>>4490978
Still life, product photography, stock images

File: FoodMeat.jpg (253.5 KB)

253.5 KB JPG

>>4490980
thank you

File: k7249-7.jpg (217.3 KB)

217.3 KB JPG

>>4490982
What is it about this image (the meat) that gives it a very recognizable late 80's early 90's feel ?

File: erinscott-sanfrancisco-food-photographer-bright-modern-colorful-product-photography-10.jpg (1 MB)

1 MB JPG

>>4490984
Maybe the more natural looking warm soft light without the lifted shadows common in modern product photography.

I'm thinking film, medium format and incandescent light

>>4490978
A studio product photo.
The result of much planning and position, a lot of very good lighting equipment placed intentionally and probably done by someone experienced, and what is likely a full frame digital camera using a short-telephoto prime lens with a moderately wide aperture in-use.
Emphasis on the lighting. If this was lit half-assedly or was just a photo using direct-flash or natural lighting it would look far, far worse than it does.
I don't see anything that gives it away as film.
It's also probably photoshopped a fair bit, as it is a product shot.

File: Screenshot 2026-01-06 at 20.34.42.png (463.3 KB)

463.3 KB PNG

OP you should check out the 1989 edition of the BH&G cookbook

>>4492529
Sinar P spotted.

>>4491182
I wouldn't be surprised if it's large format, for studio shots that was the norm. Crazy how digital just wrecked everything.

>>4492532
You could always use a technical camera with a 120 back, but I don't really see the point when doing product photography like this unless you really needed the additional DoF that smaller formats afford you.

>>4495844
Sir, this is NOT the coomer thread

>>4495844
I’d fuck that cheese

i think they're called gay