newbie question: food photography, where should I spend $$ first to increase quality?

Where would I see the biggest gains for my dollar? I'm guessing diy diffuser, then flash or lense?. I'm not against buying used lens, maybe even MF if I can save money.

Thanks,
sample
https://picasaweb.goog​le.com …rG8lPeVAQ&feat=​directlink

equipment I own: REBEL XS /w kit: 18-55mm f/4-26

Do you have a macro lens? They do wonders for food photography.

it's hard to know what you need without knowing what you have.

a macro lens and lighting. lighting is just as important, if not more so.

Macro lens x3, i assume you were using pop up flash in your sample pics?

Diffusers are not that useful in my experience. Bounced or off camera flash tends to work better.

I think from your photos you are using on camera flash. The best improvement you can do for less money is to pick up a 430ex or 430ex2 flash, bung it on your hot shoe and bounce that sucker off your ceiling for your photos. Give it a go with some experimentation. Or borrow/rent one first if you aren't sure. Just remember the 430 series cannot be IR flash master. So if you plan on off camera flash in the future a 580ex or 580ex2 might serve you better. Also, the ex2 series has the PC port which is useful for RF wireless triggers.

In the future if you are really serious about it you'll need tripods, more flashes, light stands, umbrellas, soft boxes, backdrop and backdrop stands. The sky's the limit when it comes to photo gear and spending money!

Manual focus macro lens. Here is a link to using a manual focus macro lens.

https://sites.google.c​om …n-a-dedicated-prime-macro

Off camera flash

Here are some links

https://sites.google.c​om …tography/7-Hands-on-Light

http://strobist.blogsp​ot.com/2006/03/lightin​g-101.html

Lighting first. A tripod or lens with closer minimum focus second/third - the lens doesn't have to be a true macro lens, anything that'll do 1:5 or better should be OK for food. If nothing else, you can do a 50% crop and still have plenty of pixels for large prints.

For the lighting, you don't necessarily need flash gear. Is there any other way to get light? Maybe schedule the shoots during the morning or afternoon when you get good, difuse light from a window? Other than shots of the stove, the rest could be moved to better light. Maybe look into some reflectors (DIY is fine) to get more light to the stove area?

bob13bob wrote in post #12762348
Where would I see the biggest gains for my dollar?

In my opinion, some good photography books, if you haven't already read some.

60mm f2.8 macro! Get it!

It takes better food pictures than my 35mm L

A 45mm tilt-shift lens and a good solid tripod would be a great starting point.

Lighting is next, but a lot can be done with ambient light, reflectors and flags.

If I were buying lighting today, I'd seriously consider some of the fluorescent continuous "cool" lighting that's now available. These aren't your standard household CFLs... but color balanced and stabilized bulbs made specifically for photography.

Various sorts of flash or strobe lighting can work quite well with various light modifiers, but is more difficult to visualize and set up. Continuous lighting is easier to set up, but for many decades only "hot" lights of various types have been available. They draw a lot of power and put off a lot of heat, so are less practical for many purposes.

Cool fluorescent lighting opens up new possibilities... best of several worlds... Lower power consumption, less heat, yet continuous and easier to set up. Shooting digitally, the color of lighting is less critical than it was with film. It's easy to set a Custom White Balance and/or tweak image color later in post processing.

Let's clarify one thing... Small diffusers such as those used on portable flash are not all that great. They are still too small a light source. On the other hand, a big soft box on a powerful strobe or continuous light is another thing entirely and - used right with fill lights, other lights, reflectors, etc. - can give you tremedous control over light and shadow in your images.

added info to OP

ok, looks like tripod and lighting are first. Sometimes I can move the finished product outside (if it's day), but for the preparation; I can't always carry things outside to do so. I'll try moving some lamps closer to the dining table for a quick drop in, snap, carry out cooking area, maybe use parchment paper to diffuse light.

I don't need huge prints, mostly using this pictures for web food blogging. As you can see, some of the pictures are pretty bad (probably I've got a lot to learn)

Manual focus macro lens. Here is a link to using a manual focus macro lens.
https://sites.google.c​om/site/inexpe...ed-prime-macro

Are their old lenses I can fit + manual focus on my rebel XS like the link?

looks like kenko extensions will work with ef-s lens. Which size should I buy? ( I don't want hte whole kit
)

bob13bob wrote in post #12762348
Where would I see the biggest gains for my dollar? I'm guessing diy diffuser, then flash or lense?. I'm not against buying used lens, maybe even MF if I can save money.

Frankly, much of the material you see in most "food" pictures is not actual, edible food. It's artificial look-alike components that are intended to look better than actual food. Improving food photography means learning the tricks of food styling, which are skills that are far beyond the reach of a newcomer to photography.

DC Fan wrote in post #12766135
Frankly, much of the material you see in most "food" pictures is not actual, edible food. It's artificial look-alike components that are intended to look better than actual food. Improving food photography means learning the tricks of food styling, which are skills that are far beyond the reach of a newcomer to photography.

That said. It's still possible to take good photos of edible food. Doesn't always have to be keeping it real fake

I don't need professional results =). Just looking for improvements.

Looks like I'll pick up Canon EF 50mm F1.8 II, seems to be big kit improvement for little$. 18" minimum focus not bad.