Nontraditional Food Styling Controversy
Print This Post
In 1995, the editor of Vegetarian Times magazine explained how the publication always photographs real food from real recipes, despite criticism that the photos weren’t the high quality that readers expected.
In the piece titled “Our Cameras Don’t Lie,” she wrote:
“When I first started in the food magazine business, I was amazed – and a little appalled – at what food stylists did to food to make it look good in photographs.” [...]
“Food styling tricks are certainly no secret in this industry. Want to give that pie a nice glaze? Nothing to it – a little shellac will do the trick. Need whipped cream that won’t melt under the lights? Shaving cream’s your answer. Shouldn’t that bowl of soup be steaming hot? Just throw in a little dry ice for effect.”
“In a way, you can’t blame the food stylist. Composing the picture can take hours of prop styling, rearranging, lighting changes, and shifting camera angles. [...] it’s impossible to keep food looking great for very long under the searing heat of studio lights.”
But then she explains that Vegetarian Times does it differently. They take photos without using fake food. They make a recipe and take a photo and that’s that. “In fact, when the photo shoot is over we often eat the food.”
So perhaps it’s that honest photography that many vegetarian and vegan magazine readers came to expect when they read the current major mainstream vegan publication, VegNews. But that’s not what they got.
As it turns out, VegNews didn’t bother with traditional food styling either. Instead, they used a new food styling technique: digital transformations. Vegans are famous for turning nonvegan food into vegan food by changing the recipes slightly here and there. VegNews did something similar. VegNews veganized nonvegan food photographs by modifying stock photos in PhotoShop. VegNews explains:
“In an ideal world we would use custom-shot photography for every spread, but it is simply not financially feasible for VegNews at this time.”
QuarryGirl went public with the news. They posted a blog lambasting VegNews for encouraging vegans to salivate over nonvegan food. Predictibly, some vegans were angry. Many vegans announced they were canceling their subscriptions. Even nonvegans are upset.
Erik Marcus called it “completely pathological and self-destructive” and “sociopathic.” He didn’t stop there, though. While demanding more from an organization that he had power to influence and didn’t (he was on their Advisory Board), he also took the opportunity to announce his complete detachment and utter dislike of average people and mainstream magazine readers, calling them “chumps who still think it’s the 1990s.” In doing so, Marcus made his criticism completely irrelevant by admitting he’s just an out-of-touch elitist who can’t be bothered to make inconvenient compromises for the sake of helping animals.
But a few vegans remained calm and took the news in context. For example, Matt Rice reminded animal advocates:
“While thousands of outraged animal lovers directed their anger at a vegan magazine for a relatively minor transgression yesterday, Congress passed a bill to remove endangered wolves from federal protection. Maybe we could have used our time better yesterday by calling our Senators.”
In the same rational vein of thought, blogger Babe In Soyland presents an analogy:
“Was it deceptive of VegNews to use meat and dairy pictures when talking about vegan food? Perhaps, but in this case I think the ends justify the means. And like I said before, all that really matters is that the reader associates the image with vegan food in a positive way, ultimately leading them to support vegan things. It is an illustration, a representation. If Cosmo prints an article about, say…couples fighting, I would assume they’d use an image of two models in a “fighting” scene. I wouldn’t expect them to give a disclaimer that this is in fact not a real couple, nor are they fighting. It is an illustration to leave you with an idea imprinted in your mind. I realize these situations are bit different, but I still think it’s worth thinking about.”
At another blog, Vegesaurus, one writer commented:
“aren’t all magazine photos doctored? Like EVERY SINGLE ONE? To make women look inhumanly skinny or elongated or whatever?”
The brouhaha hasn’t yet died down but if any good has come from all this, it’s that more people are posting photos online of real vegan food in order to demonstrate to VegNews that honest vegan photography can be done. And done well.
UPDATE: Here is a small collection of other vegan blogger’s perspectives:
- Ecorazzi: Vegan Magazine Caught Using Real Meat In Recipe Photos
- Discerning Brute: The Treachery of Images
- Fat Gay Vegan: (Quarry)Girl you know it’s true
- Grumpy Vegan: VegNewsGate
- This Dish Is Veg: VegNews scandal: Mag takes heat for meat deceit
- Colleen Patrick-Goudreau: My Hope for VegNews and VegNews Readers
- Vegan Planet: An Open Letter
2nd UPDATE: New apalogy letter from VegNews promises to keep ALL future photos vegan. See more here >>
.To lie means of a thing present a false impression be deceptive. Presenting a false impression certainly fits this situation right?.I want to address a few common arguing points .VegNews states that stock photography is used as only after all other options have been exhausted. Furious VegNews supporters have backed up this claim with common-themed comments such as .1. It is industry standard to use stock photography .2. Vegan Stock Photography doesnt exist and.3. It would be too expensive to produce photos in house..To which I say .1. Veganism shouldnt aspire to the same industry standards that we are trying to change we should rise above them..2. I am not going to say that vegan stock photography exists it probably doesnt- yet. I wont say the solution would be as easy as asking the vegan blogger community for submissions. Whether due to resolution or styling its not always feasible to use reader submitted photos for a magazine. But that is the challenge of owning a company finding solutions to common problems like these..3. Yes an in-house photographer would be expensive. Cut back on trips and other costly promotional endeavors such as the VegNews awards until such time that a staff photographer can be hired. Re-introduce costly promotions as the budget allows. I understand that its costly but that would be a budgetary item if one was running a magazine especially a vegan magazine that needs photos of vegan food.. If I would have known that VegNews couldnt afford vegan photography I would have told them Thank you for the award Im super thrilled but please dont mail it to me you can spend the money on a vegan photographer. I am sure a lot of the Veg Awards winners would feel that way..The problem got exponentially worse when surrounding the incident. Its short doesnt address the concerns voiced by hundreds of vegans and is quite unapologetic..Which has spurred even more debate. The most shocking if you ask me is the arguing amongst vegans themselves and the lukewarm reaction to the whole mess from popular vegan websites. Each bringing up issues such as .1. VegNews made a mistake we should forgive them and no one is perfect .2. Vegans shouldnt ostracize a vegan magazine because its vegan and we have so few numbers as it is .3. Being angry furthers the stereotype that vegans are militant angry single-issue nit-picking policing finger pointers- and .4. VegNews has done so much for the animal community in the past 11 years we shouldnt condemn them for this..To which I ask you .1. Can it be a mistake if it is done knowingly and then hidden by not disclosing the non-vegan ingredients in their photos and by deleting comments on their website which inquired about the photos authenticity? Perfection and Honesty are not synonymous..2.