I saw the following PR video about how McDonald's in Canada does food photography.
I've done several food projects in the past, and found this one fairly honest and accurate. Some tricks were not shown obviously, but it is worth watching:
www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=oSd0keSj2W8#!I've done projects for Nabisco, Sunshine Bakery, Kraft Foods, Ralston Purina, KFC, Taco Bell, BurgerKing, and Continental baking (Twinkes and pies) and they were all surprising complicated with a level of perfection and panel testing far beyond what any consumer can imagine. Research indicates it does make a difference for most market targets.
A very interesting subject for those who have been involved. Has anyone else dabbled into this arena?
Festina Lente wrote:
Has anyone else dabbled into this arena?
Just when I was assisting. It was amazing how much went into a shoot. And with a lot of subjects, is seemed like an action shoot. The food didn't stay ideal for very long. Between Polaroids, some of it changed a lot.
GoofyNewfie wrote:
Between Polaroids, some of it changed a lot.
Digital put an end to Polaroid, of course, but I think there is still a need for an instant photo. Take the product shoot, for example. A Polaroid camera would give you an actual photo in about a minute, and that could be a lot better than looking at an LCD. I doubt that they'll be making a comeback, though.
There is a LOT of lighting that goes into food photography. A blend of soft, specular, ambient, shadow, specials, dots, fingers, cutters, black wrap and what not. And that's BEFORE the food stylist.
Shooting digital (food likes large format quality, so it's 60-1,000 megapixel country unless the client is under 35 years old and is sold on low res stuff) could have its Polaroid equivalent with the new iPad as the proofer. The Retina Display looks like a backlit photo. No pixels, and richer color than LCD.
PhotoArtsLA wrote:
The Retina Display looks like a backlit photo. No pixels, and richer color than LCD.
Don't tempt me. I'm still happy with my iPad2
jerryc41 wrote:
GoofyNewfie wrote:
Between Polaroids, some of it changed a lot.
Digital put an end to Polaroid, of course, but I think there is still a need for an instant photo. Take the product shoot, for example. A Polaroid camera would give you an actual photo in about a minute, and that could be a lot better than looking at an LCD. I doubt that they'll be making a comeback, though.
Jerry,
As a company, Polaroid is essentially dead; the shell of the former company has been sold and stripped, but the name survives. (See my post "AVOID POLAROID" )
http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-45290-1.htmlHowever, Polaroid's instant film technology is surprisingly alive and growing. While still a niche market compared to digital, it has a surprising strong following.
For example, brand new Polaroid films are being manufactured that far exceed where Polaroid film was back in 2008 (when the Polaroid's last film factory was closed or sold.) See the following link for one company (PhotoJoJo) introducing new Polaroid 600 films:
http://photojojo.com/store/awesomeness/polaroid-impossible/And manufacturers like Mamiya, Linhoff, Holga and Rollei are manufacturing film backs for their cameras that use Polaroid's venerable 600 films. Both Adorama and B&H carry both Polaroid 600 series film and camera backs.
Yes, digital put the nail in Polaroid Land's coffin, but it was stogy old management that could not see past all the stuff they were still doing with instant film that ended the company. Heck, the inventor of the digital camera, Kodak, would not get into the digital market for fear it would destroy their film business until it was too late, and even then, it was a weak low-end consumer market effort subcontracted to overseas manufacturers. Both companies are essentially just names today.
But no, digital did not put an end to Polaroid instant film. It still has a strong following and it is being used on some pretty high end cameras today.
jerryc41 wrote:
PhotoArtsLA wrote:
The Retina Display looks like a backlit photo. No pixels, and richer color than LCD.
Don't tempt me. I'm still happy with my iPad2
Don't tempt me either. Meatloaf tastes pretty good until you try a Porterhouse. :roll:
Festina Lente wrote:
jerryc41 wrote:
PhotoArtsLA wrote:
The Retina Display looks like a backlit photo. No pixels, and richer color than LCD.
Don't tempt me. I'm still happy with my iPad2
Don't tempt me either. Meatloaf tastes pretty good until you try a Porterhouse. :roll:
I am avoiding even looking at the iPad3. I sold my original on ebay, so the cost of the iPad2 wasn't much of a jolt to the wallet.
Festina Lente wrote:
jerryc41 wrote:
GoofyNewfie wrote:
Between Polaroids, some of it changed a lot.
Digital put an end to Polaroid, of course, but I think there is still a need for an instant photo. Take the product shoot, for example. A Polaroid camera would give you an actual photo in about a minute, and that could be a lot better than looking at an LCD. I doubt that they'll be making a comeback, though.
Jerry,
As a company, Polaroid is essentially dead; the shell of the former company has been sold and stripped, but the name survives. (See my post "AVOID POLAROID" )
http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-45290-1.htmlHowever, Polaroid's instant film technology is surprisingly alive and growing. While still a niche market compared to digital, it has a surprising strong following.
For example, brand new Polaroid films are being manufactured that far exceed where Polaroid film was back in 2008 (when the Polaroid's last film factory was closed or sold.) See the following link for one company (PhotoJoJo) introducing new Polaroid 600 films:
http://photojojo.com/store/awesomeness/polaroid-impossible/And manufacturers like Mamiya, Linhoff, Holga and Rollei are manufacturing film backs for their cameras that use Polaroid's venerable 600 films. Both Adorama and B&H carry both Polaroid 600 series film and camera backs.
Yes, digital put the nail in Polaroid Land's coffin, but it was stogy old management that could not see past all the stuff they were still doing with instant film that ended the company. Heck, the inventor of the digital camera, Kodak, would not get into the digital market for fear it would destroy their film business until it was too late, and even then, it was a weak low-end consumer market effort subcontracted to overseas manufacturers. Both companies are essentially just names today.
But no, digital did not put an end to Polaroid instant film. It still has a strong following and it is being used on some pretty high end cameras today.
quote=jerryc41 quote=GoofyNewfie Between Polaroi... (
show quote)
Thanks for the clarification. Wanted to bust you a little bit on this one. What a absolutely wonderful part of photography history (past and present). Chemicals involved in process big part of demise?? especially for Kodak.
Big (huge??) fan base. Amazing still alive and kicking.
rebride wrote:
As a company, Polaroid is essentially dead; the shell of the former company has been sold and stripped, but the name survives. (See my post "AVOID POLAROID" )
http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-45290-1.htmlHowever, Polaroid's instant film technology is surprisingly alive and growing. While still a niche market compared to digital, it has a surprising strong following.
Well, that is good to know. I knew that camera makers had Polaroid backs, and I just thought that they were sitting somewhere gathering dust.
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.