Very nice photo. Thanks!

Joe

Okay. Thanks. Just learning how the system works.

Original files attached now.

(Download)


(Download)


(Download)

Yes, let me clarify. What was 300dpi was the final PDF printer's file which the printer's we used wanted for their printing process. The highest resolution I can get out of my D300S is 12.0 mpx. The 300 dpi does not apply to the photographs at all.

You are a lot more technically-experienced than I am, and I appreciate your advice.

In most cases I shoot with an infinity background, and really would like the background to go away. In other cases I have to be somewhat concerned with depth of field since I am shooting up close and personal.

I am going to send you three shots. The food shots were all shot in a restaurant, and were stylized by the chef or the store manager. The were all shot with my D300S DX manually-adjusted white balance at 800 ISO which the camera really likes for some reason. I used portable florescent lighting, and no strobe. The lens was likely a Nikon 14-24 / 2.8. I am not sure whether the auto-focus was set to front of the food, or to multiple focus points, but I suspect the front.

A third shot was made with the same camera, existing light, using this same camera. Lotus in a MO Botanical water garden. Nikon 24-70 / 2.8. It is a beautiful subject. I wonder though if the clarity would be better with the FF as compared to what you see.

What do you think?

Thanks, Dennis.

I am awaiting a delivery from FedEx of a rental D810. Will actually use it in the same set-up as the D300S, and we will see. Will be using a Nikon 24-70, and the same studio lights. Mainly looking for a difference in clarity above anything else. That may be a factor of the lens more than the sensor type, but we will see.

The secret of any food shot, I think, is how the chef or food stylist makes it look on the plate.

My first digital camera was a Nikon D70 as well which is still in service with my daughter. She uses it as a back-up camera.

Thanks for your reply. I read and appreciate learning from what others suggest.

Yes, I use an inexpensive set of studio lighting which is portable. Florescent. I manually adjust the white balance before each shoot just to be certain. In the past with my restaurant accounts, I set up something temporary near the kitchen since a food stylist I am not.

In the ambient lighting exists through a window for example, I might experiment with that if it is a packaged food product.

I am using manual settings on the D300S, and getting best results by tweaking to see the best combination. I use Photoshop, but have gravitated away from RAW images. For our use a FINE image that is naturally lighted without shadows, and in sharp focus is good enough for what our needs are.

I think the Nikon 24-70 looks pretty good using the D300S at least for our purposes.

I think you missed my analogy.

I was trying to communicate that, as in photography, there is more to improving your golf game than your equipment. Your muscle memory, your technique, and the ability to control your emotions, are not by buying a improved through a more expensive set of golf clubs.

In regards to photography being a good photographer also includes an "artistic eye" for composition, patience, a knowledge of lighting, a mastery of the camera settings you are using, etc. Then comes the capture ability of the camera.

I was just acknowledging that upgrading camera backs from what I have (Nikon D300S) to a full frame camera might not add enough overall improvement to justify the purchase.

Thanks for the feedback.

Thanks for your thoughtful reply. I have a small photo shoot for another ad agency for which the photos are being used for printing. This was the excuse I needed to rent a D810 back, and shoot the exact same shot with both the 810 and 300S.

I did this before purchasing a new lens for the 300S, and found that it did not make much difference on Nikon's less expensive lenses compared to the 16-85 lens I owned. However, when compared to 14-24 or 24-70, there was a noticeable difference even on a cropped sensor Nikon. I bought the 24-70, but have not bought the wide angle because of what I think will be too limited opportunities to use it.

Good idea, i.e. test them on rental. Will let you know next week.

Thanks for your replay. I have always enjoyed photography. When I began my marketing company in 2009, my main job function was to help advertisers improve their sales, and not take pictures. One client was a small fast food chain which also had one high end sit-down seafood restaurant. Because there was a need, I picked up the food photography myself, and it was acceptable for the needs of this client.

The food photography needed was for use on their websites, for eblasts, and for collateral printing. Our goal for all of our food advertising has been to make the food appear most appetizing to the point that someone wants to eat the food. Focus has to be sharp. We like brightly lighted, and I use the best light situation which almost always includes portable, florescent studio lighting which I take to the shoot site which is always near where the food is prepared. For printed collateral material (posters, counter cards, table cards, banners) we use 300 dpi. Even though the internet requires less than that, we always start it high. If someone clicks on the photo, then we can't have it go grainy.

I have been using the D300S for several years now, and learn something about using the manual settings every shoot. If I am shooting food which doesn't move, then I make many shots using different settings. Then I select the one that looks the most natural.

Does that answer what you were asking? I will look for your reply, and thanks for your interest.

Agreed. My clubs are in the basement, and have been unused for the past 3+ years.

Thanks. I am looking forward to it on a daily basis.

I am essentially an hobbyist photographer, semi-retired from my own advertising/marketing company, who still occasionally is paid for food photography. However, by volume most of my photography is of family and friends with an occasional trip to Alaska, out West, or soon to Baja California.

My first camera was a Canon AE-1, followed by a Canon EOS. I then switched to a Nikon D70 (all I could afford), and upon a regular food photo gig, I upgraded to a Nikon D300S. I mostly rented a Nikon 14-24. Recently I had some spare funds and upgraded to a Nikon 24-70 as a general (walk-around) lens. Using either of those two lenses has made a noticeable difference in the resolution (clarity) I get versus what I bought with the D300S which was a Nikon 16-85 3.5 DX lens.

So I am now at the point that I can keep the lightly-used (18,000 actuation, original owner) D300S, or purchase a lightly-used D800E or D810.

I found that upgrading to a more-expensive set of golf clubs, did not eliminate my banana hook on drives, and, thus, improve my golf score.

So the question for the group is: (1) keep the D300S and use it with top-of-the line glass (2) rent an 810 back, or (3) purchase a lightly-used D810 back.
(a new D800 or D810 is not an option due to cost.)

I am likely to continue food photography for a few years which is used in collateral printing. I am also likely to use my camera for family and on vacations for many years to come.

Specifically, how much improvement could I expect in image quality assuming Nikon's good glass in all scenarios?

Thanks, and look to see your thoughts.