Beginner Light box / Lighting gear & techniques for food plates

Pmba

Pmba

Messages
483
Name
Paul
Edit My Images
Yes
My son is in to cooking and has created an instagram account where he can showcase his plates of food, which so far have been taken outside on his phone, on dull days for flat lighting.

I'd like to give him a step up in IQ and get him a lightbox or rig to better showcase his plates.

He has a Canon EOS 70D and access to my collection of lenses, including a 90mm macro, 18-135 zoom and various fixed length EF and EF-S 24, 40, 50 & 85 mm lenses.

Budget is tight at around £100 - where would be the best place to read up on techniques for this type of photography? And any recommendations of kit?

Once I have a grasp of what's needed, I'll keep an eye on the classifieds.
 
You're probably best checking out the Strobist websites in relation to off camera flash on a budget, techniques etc!

You could start with some basic yongnuo wireless triggers and a flash and an umbrella but if you're looking for a box then it does get more expensive, unless you make it yourself which is possible.

If you go with a box you'll need to consider grids as a way to direct the light.

Alternatively daylight and reflectors is a good way to start and looks more natural. They'll be others far more experienced than I that will be along with some options too hopefully!
 
Rides and Rambles said:
You're probably best checking out the Strobist websites in relation to off camera flash on a budget, techniques etc!

You could start with some basic yongnuo wireless triggers and a flash and an umbrella but if you're looking for a box then it does get more expensive, unless you make it yourself which is possible.

If you go with a box you'll need to consider grids as a way to direct the light.

Alternatively daylight and reflectors is a good way to start and looks more natural. They'll be others far more experienced than I that will be along with some options too hopefully!
Click to expand...

The reflectors option is a good shout. He already uses a white sheet for background so adding reflectors will help I'm sure - will take a look at website suggested.. Thanks.
 
There are many different ways to light food, but actually, I agree soft natural light can't be beaten, especially for the contemporary fashion of 'northern' style lighting. With food shots, it is usually the food that does the talking, not the lighting. (I don't do a lot of food photography and I'm no pro, but I do do a lot of playing with lighting on still life type set ups). Once you have a good window, you need some black and white panels / fabric to control and deepen shadow where you want it. You can get great results by going totally Heath Robinson and there is really no need for expensive lighting gear.

If you don't want to use the window light, or you want to get fancy (you can do a lot with window light plus one flash), the bare miniumum is at least one big soft box and strobe (Yongnuo is OK in my experience, the Neewers are useable but horrible) to recreate the gentle light, a stand to mount it on and still a range of panels (home made if necessary) for reflection/shadows etc and sundry other modifiers depending on what you want to do. I'd also recommend a tripod for the camera. On a budget, you can live without wireless triggers by using the camera's on board flash as an optical trigger. If you get really into the lighting, you'll rapidly be wanting more lights and so it escalates...
 
Stegosaurus said:
There are many different ways to light food, but actually, I agree soft natural light can't be beaten, especially for the contemporary fashion of 'northern' style lighting. With food shots, it is usually the food that does the talking, not the lighting. (I don't do a lot of food photography and I'm no pro, but I do do a lot of playing with lighting on still life type set ups). Once you have a good window, you need some black and white panels / fabric to control and deepen shadow where you want it. You can get great results by going totally Heath Robinson and there is really no need for expensive lighting gear.

If you don't want to use the window light, or you want to get fancy (you can do a lot with window light plus one flash), the bare miniumum is at least one big soft box and strobe (Yongnuo is OK in my experience, the Neewers are useable but horrible) to recreate the gentle light, a stand to mount it on and still a range of panels (home made if necessary) for reflection/shadows etc and sundry other modifiers depending on what you want to do. I'd also recommend a tripod for the camera. On a budget, you can live without wireless triggers by using the camera's on board flash as an optical trigger. If you get really into the lighting, you'll rapidly be wanting more lights and so it escalates...
Click to expand...

Thanks, he does have a Yongnuo 565exii that I don't think has been out of its box so we'll give that a go, with whatever props we have to hand...
 
Pmba said:
Thanks, he does have a Yongnuo 565exii that I don't think has been out of its box so we'll give that a go, with whatever props we have to hand...
Click to expand...

Oh, and I also recommend the Strobist 101 for getting to grips with off camera flash. Light modifiers are not difficult to make with cardboard, duct tape and ingenuity. I do it all the time :)
 
If he wants consistent shots, then forget natural light. It's fine for one-off shots, but that's it. It's just too variable.

I'd also say forget a lightbox too - they give dreadful, flat results. They're OK for crappy Amazon/Ebay style shots, but that's about it. Food photography deserves better . . .
 
Sky said:
If he wants consistent shots, then forget natural light. It's fine for one-off shots, but that's it. It's just too variable.

I'd also say forget a lightbox too - they give dreadful, flat results. They're OK for crappy Amazon/Ebay style shots, but that's about it. Food photography deserves better . . .
Click to expand...
Absolutely.
Food owes its appeal mainly to texture, and texture is achieved by lighting. Light tents in their various configurations are the worst possible "solution" and so is natural light.
 
Garry Edwards said:
Absolutely.
Food owes its appeal mainly to texture, and texture is achieved by lighting. Light tents in their various configurations are the worst possible "solution" and so is natural light.
Click to expand...

Well, I guess we'll have to disagree on that one. Natural even light, falling from a north facing window (as opposed to omni directional light in a light tent) is absolutely superb for photographing food and other still life subjects and is perfectly good for bringing out texture. If you kill the reflection on the other side with a dark panel, it creates a wonderful 'old master' look, popular with food photographers. It is also a very consistent light, assuming you aren't photographing at sunset, a fact well known by artists for centuries. The large size of a window helps create attractive highlights on shiny surfaces. Tomatoes for example, are a bear without a large light source. Food owes it's appeal to colour and presentation, as much as, if not more so than texture. What is a flash in a softbox (not to be confused with those dreadful LED light boxes) doing if not emulating a window? It is very hard to take a good food photograph with the harsh shadows of an unmodified flash.

Window light is not the only way of illuminating food, but it's a totally reasonable approach and perfect on a budget. If you can't get a good shot in window light you are doing it wrong.
 
Stegosaurus said:
Well, I guess we'll have to disagree on that one. Natural even light, falling from a north facing window (as opposed to omni directional light in a light tent) is absolutely superb for photographing food and other still life subjects and is perfectly good for bringing out texture. If you kill the reflection on the other side with a dark panel, it creates a wonderful 'old master' look, popular with food photographers. It is also a very consistent light, assuming you aren't photographing at sunset, a fact well known by artists for centuries. The large size of a window helps create attractive highlights on shiny surfaces. Tomatoes for example, are a bear without a large light source. Food owes it's appeal to colour and presentation, as much as, if not more so than texture. What is a flash in a softbox (not to be confused with those dreadful LED light boxes) doing if not emulating a window? It is very hard to take a good food photograph with the harsh shadows of an unmodified flash.

Window light is not the only way of illuminating food, but it's a totally reasonable approach and perfect on a budget. If you can't get a good shot in window light you are doing it wrong.
Click to expand...
So what you’re saying is that a large high north facing window is perfect :rolleyes:

could you send a builder round to shift my windows up and turn the house 90deg then please?

or would it be easier for me to crack out a large softbox and achieve exactly the same light 24hrs a day 365 days a year without having to move the house?;)
 
Stegosaurus said:
Well, I guess we'll have to disagree on that one. Natural even light, falling from a north facing window (as opposed to omni directional light in a light tent) is absolutely superb for photographing food and other still life subjects and is perfectly good for bringing out texture. If you kill the reflection on the other side with a dark panel, it creates a wonderful 'old master' look, popular with food photographers. It is also a very consistent light, assuming you aren't photographing at sunset, a fact well known by artists for centuries. The large size of a window helps create attractive highlights on shiny surfaces. Tomatoes for example, are a bear without a large light source. Food owes it's appeal to colour and presentation, as much as, if not more so than texture. What is a flash in a softbox (not to be confused with those dreadful LED light boxes) doing if not emulating a window? It is very hard to take a good food photograph with the harsh shadows of an unmodified flash.

Window light is not the only way of illuminating food, but it's a totally reasonable approach and perfect on a budget. If you can't get a good shot in window light you are doing it wrong.
Click to expand...
You've made some fair points, but daylight is inconsistent, weather dependant and dependent on the earth's position relative to the sun, and it only has a single light source. So, although it is theoretically capable of producing the required results, it's so much easier using studio flash.
 
Phil V said:
So what you’re saying is that a large high north facing window is perfect :rolleyes:

could you send a builder round to shift my windows up and turn the house 90deg then please?

or would it be easier for me to crack out a large softbox and achieve exactly the same light 24hrs a day 365 days a year without having to move the house?;)
Click to expand...

Actually, in my small house it is not easier to crack out a large soft box because I have low ceilings and may have to move furniture, but that is not really the point. I fail to see why you are so dead set against natural light. It's free. It's good. As long as the sun isn't shining directly through the window (I'm sure you have windows on more than one side of the house, no?) it's fine. It doesn't have to be up high, you can block off the lower portion easily enough if you choose to do so. Are artificial lights more consistent and available? Of course, but we are talking about photography on a budget here.

Garry Edwards said:
daylight is inconsistent, weather dependant and dependent on the earth's position relative to the sun, and it only has a single light source. So, although it is theoretically capable of producing the required results, it's so much easier using studio flash.
Click to expand...

It is not theoretical, daylight is actually capable of producing good results and many photographers swear by it. Daylight is remarkably consistent. It happens almost every day :-D. The strength of light may vary but that's what light meters are for. I really don't understand the problem you have with it. Using the same logic I could point out the endless problems people have with batteries, wireless set ups and other equipment failures. Not to mention you've got to store all this junk somewhere if you aren't lucky enough to have a studio. Many people are equally prejudiced against flash guns which is why I can pick up virtually unused units for a song :-D

This is an example of natural light:
https://flic.kr/p/FyfBSc
View: https://flic.kr/p/FyfBSc
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
Stegosaurus said:
Actually, in my small house it is not easier to crack out a large soft box because I have low ceilings and may have to move furniture, but that is not really the point. I fail to see why you are so dead set against natural light. It's free. It's good. As long as the sun isn't shining directly through the window (I'm sure you have windows on more than one side of the house, no?) it's fine. It doesn't have to be up high, you can block off the lower portion easily enough if you choose to do so. Are artificial lights more consistent and available? Of course, but we are talking about photography on a budget here.



It is not theoretical, daylight is actually capable of producing good results and many photographers swear by it. Daylight is remarkably consistent. It happens almost every day :-D. The strength of light may vary but that's what light meters are for. I really don't understand the problem you have with it. Using the same logic I could point out the endless problems people have with batteries, wireless set ups and other equipment failures. Not to mention you've got to store all this junk somewhere if you aren't lucky enough to have a studio. Many people are equally prejudiced against flash guns which is why I can pick up virtually unused units for a song :-D

This is an example of natural light:
https://flic.kr/p/FyfBSc
View: https://flic.kr/p/FyfBSc
Click to expand...
And again good for you - do you suggest I have to move home to get a north facing window?
 
I agree that artificial light gives you more control but at a price. I like using artificial light too. However, it also doesn't automatically make natural light bad, or flat, or impossible to control. Your shot is of course very professionally lit and I'm not going to presume to critique being a mere amateur. However, you only have to look at the many current food blogs and cookbooks out there to know that there are many more styles than the one you've illustrated, which, not to denigrate it in any way, looks old school. There is a currently a tendency to much softer, more naturalistic lighting, organic presentation and overhead views - a two minute google on food lighting trends will tell you what is 'in'. There are no rules but there are definitely fashions and currently, the soft 'window lit' look is very popular.
 
Sky said:
If he wants consistent shots, then forget natural light. It's fine for one-off shots, but that's it. It's just too variable.

I'd also say forget a lightbox too - they give dreadful, flat results. They're OK for crappy Amazon/Ebay style shots, but that's about it. Food photography deserves better . . .
Click to expand...

This is pretty much about your answer. For food, product or whatever similar photography natural light or lightboxes are very rarely used professionally, the fact that many people think they do is just one of those often repeated incorrect facts on the internet.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sky
Phil V said:
And again good for you - do you suggest I have to move home to get a north facing window?
Click to expand...
I was going to suggest you were being a little petty, but actually, yes, I think you should move house. :-D

riddell said:
This is pretty much about your answer. For food, product or whatever similar photography natural light or lightboxes are very rarely used professionally, the fact that many people think they do is just one of those often repeated incorrect facts on the internet.
Click to expand...

There is what the professionals do, and then what us amateurs do because we don't have the budget or a studio. I don't recall suggesting a light box, I actually suggested a soft box with a flash.
 
Stegosaurus said:
I was going to suggest you were being a little petty, but actually, yes, I think you should move house. :-D



There is what the professionals do, and then what us amateurs do because we don't have the budget or a studio. I don't recall suggesting a light box, I actually suggested a soft box with a flash.
Click to expand...
Let's not fall out about this.
As an experienced studio photographer, I try to give what I believe to be the "right" answers to questions. Obviously not everyone will take my advice and that's fine, it's up to them. And there will always be some people who don't have the budget or the space, or who aren't willing to learn, and again that's their choice.

But, even when it's obvious that the person raising the question isn't dedicated to photography I still think that forum members need to give the best answer possible, just as a medical doctor will always give the best advice possible even though, as must happen a lot, they know that it will be very difficult for their patient to do as they advise.

It's called professional advice and, although I appreciate that you may be happy to use daylight, in my view that's not the best answer.
 
Stegosaurus said:
I was going to suggest you were being a little petty, but actually, yes, I think you should move house. :-D



There is what the professionals do, and then what us amateurs do because we don't have the budget or a studio. I don't recall suggesting a light box, I actually suggested a soft box with a flash.
Click to expand...
Well we're happy here :)

And as an amateur - a flash, stand and softbox is less than £200, which in photography terms is fairly cheap. Moving home would be much more expensive.
 
Garry Edwards said:
Let's not fall out about this.
As an experienced studio photographer, I try to give what I believe to be the "right" answers to questions. Obviously not everyone will take my advice and that's fine, it's up to them. And there will always be some people who don't have the budget or the space, or who aren't willing to learn, and again that's their choice.

But, even when it's obvious that the person raising the question isn't dedicated to photography I still think that forum members need to give the best answer possible, just as a medical doctor will always give the best advice possible even though, as must happen a lot, they know that it will be very difficult for their patient to do as they advise.

It's called professional advice and, although I appreciate that you may be happy to use daylight, in my view that's not the best answer.
Click to expand...

Point taken, and I'm not aiming to fall out with anyone, I enjoy a robust debate and I love playing with lighting. We'll have to agree to disagree about 'best'. A lot of the ways professionals do things are driven by ergonomics and economics to get a job done quickly and efficiently. It's worth buying that expensive bit of gear if it is a time saver. As an amateur, I can substitute time, ingenuity and large amounts of duct tape for gear because I'm time rich, cash poor, and suffer from a lack of space, the exact opposite of the average professional. My mantra is to make the most of what I already have available and only buy stuff if I've demonstrated to myself I'll use it regularly. Daylight is wonderful because it is free but annoying because sometimes you have to wait for it, anathema to a professional, merely inconvenient to an amateur. Studio photography can become an obsessive, bottomless pit of expense in the pursuit of perfection or that lighting scheme that's going to impress other photographers and clients, worrying about every last atom of highlight, shadow and reflection. But out here in the normal world, I personally believe sometimes we can step back and accept that actually, simple window light can be pretty darned good.
 
Last edited:
Daylight is super inconsistent.
Generally the only reason I use AV mode is on the occasions I am largely using natural light and need AV to cope with the constant changes. And even then it's a massive headache as sequences of shots have different colour balances, shadows and so on.

Maybe it's subtle, but consistency is what clients need.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sky
mike weeks said:
I would love to know where exactly as there are so many variables, we could start to list them, starter for 10, golden hour, if daylight is so consistent why do we name that 1 hour?

Mike
Click to expand...
Stegosaurus said:
Oh lordy, not another one. The wonderful thing about the golden hour is that it is so consistent, we know exactly when it is going to happen every day. Amazing!
Click to expand...
Interesting point . . . I'm the world's worst landscape photographer, but my understanding is that it's the approximate hour just after dawn and just before sunrise, when the sun is low and so is the colour temperature - probably great for landscapes but hopeless for when white, diffused light is needed, so a good example of natural light that's very different from other types of natural light. And of course, another inconsistency is that the effect only happens in clear weather.
Stegosaurus said:
Point taken, and I'm not aiming to fall out with anyone, I enjoy a robust debate and I love playing with lighting. We'll have to agree to disagree about 'best'. A lot of the ways professionals do things are driven by ergonomics and economics to get a job done quickly and efficiently. It's worth buying that expensive bit of gear if it is a time saver. As an amateur, I can substitute time, ingenuity and large amounts of duct tape for gear because I'm time rich, cash poor, and suffer from a lack of space, the exact opposite of the average professional. My mantra is to make the most of what I already have available and only buy stuff if I've demonstrated to myself I'll use it regularly. Daylight is wonderful because it is free but annoying because sometimes you have to wait for it, anathema to a professional, merely inconvenient to an amateur. Studio photography can become an obsessive, bottomless pit of expense in the pursuit of perfection or that lighting scheme that's going to impress other photographers and clients, worrying about every last atom of highlight, shadow and reflection. But out here in the normal world, I personally believe sometimes we can step back and accept that actually, simple window light can be pretty darned good.
Click to expand...
I 100% agree with parts of this.. Right now, I'm helping out an old friend who used to be a client, many years ago. He then foolishly decided to do all the photography himself because he felt that he couldn't afford professional photography, he used a crappy point and shoot camera and whatever light he found naturally, and his business is now in deep trouble and the money (and time) needed to put things right simply isn't there. So, as a friend, I've taken all of his amateur photos, put them through Photoshop and, if I say it myself, I've improved them dramatically. They'll be good enough for his ebay and amazon listings, and just about good enough for his website, as a temporary measure. Certainly, lack of equipment and to some extent lack of knowledge can be hidden by post processing, because PP can cover a multitude of sins, just as white sauce can cover a multitude of fins, but there's no substitute for using the right lighting in the right way, and this applies just as much to keen amateurs as to professionals.

There are a couple of people on this forum who are more than capable of re-shooting his products in the future, they are knowledgeable, skilful and have the equipment.
 
I think what bugs me about this and similar discussions is the ludicrous notion that lighting is expensive for amateur photographers.

Most amateur photographers I’ve met have literally thousands of ££s worth of gear, often including a multi function speedlight that cost >£300 that they don’t use much cos they ‘don’t like flash’ which actually translates to ‘I never really learned how to use it’.

For the same price as a Canikon speedlight, I can buy a couple of decent studio heads, stands and a decent softbox, with cash left over.
With that there’s opportunity for hundreds of hours of fun, and some really professional results.

and of course if you’re willing to work hard sourcing bargains and doing some diy, there’s no need to spend even that much.

In reality, compared to wildlife photography, aircraft photography, motorsport etc it’s actually ‘inexpensive’, yet as soon as studio flash is discussed, someone pipes up that it’s expensive.
 
Phil V said:
I think what bugs me about this and similar discussions is the ludicrous notion that lighting is expensive for amateur photographers.

Most amateur photographers I’ve met have literally thousands of ££s worth of gear, often including a multi function speedlight that cost >£300 that they don’t use much cos they ‘don’t like flash’ which actually translates to ‘I never really learned how to use it’.

For the same price as a Canikon speedlight, I can buy a couple of decent studio heads, stands and a decent softbox, with cash left over.
With that there’s opportunity for hundreds of hours of fun, and some really professional results.

and of course if you’re willing to work hard sourcing bargains and doing some diy, there’s no need to spend even that much.

In reality, compared to wildlife photography, aircraft photography, motorsport etc it’s actually ‘inexpensive’, yet as soon as studio flash is discussed, someone pipes up that it’s expensive.
Click to expand...

It's only in recent years that decent gear has become really affordable, and lighting does raise the stakes in terms of commitment and hassle. But there is also fear of the unknown, fear of failure, no basic knowledge of how light works, perception of technical complexity - all overlaid with that old excuse "I prefer natural light anyway." Whatever that is, but even some experienced photographers appear to believe it.

For sure, adding lighting to your skillset is a big step up, but mostly in terms of huge, transformative rewards. And when you break it down into manageable pieces, it's all quite easy, logical, and free of witchcraft.
 
This. Just 10/12 years ago, most professionals bought either Bowens or Elinchrom (not me, I was always sponsored:) ) and it was Bowens for build quality and Elinchrom for performance/innovation, with Interfit just about there too, more affordable but way below pro standard.
And, back then flashguns were almost limited to major camera manufacturers at silly prices, this changed when Yongnuo started selling cheap alternatives.

Now though, Godox dominates the market in both types of flash, and although their prices are increasing all the time, they are now much more affordable, and their quality is OK.
Softboxes and other light modifiers have also plummeted in price, many of them are poor but at least they're cheap and almost usable, so more people need to embrace flash, rather than avoid it.
 
There used to be a woman (sunnyside_up) here who did very good food photography using only natural light (IIRC). But it was often highly manipulated natural light, with additional diffusion and a range of reflectors/scrims in various sizes. It took me a bit to locate her; and it looks like she is still using a lot of natural light, but has also added strobes to her setup. http://www.bbpicturemaker.co.uk

TBH, it can be hard to tell studio light from natural light... that's often the idea/point. I can say that, regardless of the light source(es) used, additional diffusion (silks), blocking (scrims), and a multitude of reflectors (large/small, silver/black) almost always come into play with food/product photography. And, because a lot of food is extremely dependent/demanding on freshness in terms of how it looks; I personally think that studio lighting will be much easier... set it up any time using props/donors, and it's ready/waiting when the plate is done (but don't use one setup/arrangement for everything).

My suggestion for stepping into this would be a moderately priced strobe with reflector (and honeycombs if feasible), a small inexpensive softbox suitable for it, large/inexpensive silk (e.g. transparent shower curtain to make the little softbox big, or to create gradients w/ the reflector), and reflector panels (cheap white/black cards to start). This would be added to the existing/ambient lighting; which would eventually be replaced by a second strobe/modifiers.
 
Last edited:
I remember sunnyside_up a very photographer.:)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top