
Secrets of food photography - edward
http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2016/jan/04/food-stylist-photography-tricks-advertising
======
Elvie
Reminds me of an old German site where they photographed food in advertising
vs reality

[http://www.pundo3000.com/werbunggegenrealitaet3000.htm](http://www.pundo3000.com/werbunggegenrealitaet3000.htm)

Many food companies now feature windows on their packaging to prevent this
disparity showing transparency in their foods.

------
dharma1
It really is all about the lighting, presentation and a decent macro lens.

My favourite food cinematographers:

[http://foodfilm.fr](http://foodfilm.fr)

Incredible stuff. Filmed with Red Epics mostly in slow motion, these guys
really understand lighting and choreography

~~~
StavrosK
> It really is all about the lighting, presentation and a decent macro lens.

That pretty much sums up all of photography, though. It's like saying
"programming is all about structuring the code". The devil is in the details.

------
amelius
This reminded me of the hamburger scene in the movie "Falling Down" with
Michael Douglas: [1]

[1]
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zJs9p-VNORw](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zJs9p-VNORw)

------
probably_wrong
McDonalds made a video[1] in which they show how a typical photo shoot for a
hamburger. All elements in that video are actual stuff that you can eat
(unless the one mentioned in the article), but it's hard to say whether that's
how they always do it or if they just made an exception for the video.

[1]
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oSd0keSj2W8](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oSd0keSj2W8)

~~~
chiph
Everything you get on the burger is there in the photo (pickles, onions,
ketchup), but it's been pushed to the side of the bun closest to the camera to
make it more visually attractive. So honest in one sense (everything is shown
that will be on your burger), but misleading in that the burger that you buy
won't be nearly as attractive.

~~~
jgeada
Not just "won't be nearly as attractive".

We assume that food of that type (burger, sandwich, etc) will be symmetrical:
if it has visible lettuce etc on the side you're seeing, one assumes that the
density will be equal everywhere else, meaning not only the other side, but
also on the underneath the bun. The image is false not just because the
picture is "more attractive", it is false because it is implying a density of
ingredients that just isn't there.

This is just plain false advertising, no more, no less.

------
isabelrotton
Never believe in Photos! Photos gives no truths nowadays. We knew the photos
of food are fake a long time ago. Now, even the human portraits are fake.
There are too many PS apps developed in Asia to make people look more
beautiful.

------
branchless
15 submissions for theguardian.com in the last 24 hours to HN.

I really am thinking about not bothering so much.

~~~
marincounty
If this was my website. The software would reject too many submissions from
the same website.

~~~
branchless
It's spammy. No way has the guardian produced 15 thought-provoking articles in
the last 24 hours. I doubt it has in the last 24 weeks.

I also have a hard time believing that 15 people who have no vested interest
in the Guardian have decided having read these that others must see it too.

~~~
dang
I don't see any reason to suspect that the Guardian is spamming HN. Most of
those submitters submit all kinds of things.

People just submit a ton of stories. Most don't make the front page, including
most from the Guardian.

