunch, just the ripe ones. 🙂
Donna, you are truly talented. I find your comments fascinating & I'm delighted to see that you have a blog too where you discuss these things. I'm sure many of us got hooked on Michael's blog at least partly because of your excellent work.
I like the first photo--the lighting is more interesting. What surprises me is that you don't use more artificial light. It's a great lesson for those of us who stumble along without formal training! Thanks.
I also usually like backlit.....but I like the straight on lighting. Nice photos, as always Donna. You are an inspiration for my own photos. Do you know which day you will be talking at ixtapa? I don't want to miss my favorite folks, but I haven't found a daily schedule yet (and I cannot afford the full week.)
I like them both but - for this moment (I keep going back and forth) - I like the back lit photo.
But all your photos are luscious, so it's tough to choose.
Please keep shooting and keep posting!
I would Photoshop the backlit tomatoes into the straight-on background.
The straight-on lighting picture has a nicer background, IMHO.
I love the backlit one... the colour tones evoke the cool, moist, autumn air.
Precisely! No matter the subject, it's all about light. I also prefer the richer warmth of the backlit shot. Very nice.
I think they each serve a purpose. The backlit one is more emotional, and my personal preference from an artistic standpoint. The frontlit one is more utilitarian, but still very beautiful in its own right.
i like straight on lighting on the tomatoes mainly cos i find the backlit has too much "darkness" in it
Being a former chef and having taken a photography class in college I find food photography art very interesting. At first glance I found the photo on the left more appealing because it pops out at you more but after looking at the two more I changed my mind. I find the photo on the left the most appealing and here is my reason why: I feel that the photo on the right appears manufactured and un-natural, to me when capturing food you want to capture the essence of natural because this is a part of the earth, I feel that the photo on the left is exactly what I would picture in person as a child on my great grandparents farm and I'm sure most would agree when I say the memories that stick most as a child are often the ones of food whether it be a parent or grandparent pulling fresh cookies out of the over or helping a grandparent pick fresh fruit and vegetables off the tree or vine. My response is much longer than it needs to be but pictures like this hit close to home for me and I applaud the photographer for capturing the very essence of nature, which is not easy to do with a camera.