The Sassy Shutterbug

10 Things to Consider When Buying a New Lens

noreply@blogger.com (Samantha) — Mon, 01 Feb 2010 05:27:00 +0000

Image by canonsnapper.

I am active on a couple of photography boards and I often see questions along the lines of "which lens should I buy." In fact I've asked the question myself. The truth, though, is only you can answer that question (and that really is the truth!), because only you can determine what is important to you in a lens. When you ask somebody which lens to buy, even if you give them a few choices, you are asking them to tell you what they value more in a lens. Sure, it's good to take a hint from the pros, or perhaps go for something a little higher-end than you need right now so that you don't outgrow it too quickly, but ultimately the person who can make the best choice for you is you and you only. I have developed a list of 10 things, that, if you consider them all, will help you significantly narrow down your options and make the best choice for you.

Price. It's so obvious, but boy, does it help you narrow things down, especially if you're on a budget. If you're not willing to spend more than $500 for a lens, why are you looking are the $1000 ones? They don't magically become cheaper. Believe me I check every day ;-)
Condition. Do you want a warranty? Do you want it spotless? Maybe you don't mind a few scuffs as long as it still works? There can be hundreds of dollars of difference here. I tend to look for an item used (from places like eBay or Fred & Miranda) if I can save more than $150. If not, I figure it's not worth not getting it from a more reliable source. Maybe you'll feel that every penny you can save is a penny earned, or perhaps nothing is as good as buying it new.
Brand. Are you buying an off-brand (like Sigma, Tamron, or Tokina) only to end up selling it for your own manufacturer's version, or will you genuinely be happy with it? Some people swear by manufacturer (Canon/Nikon/Sony/Olympus/Pentax) brand only lenses, and won't consider third-party lenses either because they don't like the look, they fear they will get a bad copy, or they think it won't work as well. It's true that you hear more of "bad copies" of lenses coming from third-parties but these lenses also tend to come with free extras, like a hood and case, and a much longer warrantee, than your own camera's brand. If you get a bad copy, you can always send it back for a new one.
Maximum Aperture. Those new to photography tend to value this less than advanced amateurs and pros, but the faster the maximum aperture, the more useful your lens will be in low light. This might be worth paying hundreds more for, and it almost always is the selling point for pros.
Focal Length. This can be the most difficult decision of all, because there are so many ways to go about getting the focal length you need. I have a superzoom which goes from 18-270mm. This allows me to get almost any shot I need when I am outdoors in good light. When I am taking a low light shot, I have two prime lenses that have a much faster maximum aperture than my zoom lens. Some, however, feel that splitting up such a range into two lenses, such as 18-70 and 70-300, gives you better quality. This can be true, but it also adds significant inconvenience when you have to change lenses often (and the opportunity for dust to get into your camera!) I've tried splitting it up and having it in one lens, and I much prefer having it in one lens, especially since I have my prime lenses for when I need super high quality or low light capabilities. You probably won't know for sure the answer to this one until after you take your lenses into the field.
AF Type. When stepping up from a point and shoot to a DSLR, most users don't realize that unless they purchase a lens with silent wave motor autofocusing (the best type there is!), they may hear a lot of buzzing while their lens tries to autofocus. I find this can be very frustrating and even embarrassing depending on where you are. Only one of my lenses does not have this type of AF, but even still I find the buzzing and the hunting much less noticeable than I did with the kit lenses I had on my first DSLR. If you are buying a fast prime lens to use in low light (or any lens you plan to use a lot in low light), I strongly recommend getting the silent AF (USM in Canon speak, AF-S in Nikon speak). This is one point I feel very strongly about, because, well, what's the point of getting a lens to use in low light if it won't autofocus for you? I have missed many a shot because of slow AF. An added bonus is, once you shell out the extra cash for the fast AF, the lens tends to come with a better build quality as well. Also pay attention to whether or not the front element rotates during AF. If it does, you generally can't use the petal lens hoods (which are the most effective at blocking excess light) and you cannot use ND or polarizing filters without a lot of hassle, as they rotate with the front element. None of this may matter to you now, but odds are, the more serious you get about photography, it will, so it's something to take into consideration!
Image Stabilization. If you use Sony, Olympus, or Pentax, your DSLR probably has image stabilization built into your sensor, meaning you would never need to buy a lens with this equipped in it. If you use Canon or Nikon, you may want to invest in IS (Canon) or VR (Nikon) lenses. Few prime or ultra wide angle lenses come with IS, as they are generally fast lenses to begin with, but many mid-range and telephoto lenses have this option, and it generally means ponying up extra cash. After using lens-based image stabilization I can say I would probably never buy a mid to telephoto range lens again (at least anything slower than f/2.8) without it. I have taken images handheld at 1 sec with IS, and I don't even have super steady hands. IS varies in each lens though, so be sure to read reviews and look at sample images on Flickr (there's probably a group dedicated to photos taken with the lens you're interested in, and you can check the EXIF data for shutter speeds, etc.) or elsewhere. If you don't own a tripod or don't want to use it all the time, and you take a lot of pictures in low light, don't skimp on this! It truly is worth all the images you end up taking that you couldn't have otherwise.
Size & Build Quality. Some people want a nice big lens to show off. Some people need a nice big lens, because it's the only one that will get the job done. Some people want a less conspicuous lens that doesn't draw stares. I always thought it was odd when people talked about a lens being less conspicuous as if it were a plus, but once I started using larger lenses (and I'm not even talking big honkers here, just consumer telephoto range lenses) I started to understand what people were talking about. Sadly, some people immediately assume you're up to no good if you've got a huge lens on your camera out in public. This has become quite an issue, as people are very opinionated about this. A large lens is heavier and takes up more space in your bag as well. There are pros and cons to any size and build quality, but this too is a big decision you have to make before you buy a lens. I like to check out pictures of what a lens looks like on my camera before I buy it.
Sharpness and Image Quality! This is so important, but sometimes you get so caught up in specs that you forget to do some research on whether or not the lens is actually any good! And perhaps you're willing to sacrifice a little IQ or sharpness for things like size, price, or aperture. The best way to decide if you're happy with a lens' IQ is to look at sample images at 100%, either in reviews, or on Flickr. It helps if you can find images taken with your camera and with EXIF data intact.
Compatibility. Basically here I'm talking about lenses that are designed solely for consumer grade DSLRs, and will not work on full frame or film SLRs. The plus side of these lenses is that they are optimized for cameras with a smaller than 35mm sensor, so they are generally smaller, lighter, and more affordable than its full frame counterpart. If you think you'll be upgrading to full frame soon, these may not be a worthwhile investment for you, unless you don't mind selling them down the line (which is quite a common practice). Sometimes you don't have a choice. If you use a consumer DSLR and you want an ultrawide angle lens, there is really nothing wide enough for your needs that will be compatible with a full frame camera. Same goes for fisheye lenses. The bottom line though, is that if you're using a crop sensor camera and then you upgrade to full frame, your lenses that work with full frame will give you a different field of view than they did when you used them on your crop body. For instance, I have a 30mm prime lens that I bought for my camera because I wanted a "normal" field of view, close to 50mm full frame equivalent. This lens is not intended for use with full frame cameras, but it will still work, albeit with some corner vignetting, but it will be a lot wider! If I ever go "FF" I will probably just sell it for a 50mm lens, so I can maintain the same FOV. So, buying lenses that will be compatible with a full frame camera should you decide to upgrade is all well and good as long as you understand and are okay with the fact that they will not look the same on full frame.

One Final Note- I cannot stress enough the importance of reading reviews. Reading a variety of good reviews that explain how well the lens lives up to its specs and provides sample images and test charts will answer all the questions you just can't find the answer to on the manufacturer's website. Be wary, however, of biased reviewers, especially those that easily dismiss consumer lenses for not having professional quality optics. Some great places to find good reviews are The-Digital-Picture.com (for Canon users, it's got to be the best resource!), SLRGear, and Ken Rockwell (who has many haters, but he is unapologetically honest and I really like that - he is very opinionated though!).

20 Awesome DIY Photography & Imaging Tutorials

noreply@blogger.com (Samantha) — Sun, 31 Jan 2010 01:18:00 +0000

Photo by Macropoulos

I love trying new things, especially when they cost me next to nothing! One of the best ways to expand your photographic horizons is to try a DIY project or effect. Here are some of my favorite tutorials, broken down into four categories.

Optics
1. Freelensing (Beyond Megapixels)
2. DIY Tilt-Shift Lens (Creative Pro)
3. Reverse-Mount Macro Photography (Digital Photography School)
4. DIY Pinhole Lens (Photocritic)
5. DIY Fisheye Lens (JPG)

Lighting
6. DIY Homemade Flash Mini-Bouncer (DIYPhotography.net)
7. The Ring: DIY Ringflash (Eye on Birmingham)
8. DIY Flash Diffuse from a Barf Bag (Digital Photography School)
9. Introduction to LED Lighting (DIYPhotography.net)
10. DIY Studio Umbrella (Invent Geek)

Special Effects
11. Sun Flare for Beginners (Pioneer Woman)
12. DIY Vaseline Filter (Photo Answers)
13. Create Your Own Bokeh (DIYPhotography.net)
14. Zoom Trails (Fodors)
15. Camera Toss (BoingBoing Gadgets)

Post-Processing
16. Lensbaby Effect (The Expat)
17. Fisheye Effect (Just About Photography)
18. Lomo Effect (Digital Photography School)
19. Infrared Look (Photoshop Essentials)
20. Cross Processing (Layers Magazine)

In Praise of Primes

noreply@blogger.com (Samantha) — Thu, 28 Jan 2010 22:06:00 +0000

Photo by jessi.bryan

I was going to title this post "Primes vs. Zooms" but then I thought about how many blog posts have probably been titled that, and my last post was called "Crop Sensor vs. Full Frame," so I decided to make this post strictly in praise of prime lenses, since I think it's a pretty safe assumption that most people at least start out being more familiar with zoom lenses.

What is a prime lens?
If you don't already know, a prime lens is a lens that has a fixed focal length - it does not zoom at all, so it's certainly not the most convenient lens you'll ever own. Prime lenses used to be the standard in photography because they offer excellent image quality at much more reasonable price than zoom lenses. Which leads me to my next point...

Prime lenses give you more bang for your buck!
Prime lenses are by nature cheaper to make than zoom lenses because they require less glass. Sure, you can drop a couple thousand dollars on a top-of-the-line prime lens (like the Canon EF 85mm f/1.2L USM pictured above), but you're paying for a super-wide aperture, perhaps a better build quality, and faster autofocusing generally more than you're paying for extra image quality. What's more, even the cheapest primes generally offer a fast aperture. A faster aperture (or LOWER f/ - like f/1.8 or f/1.4) lets you shoot at faster shutter speeds in low light without having to use flash. It also gives you a beautifully blurred background. Currently no zoom lens I know of, even the professional lineup, is faster than f/2.8 (although Canon is rumored to be building an f/2 - but you can bet your wallet it won't be cheap!). That's still pretty fast, but for a prime lens that's even considered relatively slow. When I was deciding what lenses to get for my Canon T1i, instead of going with a wide-to-midrange zoom and a telephoto zoom at f/2.8 that would have run me thousands of dollars and still would not have been fast enough for some of my photography needs, I went with a Sigma 30mm f/1.4 HSM, which is a great alternative to a 50mm lens on a crop body, and a Canon EF 100mm f/2 USM, which is hundreds of dollars cheaper than a 70-200 f/2.8, while also much smaller, and a whole stop faster. Now there are some consumer grade 17-50 f/2.8 lenses that are priced comparably to the Sigma lens I have, but they are over two stops slower (and if you want image stabilization that compensates for that, it is not priced comparably to my lens). Another great thing about the Sigma 30mm is that, even though it's rather large for a prime lens, it's still a pretty compact package when mounted on my T1i, and if I want to throw it in my purse to bring out to dinner or somewhere where I don't want to lug my whole backpack full of gear with me, it's not a problem.

Prime lenses force you to expand your creative horizons
Before I started using prime lenses I always thought when people said this about lenses that it was kind of a lame point to make, but I can't tell you how many shots I look at and think "That's a cool composition, I never would have thought of that if I wasn't using a prime!" With a prime, you have to "zoom with your feet." You'd be surprised how much fun it is to zoom with your feet instead of zooming with your zoom barrel! Now I have a zoom lens and I love it - it's the Tamron 18-270 f/3.5-6.3 VC. I love this lens and don't hesitate to use it outdoors during the day, and sometimes even at night. Sometimes you need a zoom and it's so convenient when you do! This lens takes me from wide to super telephoto, but as you can see, it's not a fast lens at all. It does have VC, which is Tamron's form of image stabilization, and it really works, but I still tend to go for the faster lenses when I'm shooting in low light or shooting portraits. My zoom lens cost more than either of my prime lenses, and although it yields great image quality for a superzoom, it still doesn't match that of either of my prime lenses.

In Conclusion...
This post isn't meant to bash zoom lenses. Every kit should have at least one zoom lens (probably more if it doesn't cover much range), and I love the convenience that comes with my zoom lens. I'm just saying that I think prime lenses are an excellent value and not something to be overlooked as "inconvenient."

Crop Sensor or Full Frame? A Constant Conundrum

noreply@blogger.com (Samantha) — Sun, 17 Jan 2010 17:45:00 +0000

If you read other photography blogs you've doubtless read about the pros and cons of crop sensor (APS-C, APS-H or Four Thirds) versus full frame (35mm) DSLRs. I am writing this post not because I think I have any new information to share, but because I would like to share my own opinions on the topic.
First of all, I think a lot of consumers are very confused on what sensor size actually means, and what all the hype is about full frame. Full frame DSLRs feature a sensor (which is the digital incarnation of film) that is the same size as a frame of 35mm film - the film you probably used in your camera before you went digital. Full frame is a bit of a misnomer, as it only refers to the full frame of a small format camera. There are also medium format and large format film and digital cameras being made with much larger imaging surfaces! Because these sensors are still expensive to produce, they are currently only contained in professional models. Most DSLRs have an APS-C sized sensor, with a 1.5x or 1.6x crop factor, meaning that a full-frame sensor is that much bigger. Four Thirds cameras (manufactured by Olympus and Panasonic) have a sensor that's half the size of a full-frame sensor, resulting in a 2x crop factor.
This "crop factor" also makes your lenses appear to reach further (and thus making the wider lenses less "wide"), since by cropping the sensor you are effectively "zooming in" on the frame. But when it comes down to it, full frame DSLRs come at about 21-25 megapixels, resulting in a huge image when you put it onto your computer, so you can crop quite a bit without losing too much image quality.
Professionals like full frame DSLRs because it offers better image quality all-around (although many of today's consumer DSLRs offer excellent image quality as well). There are lots of reasons to like full frame. A friend recently let me look into the viewfinder of his full frame Canon EOS 5D Mark II - wowza, a much bigger view than my Canon EOS Rebel T1i! Full frame DSLRs also give you more control over depth of field - it is much easier to get that desirable bokeh, or blurry background on a full frame DSLR, even if your lens isn't very fast. If your lens is fast, you can very easily turn the background to mush! This is what I sometimes wish I had in my T1i, even though I own two fast prime lenses.
What's not to like about full frame? Well, as much as I'd love to own a full framer, there are a few advantages to having a crop sensor camera. For starters, they're much cheaper and still deliver excellent quality! They are also smaller than full frame models. Lenses designed just for crop sensor cameras are smaller than a lens offering the same field of view on a full framer, and thus less expensive (and lighter!). For sports and action shooters, those zoom lenses seem to reach a whole lot further!

What's your opinion on sensor size? Is full frame overrated?

I'm Back!

noreply@blogger.com (Samantha) — Wed, 13 Jan 2010 01:58:00 +0000

I had planned to post on this blog a lot more often than I have been, but unfortunately these past few months I had little time to do so. I hope to keep the posts a little more regular in the months to come! I recently switched my DSLR from Sony to Canon so you may see a more Canon-centric feel to some of the posts.

Until next time, happy shutterbugging!

A World Outside Your Car Window

noreply@blogger.com (Samantha) — Tue, 01 Sep 2009 20:49:00 +0000

No professional photographer would compose the money shots out the car window, but there are plenty of shots that can't be safely or practically attained any other way. Don't be deterred by the fear that your shots will be blurry. Inevitably, some will be, but with a little practice and the right technique, fewer and fewer will be with time. Here are some tips for composing out-the-car-window shots (and I hope it goes without saying that you should NOT be the one driving!!), followed by a few examples of my own.

Crank Up the ISO!
If your camera can't handle high ISO, you're going to be disappointed with many of your shots, because it's impossible to get a tack-sharp shot without using a high ISO unless it's very sunny out, especially when pointing your camera at a close subject out the side window.

Keep the Lens Wide Open (Low f/stop)
If you use a DSLR, this will give you a shallow depth of field, which may not be desirable for a landscape shot, but in my opinion, it is more desirable than a noisy shot from too high ISO. If you have a super-fast lens, you might be able to get away with using a low ISO.

Shoot in Continuous Mode
It's unlikely that the first shot you take will be the keeper, so when you see something you like, just hold that shutter button down and take a few shots!

Don't zoom in too tight.
It can be tempting to try to frame your shot just like you would if you weren't in a moving vehicle, but if you miss, you won't be able to bring back the lost edges. Cropping is a very important part of out-the-window photography!

Try a Polarizing Filter
I say try because you will lose some light with a polarizing filter, which might end up being a deal-breaker if your camera can't handle high ISO, but if you must keep the window up, the polarizer can cut down on the reflections.

Don't be afraid to include the car in a few shots
Sometimes the car can be an interesting subject in your shot and give a sense of place to your set of images.

Take Advantage of the Motion
Sometimes you can use the motion of the car to create some cool effects. This picture was shot at about 1/10 of a second at f/22 and ISO 100. To get this effect, point your camera towards the windshield, use the highest f/stop and lowest ISO possible, and hold still! You can overexpose just a bit to exaggerate it even more.

Use your camera bag as a support
You should have something on your lap to rest your elbows on to steady your shot. Sometimes if I'm shooting through the windshield, I lean on the dashboard, which also lets me use a wider angle without getting the whole car in the shot.

A Few Shots from my Flickr Photoset:

How Much Control Do You Give Your Camera

noreply@blogger.com (Samantha) — Tue, 25 Aug 2009 02:44:00 +0000

Every budding photographer goes through a stage where they think they have to do everything manually or they're not a "real" photographer. I think I am just coming out of that phase now. If this "all-manual" theory were true, why would autofocus, auto ISO, and auto exposure controls even be included on professional cameras? The truth is, your camera is a smart creature, able to judge how to accurately expose a scene based on how much or how little information you give it (be it an f/stop, a shutter speed, an ISO setting, or all or none of these things). For the most part, your lens can focus more accurately and sometimes faster than you can. The great thing about prosumer and professional cameras is that they let you override the camera's decisions, so if you specifically want to expose for the shadows in a scene, you can tell the camera to overexpose a bit without having to come up with the exact shutter speed on your own. I like to choose the ISO because I have a pretty good understanding of what shutter speeds at what focal lengths I am able to handhold, and I don't want the ISO creeping up too high in broad daylight or too low indoors. When I'm shooting my moving kitten, I sometimes have to crank the ISO way up to stop the motion. I could put the camera on sports mode, but then I can't control the aperture, which I always leave wide open when I'm shooting my cat to allow the ISO to be as low as possible. I shoot almost exclusively in Aperture Priority mode because I like to be able to control the bokeh/background blur in my portraits by keeping the lens at its widest aperture, and when I'm shooting a landscape I just crank the aperture down to get more in focus. I often press the shutter halfway to get a light reading, and if the shutter speed my camera reports is too slow for handheld I adjust the ISO (unless I'm using a tripod or another support). As for metering (how the camera evaluates the light and chooses the proper exposure), I always have it set to multi-segment metering, which takes into account the whole frame when choosing the exposure. If I'm shooting a portrait where center-weighted or spot metering would be better, I tend to just tell the camera to overexpose a bit rather than go through the menu to change the metering mode. On my camera, setting exposure compensation involves a lot fewer buttons than changing metering mode. This is my system and although I'm sure I'll evolve and change how I take pictures, I am pretty happy using these controls. What settings do you give your camera control on and which do you control manually?

Pro Compact vs. Bridge Camera vs. Entry-Level DSLR: The Prosumer's Dilemma

noreply@blogger.com (Samantha) — Thu, 20 Aug 2009 00:13:00 +0000

For those of us with a budget that want to get the best for the price out of one camera, it may seem like there are so many options it's hard to narrow it down. For serious amateurs on a budget, it seems that there are three categories that cameras that would fit such a price point fall into: pro compact, which includes relatively small point-and-shoot cameras with a fairly limited (if any) zoom, but that deliver optimal image quality for the size (many pros use these as their on-the-go cam), "bridge cameras," point-and-shoot cameras with a broad zoom range (usually 10-20x) and which have some features of entry-level DSLRs, and entry-level DSLRs, which offer almost unlimited expandability with the ability to change lenses. This past January, I upgraded my dated little compact P&S to a Canon PowerShot A590IS, one of Canon's more basic models but which delivers excellent performance for the price point. The main reason I chose Canon was because I read about a neat little tool called Canon Hacker's Development Kit (CHDK), which is a free firmware add-on (not produced by Canon) that gives Canon point-and-shoot users DSLR-like features in the PowerShot camera. It's hardly user-friendly, but once you figure out how to use it it can come in very handy, for instance, if you wanted to shoot RAW (never DID figure out how to do that correctly though) or bracket shots for HDR (I did enjoy that). There are plenty more features and tutorials on how to use them, so this makes buying a high-end p&s just for the features a little less important. That said, the features are buried under menus and require a lot of configuration to work correctly sometimes, and that just gets annoying if you are really serious about shooting. Another problem I had with the little camera was that it just didn't have the latitude I was looking for in terms of zoom range (4x is kind of piddly) and depth of field (it's hard to create bokeh on a little p&s with such limited zoom range). So in May (just 4 months later!) I bought a Canon Powershot SX10IS, which offers an impressive 20x zoom range. A couple of days after it arrived I was off to Europe for a 10-day vacation (see the pictures here!), and, although I was pleased with the results, I found I still yearned for a better ISO performance (most of my handheld night shots were marred with noise) and the ability to add on lenses (I was envious of all the shots I saw on Flickr taken with 50mm lenses). So, just a month later (am I insane?!) I purchased a Sony Alpha A200W kit, which included two lenses that gave me the same zoom range as my p&s, and a Minolta 50mm f/1.7 lens for those great bokeh and low-light shots. Right now I'm happy I have all three cameras; I throw the little one in my purse so I can have a camera with me at all times, the larger p&s remains a backup until the time comes to upgrade to a new DSLR body, at which point I'll get rid of the larger p&s and use my current body as a backup. The bottom line is, if you're serious about photography, some gear just won't cut it. If you want good shots in low light without a flash or a tripod, nothing short of a DSLR with a lens with a wide maximum aperture (2.8 or lower, probably at least 1.8) is really going to cut it. If you want lots of blurry-background, that's going to be harder to get without a DSLR too. But if you can accept your camera's limitations, a really nice super-zoom like my SX10is, or some of the ones Sony and Nikon have out now, or a high-performance compact like the Canon Powershot G10 (and its successor, the G11) or the Panasonic LX3, may work just fine as your primary camera. And don't forget, there are wide-angle, teleconverter, macro, even fish-eye converters available for point-and-shoots, but this comes at a price of image degradation and you lose some light, forcing you to use a slower shutter speed or higher ISO. And after you bought all that you probably could have purchased an entry-level DSLR anyways. So if you're in the market for a new camera, make a list of all the features you can't live without (good ISO performance, minimal shutter lag, or long zoom range maybe), and choose the most affordable camera that includes all those, but leave room to grow (don't shrug off all the features you don't use much yet), or you might end up with a pile of cameras in just a few months, like I did.

15 Ways to Give Your Images a Boost in Photoshop

noreply@blogger.com (Samantha) — Wed, 12 Aug 2009 20:35:00 +0000

Do you ever look at a photo you're working on in Photoshop and think to yourself, "Gee, that looks nice, but it's missing something"? That certainly happens to me a lot. Sometimes all a picture needs is something subtle to give it that extra boost, or perhaps a zany effect to make it stand out. Here are some details I often add to my images to give them an extra je ne sais quoi:

1. Apply a Gaussian Blur.
Gaussian blurs look great on just about anything; portraits, landscapes, you name it. I apply a Gaussian blur to almost every one of my photos. There are 2 ways I apply it: the first, more dramatic way, is to create a duplicate layer (CTRL+J) and blend it as Soft Light or Overlay. Then apply the blur with a rather large radius, and fade the layer as desired. This ups the contrast of the image, and it makes everything look dreamy. The other, more subtle way, is to again create a duplicate layer and leave it as normal, then apply a blur with a smaller radius (around 10-12 for 10MP images), and fade as desired. I find the sweet spot of fading on this one is usually within the 20-30% range, but it's all about personal preference!

2. Burn the Edges (Vignette).
Vignetting is a huge bummer when it's happening for real on your images, but everyone loves to apply a fake vignette for a dramatic effect in Photoshop. You can do this in Camera Raw, but I tend to leave it for the end, and usually Camera Raw is just the beginning! In Photoshop, the easiest way to apply a vignette is to go to Filters-->Distort-->Lens Correction and adjust the vignette sliders there. There are a billion more creative ways to do it though, and one of my favorites is an action called "Quick Edge Burn" from Ree Drummond (The Pioneer Woman)'s Action Set.

3. Experiment with the "Clouds" filter.
I just wrote a post on Clouds, one of my favorite built-in Photoshop filters, and I have to say it is one of my favorite ways to add a little "boost" to any image. Here I used Clouds to make drama in a white, overcast sky.

4. Add a Lens Flare
(Hey, look, I also burned the edges, applied a Gaussian blur, and used the Clouds filter here too! See, I wasn't kidding, I really do use these techniques all the time!) Okay, this lens flare is part real, part fake (that is to say, there already was one there, and I added a fake one on top of it). If you've got a lens flare in your image that looks more like "I-forgot-to-use-my-lens-hood" than "I-did-this-for-artistic-effect," adding a lens flare in Photoshop on top of the original can help. Even if you don't have a lens flare, adding one always is a neat effect in my book (I don't care how corny it is!). All you have to do is go to Filter-->Render-->Lens Flare and put it where you want and select the brightness (and which type of "lens" you want it to come from).

5. Try a Fun Photoshop Action
Photoshop Actions can make you very lazy. I tend to apply a whole bunch of them, but fade them considerably. On this image I applied, among other things, a vintage action that I found at the Adobe Exchange, which you can see uses the clouds filter. Adobe Exchange is a great place to find all sorts of neat, mostly free, actions.

6. Cross-Process
I'm so glad cross-processing today can be performed on a digital image with the click of a button. I used it to varying degrees on a large portion of my images. If you've never experienced the magic of cross-processing, it's basically tweaking the colors to give them a more yellowy/bluey tint, just like film developers used to do in the darkroom. I use a couple of Photoshop actions to create the cross-processing effect. It can make a blah-ish shot more artsy looking.

7. Add a Fantasy Element
Use your artistic license! You don't even need to know how to design, there are plenty of brushes like the ones I used above to create the pixie dust available for download. If you are good with vectors, add your own piece of flair to the photo!

8. Add Some Text!
If your photo has a lot of empty space that you don't feel adds to the composition (because sometimes it can), it's time to add in some text. I do this just as often in Picnik as I do in Photoshop because they have some cool fonts, and since I can connect it to my Flickr account, I can go back in and add it easily after I've already uploaded the image. So many of my compositional pitfalls have been revived with a little text to offset the empty space.

9. Convert to Monochrome
Even if the colors are spectacular in your image, it might look even more special in black in white (or duotone). I'll leave it to you to determine which conversion method is the best, but I encourage you to try it out on any image you think is lacking that certain something.

10. Make the Sky Move with Radial Blur
It's very easy to make the clouds look like they're moving in a photo using radial blur (Filters-->Blur-->Radial blur). Duplicate the layer first (CTRL+J), then go to the filter and select zoom as the type. Now you'll need to mask out the rest of your photo (don't just use an eraser, because you probably will make mistakes) using a layer mask (Layer-->Mask-->Reveal All) and painting over it with a black paintbrush. Press X to reverse the painting.

11. Make it Vintage-y!
I love to make my shots from Disney's Hollywood Studios look vintage-y, since the whole theme park has an Old Hollywood feel to it, but any photo can benefit from a little vintage tuning. I usually use a variety of actions from the Adobe Exchange, and fade them as I see fit (search for vintage, retro, old film).

12. Apply a Texture.
When you're out and about, it's a good idea to look for textures that you can take pictures of to blend over your images. That's what I did here. Just take any texture, paste it into your image as a new layer, and experiment with different blend modes. Soft Light and Overlay tend to work the best for textures. And don't stop at just one! The more the merrier!

13. Use the "Lab Pop" Technique.
I first read about this technique in Scott Kelby's 7-Point System. It's really simple and sometimes it makes a huge difference. Go to Image-->Mode-->Lab. Now go to Image-->Apply Image. Select a blending mode like Soft Light or perhaps Overlay if you're feeling daring, and select which channel you want to apply: Lab, Lightness, a, or b. You can lower the opacity to lessen the effect. I have found that Lab enhances the contrast too much most of the time, but if you set the blend mode to Screen at about 10-15% opacity, it lightens up the photo very nicely. Lightness is only good if you're going for a psychedelic or retro look. A makes greenery look amazing, and b makes skies and water look amazing.

14. Add a Black Border
Adding a border to your image can really make or break it. I sometimes put a thick black border on the top and bottom of my image when I want to add some drama. Play around with different sizes!

15. Make Things Wonky with Liquify!
The liquify filter has myriad uses. It can remove cellulite, open up squinty eyes, perform digital rhinoplasty, and on the other side of the coin, make a skinny model into a two-ton tilly. Okay, I think I've made my point on liquify. One uncommon use for this filter, though, is distorting boring background elements to make them look psyechedelic. Here, I had a lot of noise in the sky, so I just went to town with the liquify filter for something different.

The Wonders of Photoshops "Clouds" Filter

noreply@blogger.com (Samantha) — Tue, 11 Aug 2009 20:06:00 +0000

Oh, clouds. When did my love affair with the "Clouds" filter first start? I can't even remember. I think it was around the time I started downloading a lot of Photoshop Actions that used it and I realized how amazing it is. "Clouds" can make noisy skies less noisy. They can make a bland background more textured. The first time I ever tried "clouds," though, I was completely underwhelmed. Open up an image right now in Photoshop and duplicate the layer (CTRL+J). Now go to Filters-->Render-->Clouds. Wow, that is pure ugliness, right? It's so amazing that something so blah and ugly can make your photos more textured and beautiful. Now change the blend mode of the layer from Normal to Soft Light. Now we're talkin', right? That's essentially what I did on the image above of the Eiffel Tower. I knew I needed a little something extra to make this oft-photographed icon look unique. You'll probably need to mask out or erase the parts of your subject that you don't want the clouds over. Here's another example of the same technique:
But it doesn't have to stop there. Applying a radial blur (Fiter-->Blur-->Radial Blur) can have some cool effects. Here is an example with the "zoom" blur:
The sky was too noisy and ugly so I made it look like a long exposure with the zoom radial blur (I made the center of the blur just below the skyline). Choosing the spin blur (also in the radial blur dialog box) makes for some unrealistic yet nifty effects. Here's an example:
And one more way I like to use clouds: when you've got an overcast sky that is completely white, it looks very dramatic!
So, basically, "Clouds" is cool. You just need to know how to use it. How else do you use "Clouds"?

How to Fix a Botched Tourist Photo in Photoshop

noreply@blogger.com (Samantha) — Mon, 10 Aug 2009 04:07:00 +0000

I originally wrote this tutorial for Digital Photography School, one of my favorite photography blogs, but now that I have my own photography blog, I'm posting it here too.
I recently took a trip to Europe with my parents, and throughout the whole trip, we only got one picture of all three of us, because I didn’t like the idea of giving my precious camera to a stranger to take one. Well, when I finally caved in front of the Eiffel Tower, the person who took it didn’t even bother to get the whole Tower in the shot with us! Realizing the shot was far from suitable for framing in its current state, I did a little creative Photoshopping and masked me and my parents in front of a picture I took of the Tower around the same time.

NOTE: This works best if both photos were taken from roughly the same distance, same perspective, same time of day, and same settings.

First, open up both images in Photoshop. You’ll need to take the one with the people in it and paste it as a new layer on top of your other picture (CTRL+A to select all and CTRL+C to copy, then CTRL+V to paste when you’re at the other picture). It’s important that your subjects be the correct size, or the Photoshopping will be too evident. In my case, I ended up completely removing the botched Eiffel Tower from the image and just left me and my parents masked in front of the Tower, but in most cases, you will want to blend the two Towers (landmarks, etc.). To make the landmarks roughly the same size, lower the opacity of the top layer to about 50 so you can see both at once. Press CTRL+T to transform the layer. Now you can move it around freely without having to select the Move tool. You can drag the corners in to make it smaller and out to make it bigger. It’s wise to make sure the height/width ratio is locked so you don’t distort the layer (click the chain link icon in the options panel up top). You may need to rotate the layer, by dragging the cursor in the direction you want it to go. When you’ve got them about right, click the check sign up in the options panel to accept the transformation.

Now it’s time to make a layer mask! Select Layer-->Layer Mask-->Reveal All. If you’re familiar with masks, this next part will be a cinch for you. If you’re a stranger to layer masks, sit tight because it’s not hard at all! Make sure you have the Brush tool selected. Next, make sure black is your foreground color and white is your background colors (if not, just click the little icon next to your colors that resets them). To start you will want a very large brush with a hardness of 0. Paint away the top of the monument attempting to find a good place to blend the top and bottom layer seamlessly. At some point, you’ll want to bring the opacity of the top layer back up to 100. If you can’t (I couldn’t), you’ll have to make the brush size much smaller (probably in the 50-150 range depending on the size of your image) and the hardness around 50-75. Then paint in as close to the people in your picture as you can. At any time, you can undo any painting mistakes by pressing X (makes white your foreground colors) and painting back the layer, then press X again to continue masking. The beauty of this as opposed to taking any old pic of your family and sticking them in front of a monument if they weren’t really there is that the surroundings should make the masking much less obvious. When you’re all done you can choose to flatten your image and save it or save it as a PSD and come back to it later.

The Sassy Shutterbug at Amazon.com

noreply@blogger.com (Samantha) — Sun, 09 Aug 2009 03:54:00 +0000

I have made an aStore over at Amazon.com with links to all the products I talk about on this blog, including my gear, my recommended reading, and books on my to-read list. I'll keep updating it as I update the blog. Feel free to have a look! I'll keep links to all the products within the blog as well though.

I Have An Announcement!

noreply@blogger.com (Samantha) — Sat, 08 Aug 2009 04:21:00 +0000

Since this is a photography blog, I thought I'd share some great news with you - I won a photography contest! The winners of The BIG Contest by Jason D. Moore Photography were announced yesterday, and I was selected for the grand prize! That photo of my kitten Casey is one of the five photos I entered (all entries had to have 5 photos). I have never won a photo contest before, so that makes this all the more exciting for me! A BIG thanks to Jason D. Moore for putting on this contest, and I recommend you check out his blog, it's one of my daily reads.

If Your Eyes Were a Lens

noreply@blogger.com (Samantha) — Wed, 05 Aug 2009 00:45:00 +0000

Photo by vernhart

I don't know about you, but I tend to learn concepts better when I can relate them to something I already know a lot about. That's why I made this list of what-ifs relating the human eye to a lens. They actually work quite similarly, the only difference really is that our brain processes the image instead of an image sensor!

If your eyes were a lens...they would be a fixed focal length.
Your eye can't zoom in or out, just like a prime lens, or fixed focal length lens. Furthermore, that focal length would be about the equivalent of 50mm on a full frame image sensor. That's why 50mm is considered a "normal" focal length.

If your eyes were a lens...they would run on Auto ISO.
Why is it that when you turn on a light in the middle of the night, you can barely keep your eyes open? Because your eyes have to adjust their sensitivity to the light, just as a camera running on auto ISO. To enhance this analogy, imagine that your eyes are running at "ISO 6400" or higher in the dark to allow you to see details in limited light, just like you would need to take a properly exposed picture in this setting. When the light goes on, the picture you're seeing suddenly becomes drastically overexposed until your eyes (or brain...or...whatever...) automatically dial down the "ISO."

If your eyes were a lens...binoculars would be teleconverters.
Obviously you can't swap out eyes like you can lenses, but if you really want to zoom in, you can attach a "teleconverter." A teleconverter on a lens increases the lens ' focal length, but, just as the image you see looking through binoculars is not as pristine as it would be if you were really that close, teleconverters can lower the quality of the image as well.

If your eyes were a lens...you would squint to raise the f/stop.
F/stops on a lens, aka aperture, control how wide open or closed the lens is. Aperture comes from the Latin word for open, so it's aptly named. Just as you lower the f/stop to get a wider opening and thus, a shallower depth of field, opening your eyes or squinting them controls how much of what you see is in focus.

If your eyes were a lens...sunglasses would be filters.
Sunglasses allow you to see in bright light without darkening all the details, and polarizing filters do the same thing. I have a pair of sunglasses that tints everything pink, not unlike a skylight or a warming filter.

If your eyes were a lens...eyelids would be lens caps.
And that caps it off! Do you have any to add?

5 Quick Tips For Retouching Women's Faces in Photoshop

noreply@blogger.com (Samantha) — Sun, 02 Aug 2009 08:10:00 +0000

Befor I begin, I just want to point out that retouched photos often look unrealistic next to the original, because, well, they are. It's good to stand back and look at your final product by itself to decide if it looks realistic enough for you. Okay, now on with the tips:

Negative clarity in Camera Raw. Drag the clarity slider just a tad to the left to soften the skin and reduce wrinkles and lines.
Adjustment brush in Camera Raw to whiten teeth. This might be especially important if you're trying to make the picture more colorful everywhere else....the vibrance slider is infamous for making teeth look like they haven't been brushed in decades. Just use the adjustment brush to paint over the teeth, and slowly start to bump up sliders like brightness and exposure, and bump down the saturation until it starts to look unreal. It's easy to go overboard.
Remove under-eye bags with Patch tool. Select the patch tool (it's in with the healing brush and spot healing brush), draw a selection around the "bag," then drag the selection just below so it can be sampled in to replace it. You will probably want to fade the effect a little because it always looks unreal. Repeat on the other eye.
De-squint the eyes using liquify. Liquify can be your best friend or your worst enemy. In the picture I used here, I was squinting a lot, almost to the point of not being able to correct it, but I very lightly placed the bulge brush (it's the 5th tool from the top in CS4) over each eye and held it down for about 1/4 of a second. The size of the brush and how long you can hold it down without the eyes starting to look cartoonish really depends on the size of the photo and how much the person was squinting. Experiment.
Add a little blush! Everyone could use a little blush on their cheeks. You can even use the plain ol' brush tool for this one. To pick a color, I usually use the dropper tool to select the color of the subject's lips. Make the brush the size of the apples of her cheeks and run it at about 22 percent.

A Bit On Bags

noreply@blogger.com (Samantha) — Thu, 30 Jul 2009 21:04:00 +0000

Every DSLR owner needs some sort of case or bag to keep their prized possession safe. For women, it can be a struggle to find one that is both stylish and practical. I hate overly masculine-looking gear, but for my camera bag, I picked the rugged
Lowepro SlingShot 100 AW (pictured left) because it was the most practical. It holds my camera and 3 lenses, plus my Gorillapod, remote shutter release, and of course a phone and wallet so I don't have to lug around a purse too. All that, and it feels like having a pillow strapped to my back - so comfy and easy to access as the bag swings around to the front to pull the camera out. The all-weather version has a cover you can easily slip over the bag in harsh weather conditions. The removable compartments are customizable and keep my gear from knocking around inside. My efforts to find such versatility in a bag designed especially for women were in vain. For one thing, a lot of them look cheap. There aren't many to choose from because there isn't a huge market for them. Many of them are designed like tote bags, which I don't think is very practical. Do I really want a tote bag hanging off my arm while I shoot? Maybe it works for some women, but I was dead-set on something I didn't have to hold onto. I posted on forums asking for advice on which bag to get, but really, how can a perfect stranger recommend a bag to you? I went to the store and looked at several bags and tried them on, and it became apparent to me that the SlingShot was the most versatile, practical, and comfortable. So I threw good fashion sense out the window and bought it. Which direction did you go in with your camera bag? Stylish or rugged?

The First Official Post!

noreply@blogger.com (Samantha) — Wed, 29 Jul 2009 06:29:00 +0000

Woohoo! I'm live with my first official post on my newest blog! Let me start off by saying that I can't promise the posts will be regular after school starts, since I'll be student teaching. I didn't create this blog to stay on the beating pulse of the digital photography and imaging world, but rather to share my thoughts, tips, tutorials, and anything else that might be of interest to female photographers. If you're a blogger and would like to contribute, I invite you to drop me a line at samantha [at] sassyshutterbug [dot] com. What do you want to see here? Leave your comments, I've got plenty of ideas but I could always use more input!

Until next time!

Contribute to the Sassy Shutterbug

noreply@blogger.com (Samantha) — Wed, 29 Jul 2009 06:08:00 +0000

Do you have an article about photography that you'd like to share with my readers? This blog is brand new, and I'm looking for contributors who can share their ideas with my readers while gaining a few of their own. Be it a tutorial, a review, an essay, as long as it's about digital photography or post-processing, it's welcome here. If you're interested in contributing, drop me a line at samantha [at] sassyshutterbug [dot] com.

My Favorite Books

noreply@blogger.com (Samantha) — Tue, 28 Jul 2009 19:44:00 +0000

I am compiling a list here of digital photography and post-processing books that I have read and loved. Most, if not all, of these books have made a huge impact on my composition, my knowledge of how the camera and other gear works, and/or how to use post-processing software. If you know of a book you think I should read, drop me a line at samantha [at] sassyshutterbug [dot] com.

Digital Photography Books

The Digital Photography Book, Volume 2, by Scott Kelby - I'm sure Volume 1
and the brand new Volume 3 are just as good, but Volume 2 is the only one I can truly recommend to you since it's the only one I've read so far. You don't have to read these books in order, they are basically a compilation of super-useful tips for amateur photographers to make the most out of their cameras.
Mastering Digital SLR Photography by David Busch - This is probably one of the best photography books I've read. I actually read an older version from 2005, and still found it helpful. If you're completely new to DSLR photography but very interested in learning both the science and technique behind how it all works, read this book. Even if you're not a newbie, I guarantee you'll learn a thing or two.
The Digital SLR Guide by Jon Canfield - Another great DSLR-specific read; not as in-depth, but offers a range of helpful tips.
Better Available Light Digital Photography by Joe Farace and Barry Staver - I love how this book had a specific focus, which was essentially difficult lighting situations. One of the reasons I stepped up to DSLR photography was to be able to get high quality images in poorly lit situations. But Joe and Barry also tell you how to make the most of any lighting situation, even if it's ideal for shooting.
Digital SLR Cameras & Photography For Dummies by David D. Busch - This is a great starting point for DSLR newbies. By the time I had read it, though, I found I already knew a good chunk of what was covered in here. Unlike Busch's other book that I recommend here, this book gives a nice overview of different postprocessing programs, so if you've yet to purchase one, you might enjoy that aspect of this book. If you're looking for all the important technical information regarding DSLR photography, both of the books I have read by David D. Busch have surpassed all others in that aspect.
The Magic of Digital Nature Photography by Rob Sheppard - This book gave me a lot of inspiration and helpful hints on how to approach all aspects of nature photography. Anyone who wants to pursue this will find this book helpful. If you're familiar with all the aperture/shutter speed/ISO jargon, you can skip that portion of the book, but don't be fooled by the presence of "the basics," this book gets right into some real advanced topics and techniques. Oh, and the author is the editor of Outdoor Photographer magazine!
The Complete Guide to Light & Lighting in Digital Photography by Michael Freeman - If you want a better understanding of how light works in digital photography, this book is for you. Not only does Freeman go into great detail about how natural light affects a photo, he also describes the tools professional photographers use in the studio and on location to get the lighting just right.
Rick Sammon's Complete Guide to Digital Photography 2.0 - Any shutterbug, beginner or expert, should read this book. Rick Sammon has a great philosophy on photography, and what's so great about this book that sets it apart from other photography learning guides is that he includes so many of his own pictures (not just a few here and there) to illustrate his points and provide inspiration. Although there is a large section devoted to Adobe Photoshop Elements, it covers mostly the basics, so advanced Photoshoppers may just want to skim that part.

Post-Processing Books

Scott Kelby's 7-Point System for Adobe Photoshop CS3 (Voices) - If you're gonna read a book about Photoshop, read this one first. It's not so much the steps even that drew me in, but Scott's ability to look at a "crappy photo" and size up what needs to be done to it. Learn how to use Camera Raw to bring back a blown-out sky, make the reflections on the water look more magical, and a lot more. This book has been indispensable to my Photoshop workflow.
Photoshop CS4: The Missing Manual by Lesa Snider King - There are lots of Photoshop reference guides out there, and I am sure many of them are great, but I picked this one up because it was just so big and impressive looking (the series title is just so clever too!). I read the 800 pages nearly cover to cover, and I never felt like I was reading a textbook. In fact, I couldn't put it down, it had me locked in like a suspense novel! If you're interested in learning all the tools Photoshop has to offer and how you can use them, give this book a read.

About Me - Who the Heck is Samantha Decker?

noreply@blogger.com (Samantha) — Tue, 28 Jul 2009 04:47:00 +0000

Yes, that's me in a Lilly Pulitzer sundress and my Lowepro Slingpack on my back, out on the town ready to take pictures at a moment's notice. So what if Lowepro and Lilly don't really go together? I'll be derned if I don't get my money's worth out of both of them! ;) I actually wasn't planning on taking pictures when I got dressed that morning or I would have put on something a little more..."sporty." But I digress....

My name's Samantha and I am an amateur photographer, blogger, web designer, and grad student (soon to be teacher). You may have read my blog The French Corner if you're a French student or teacher. I got into graphic and web design about 10 years ago but I only got seriously interested in photography in early 2009, and I am fairly new to the DSLR world. I have learned a lot about photography from the nice folks at Flickr, some great books I have read, and all the wonderful blogs and podcasts I am subscribed to. I started this blog because I don't see too many blogs out there by female photographers, and even fewer by ones my own age (the "twenty-something" crowd). On this blog, you'll see my musings on anything relating to photography and post-processing, and from time to time I'll share my own images. Some of the topics will be female-specific, but many of them won't, as photography is such a broad topic, so invite your male shutterbug friends to come read this blog too if you like it! If you want to contribute an article to the blog, see the Contribute page.

Contact Samantha
Got a question? A comment? Got a product you want me to review? Drop me a line at samantha [at] sassyshutterbug [dot] com. Be sure to visit my personal site too!

My Gear

noreply@blogger.com (Samantha) — Tue, 28 Jul 2009 03:05:00 +0000

My gear, my kit, whatever you wanna call it, these are the tools I currently use to take pictures. I didn't put it all here to show off (after all, this is hardly an extensive kit, nor is it top-of-the-line), but because I myself am always incredibly curious what other photographers use, be they amateur like myself or pro. I originally had a Sony DSLR but recently switched to Canon because I wanted a better lens lineup to choose from (among other reasons).

Camera Body

Canon EOS Rebel T1i aka 500D

Lenses

Lighting & Accessories

Software

Adobe Photoshop Extended CS4
Topaz Adjust
onOne Plug-in Suite
Unified Color HDRSoft
Photomatix

Why Did I Choose This Kit?
I put a lot of thought into what body and lenses I would get after having chosen a kit I wasn't terribly happy with the first time around. The T1i was pretty much a no brainer for my camera choice. It was right in the price range I was looking at, with image quality rivaling that of the semi-professional 50D. The 15 megapixel resolution was very appealing to me, because I enjoy having the leeway to crop more generously without losing too much image quality. I also liked the the T1i had HD video. I don't plan on doing much, if any, artistic videography with it, but I wanted to be able to capture family and friends and other memories with it. Many reviewers were very harsh on the T1i's sub-professional video performance, but I find it more than adequate for my needs. As for lenses, all the pros say carrying fast f/2.8 zooms in your bag is a must for those low-light situations, but f/2.8 zooms are quite pricey and tend to be very limited in range. In addition, while f/2.8 is fast, there are fast primes that are much faster. I knew I wanted a long-range zoom for outdoors, so I wouldn't have to deal with the constant inconvenience of changing lenses (which I did often with my Sony 18-70 and 75-300), but one which still had decent image quality and image stabilization. This lens exceeded my expectations in its performance (the image stabilization is a marvel!). In-lens image stabilization, in my experience, trumps in-body image stabilization by a landslide. You're not wasting your money when you buy image stabilized lenses. Now, I'm also into low-light photography and I wanted to breakup the 50mm f/1.7 that I had in my last kit into two fast primes. You see, 50mm on a crop sensor is just too long for me when I want that "normal" field of view. Other times, it's not enough. Another thing I hated about my nifty fifty was its lack of fast silent autofocusing. I missed many a shot thanks to this. For my normal lens I went with the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 which is a great lens for a crop sensor camera (kind of big and clunky, but I like how it looks on my camera!). For the longer lens I went with the Canon 100mm f/2. This translates into a 160mm equivalent, so it's not terribly useful indoors on people, but I use it all the time to photograph my cat from a distance. I also used it on my recent vacation to Walt Disney World at shows, parades, and even the safari ride at Animal Kingdom! I look at it as a very affordable alternative to the 70-200 f/2.8. This lens is fixed, but it's a stop faster, a LOT cheaper (though not in build and quality), and much smaller. If I ever go to full frame, this lens will work just fine there too, though it won't reach as far (the trade off is better bokeh!) I recently got into flash photography, so I bought myself Canon's most basic flash, which has bouncing capabilities. I also got myself a flash sync cord so I can experiment with the flash off the camera. This has proved to be a fun new accessory!