alex_tudor

For the life of me I can't figure this out and I just know it has to be simple. I have

some actions defined and I just want to resize both horizonal AND vertical pictures so

their largest side is 750 pixels. If I constrain proportions all is fine, but I need two

actions - one for vertical pictures (750 pixels tall) and another for horizontal pictures

(750 pixels wide).

I've searched everywhere and it escapes me. I just want to be able to have one action/

step/method in PS, where I can choose a dimension (like 750 pixels) and have that

apply to both horizontal and vertical pictures (with proportions contrained of course).

Is this possible in PS?

I need to do this in PS since this step is part of a larger action. So I can't use other

programs.

Thanks,

Alex

Use the hood for protection if nothing else! How much does your lens cost and how much a replacement hood should it get banged?

Think about it. A hood is just as much to protect the lens as it is to reduce flare, etc.

And BTW, on my 16-35mm f/2.8L (which has the same hood as yours) the hood is not a bother at all. Compare that with the hood on the 24-70mm f/2.8L or 70-200mm f/2.8L.

Alex

Whayne,

What you say is true. But something I have to try to see. I know I can use my palm and add +2/3 or +1 stop of overexposure (this is not only for weddings so no guarantee of a white dress or walls either), use FEL, and recompose. I'll give it a try. I just don't see it being faster really, but perhaps because I have not used it. My palm would have to fall under the same lighting as the subject, I would need several additional steps to meter off my hand, lock, etc., which I can see as slowing me down. Perhaps not. But when I move around a lot doing that may slow me down. Sure it works. I will try it at a gathering next time to test it out along with the other methods and see what is fastest for me. Thanks. I'm just used to quickly finding a midtone instead of using exposure compensation a lot. Two different styles perhaps. I do use exposure compensation for landscapes of snow and such, but haven't when shooting fast.

One thing I may do to speed things up is limit myself to 9 AF points instead of 11. That way I can only use the wheel to navigate much more quickly around the 8 periphery points instead of using two wheels for H and V AF point selection. That is if Bill's 45 point method doesn't work or even in conjunction. I went back to look at my ES-E1 results to see what AF points I typically choose, and they are typically on the periphery or the center.

Alex

Typo - white reflects back 36% - black is 9%.

Also I'm not sure metering with the flash off, setting those settings in manual and then turning on the flash is really useful for fast situations. In fact it cannot be. That's why I always set my shutter to 1/30 (since that's my safe handheld slow shutter), 1/60 if I want to freeze motion, or less if I want to imply movement. The aperture is separate. I use 2.8, 4, 5.6 and max 8. And when I use f/8, I take off the OmniBounce, slide up the built in panel and ride off of that to light the background more. For 2.8-5.6 I use the Omni all the time with great results. 1/30 is enough for ambient light for me at those apertures. If I'm shooting 24mm I may go lower to 1/20 to get more light in. It depends.

BTW, for weddings and such events I use my 24-70mm f/2.8L and don't mess around to much with switching to other lenses. Outside I may use the 70-200mm f/2.8L for portraits (85mm, 105mm) with fill flash, but during the ceremony/event I don't have time to switch. And I use the 24-70 at 28, 35, 50, and 70. I treat it like 4 primes!

Alex

Whayne,

Why a mid tone? Of course I can use exposure compensation but what's the difference really? That's more of a hit or miss. What if I don't have pure white to reflect back 9% so I can add +1? Finding something that will give me 18% back is actually easy. It's more about speed. I'm not even sure exp. compensation would be faster really.

I am curious about what you ask Bill, since that is essentially what I wanted to know as well.

Alex

Bill - good tip. I didn't think of that.

Jim,

That custom function will make turn it into TTL. But TTL has the major disadvantage w/ off the film metering when using different film types. Films vary in darkness and obviously when you reflect light off something, the degree of reflectivity makes a difference. So this can create unexpected results when switching films, etc. I did look at this but it has more limitations and E-TTL than gains.

Of course with TTL you can recompose all you want w/o FEL.

To answer your question, I haven't had problems with whites or skin tones using E-TTL. As long as you meter of a focus point(s) that are medium toned for a nice 18%, you'll get great exposures. I think it does a great job. I just was looking to see how to make things quicker. How to more quickly choose the AF point. I'll try Bill's idea witht the automatic 45 point AF selection for centered subjects and for non-centered subjects I'm actually going to still use AF but with manual AF point selection. I was thinking of using MF but am afraid that metering off the center focusing point will not get great results at all times.

Alex

Bill,

Yes - got that about the 45 and 11. I keep forgeting since I never use the 45 that I can scroll until it goes to 45! I'll try the method you mention and for things that are not centered, I will use MF which will make E-TTL meter (evaluatively) off the center AF point. Hopefully these two options will have me covered for flash.

Thanks for clearing up things. Sometimes the "simplest" things escape me.

Alex

Bill,

That does make sense but then I would have to change my custom function 13 to go back to 45 AF points from 11 linked to spot. The problem is that when I don't use flash I use 11 linked to spot a lot. So I'd have to keep changing that custom function.

Also if my subjects are not in the center, as they aren't many times, I would need to FEL and recompose anyway.

There MUST be easy methods. What do wedding photographers do with Canon equipment for speed? I could post this in another forum but this is an EOS question really.

Alex

Jon,

P mode is easy, but you don't have control over aperture - DOF, shutter speeds, etc. No creative control. Also no control on how much ambient light you want to expose.

Indoors I'm always in M mode at 1/30 for static, 1/60 if I want to freeze, or 1/15 if I want implied movement. I use 400 speed film to get more light in the background. 800 would be even better and offer a better balance between the subject (which is lit/exposed by the flash) and the background (which is exposed how by my settings).

If there is enough ambient light indoors to get 1/30 for shutter speeds at f/8 or so, I use that which means I'm in fill flash mode which is nice for balance.

Alex

Bill,

The paragraphs are from Guy's FAQ and in quotes. My question was answered by you: "The E-TTL flash system always uses the evaluative metering system for both ambient and flash metering regardless of the mode selected on the camera. "

That's what I wanted to confirm. I also have the 1v. I don't use FEL and recompose as I was saying. I frame, select from one of 11 AF points that I put on an even tone/place in the scene", and then shoot.

Obviously this is not the fastest solution as I have to move around fast to get to the right focus point, and for non-static subjects it's challenging since I may have to start over and reframe, re autofocus, shoot if they move out of my frame.

I'm trying now to see what is fastest and most efficient. I could try using the center AF point, FEL and recomposing, but I wonder if that's faster as well. Just a different method really.

What do most seasoned flash photographer who cover events, weddings, etc. do? What methods are most efficient. I realize there is no ONE method, and it comes from personal experience, but I ask anyway to solicit and inquire.

Alex

I should add that MY solution is to be in M or Av mode in spot meter mode tied to 11 AF points. No FEL no recompose. I just move the AF point around until I find an even tone to meter from.

But I still don't understand how the regular metering interacts with E-TTL's metering as I asked above.

Alex

I've read posts and Guy's FAQ at photonotes.org, but I'm still

confused and unclear at something that perhaps should be clear but

I'm just missing it.

From the FAQ:

"E-TTL flash metering patterns:

The camera uses its evaluative metering system to meter the flash

output, based upon the preflash. When in autofocus mode most EOS

bodies bias flash metering toward the currently selected AF point,

but always in an evaluative mode pattern - they don�t use spot or

partial metering patterns. When in manual focus mode it appears that

at least some EOS bodies switch to centre-weighted averaging.

Note, however, that this biasing of E-TTL metering to the active

point is potentially problematic, since it means that the flash

metering is done in almost a spot-metering fashion. Many user

complaints regarding flash metering problems in E-TTL mode appear to

be linked to this issue. If the camera happens to be over a dark

object, for example, flash metering can be considerably overexposed,

and vice-versa. The standard answer to this problem is to use FEL

and meter off something mid-toned, but this is clearly not a

solution for rapid-shooting situations such as weddings and sports.

Another approach is to set the camera lens to manual focus, since

the body apparently switches to centre-weighted average metering in

that mode, but that�s obviously not a useful answer much of the time

either."

A question I have is what IS the solution really? And secondly, when

I choose a metering mode (whether in Av or M mode) on my camera is

that ONLY for ambient/background metering? Is that completely

separate from E-TTL's metering which is tied to the focus point as

mentioned above?

Alex

Panning really works when you have a background to imply motion against. The plane shot, a very nice shot, looks different really. Doesn't looks like panning to me at all.

Also, panning and tripping the shutter when NOT parallel with the subject is a hit or miss really. Sure you can fire away at 10fps in AI SERVO mode, but it's a hit or miss when the car/plan/bike/person is at an angle to your camera.

Of course besides sharpness, the key is to fill the frame and HAVE an interesting background.

I pan with my 70-200mm IS mode 2 all the time and it's quite nice.

Alex

Steve QL,

Canon EOS Rules summed it up. You say:

"And how might you propose to do that with something as inconsistent as consumer film? I thought the whole purpose of pro film was having a film that is at its optimal quality level and then kept at controlled temperatures to maintain PREDICTABILITY of its outcome when shot. Only then when it's matched with the appropriate professional paper can you even begin to gauge consistency. Then by keeping the variables of film and printing to a minimum, you can actually try to achieve what you would like with your photographic skills.

So why are you wasting time with consumer films again?"

First of all you are only stating the obvious. Nobody is going to be stupid and argue that pro film is worse than consumer film in terms of consistency. Why keep repeating it? But this forum is not "Pro Film and Processing" but "Film and Processing". So you CANNOT discount consumer film. And you cannot say it has not improved significantly in terms of grain, color, etc. It obviously has.

I'm not wasting my time with anything except reply to silly posts like this. Did I say I use consumer film all the time or something? Can you READ? I DO use consumer film when in a pinch or as needed. So what? When I need a roll of puncy/contrasty film, I'll use Superia 400 and not NPH@250 which is still not as punchy or contrasty nor do I expect it to be. I don't care about consistency at that point for one roll! Get it??

And YES we can and should/do discuss what to best rate Superia 400 at, how it compares to Kodak MAX 400, etc. Just because they are consumer films doesn't mean you can't discuss them. You are SO limited in your point of view. Just like we can compare pro films we can compare consumer films. Be more open minded.

And just so you know, for me or you it may be cheap to buy pro film, but for people in other countries it's not only much more expensive but also hard or impossible to find. They don't have B&H to order from, etc. So be more realistic please. And I've seen plenty of weddings done on consumer film that look pretty damn good.

Alex

Steve QL,

No that was not the point - just an observation and an aside. I see many frown on consumer print films, which in my opinion are pretty damn good as I've said. Ted has already answered it very well in his post above, saying exactly what I would have said. Technology has come a long way but apparently people's biases haven't..too bad.

I'd like to comment more on, "And if you're shooting anything worth printing, why even waste your time with consumer film when you can get NC for a bit more in price?"

Define "worth printing" please then I can comment more. You seem just focused on weddings, but I was speaking in general terms. Sure NC and NPH are the better for weddings most times. But what if I *WANT* a hight contrast picture? You can't argue taste! Was Dali too colorful? Do all weddings need to be low contrast? NO! Maybe someone wants a high contrast wedding shot once in a while? Who are you to say? Sure low contrast films are typically preferred as they improve skin tones, hide blemishes, etc. But then why not shoot black and white only? Maybe even better no? You see all these things are subjective.

What we SHOULD discuss on this forum, I think, is not taste so much, but qualities of films, difference between them, best method to develop/print/scan each type of film, best ratings of films, etc. I see that, but I also see a lot of needless bashing of films or others' choices to use them. And sometimes the good and the bad come from the same people!

Scott, who's insight I DO appreciate, commented on picture #2. Yes I also think it's too contrasty, but I like it in a way as well. And so may the bride, or people in the picture. Wedding crack? Knock it off! This is not USENET! Vent your frustrations elsewhere! Jeez!

Alex

BUT, I should add the the pictures are not as awful as some make them out to be (in terms of contrast, colors, etc.). There is major fanaticism around here, which is really not necessary.

One day I will try to post 4 pictures of the same subject in the same light with 4 different 400 speed films - untouched scans. And then we'll play a guessing game. THAT should be interesting. Consumer films are not as bad as some make them out to be. They may not be very consistent if you shoot 30 rolls, but they are pretty damn good.

Alex

Canon EOS Rules,

Yes, and I agree on that point. I've said above that Scott was right all along - don't mix Kodak and Fuji or beer and wine!

Alex

Alexandru,

I think I was a bit too harsh. I know plenty about metering and am familiar with the EOS system. I just wanted to make sure of certain things. As to why I got the 1V, as stated, I needed a spot meter, I use the 10fps for sports, I need the control the ES-E1 gives me via personal functions, etc. It's as close to digital in that sense as possible. I could have gotten a EOS 3, but I got a great deal on this at $900. Some guy had 2 and was selling one to get the 1Ds. Plus the EOS 3 doesn't have ES-E1 - the big difference really. I don't care for the weather sealing really.

Anyway, like I said, I don't have the manual and wanted to make sure of certain things. Some things are not so obvious. As far as methods are concerned, I said what I use, but am wondering if I can be faster with other methods. Since I didn't know how metering is activated (I knew about CF4 as posted) I needed to make sure. Also the MF I wasn't sure about.

If you WERE trolling then I'll challenge you to ANY metering contest. When I say I need a spot meter I really mean for convenience and speed. I can use evaluative or center-weighted for ANY shot. I just need to recompose, etc... I can use the sky, my palm, etc to meter. In the end it's all the same.

So before you post like that, please be more careful and nice.

Alex

Al,

Thanks. I did have the OmniBounce on and tilted up, but the ceiling was to damn low so the shadow was inevitable - don't shoot people against a wall!

Chris,

I didn't mean to annoy anyone!

I've just shot a roll of NEW NPH this morning - at 400, 320, and 250 for each shot. I shot some shots of my wife and then of other things to see how colors will come out. I hope it will satify my so I can put and end to this search! If not I'll have to use NPH for weddings/portraits and Press400 for all-around use I guess.

Rahy,

I always rate 400UC at 400 since it's so colorful at 400. But if I did rate it lower, the flash (550EX/E-TTL) would pick up on that and adjust itself for output. I used the Canon 24-70mm f/2.8 L lens on an EOS-1V body. Shots are from mid July of this year.

Alex

Alexandru,

Are you trolling? Read my post. Anyone would be a FOOL to not spend $900 for a 1V-HS. I NEED a spot meter OK? Did you read my post are you just upset you have a lower end camera perhaps?

If you don't have anything to contribute, which it looks like, then why post?

Troll,

Alex

So far in the Fuji realm for higher speed films my choices are:

NPH

Press 400

X-TRA 400 "Evidence Pack"

X-TRA 400 (7/11 type :)

NPZ rated @ 400

What is my all-around best choice? I prayed it would be NPH, but it was just too pale (OK for weddings and portraits but what about other things?). I will try it at 250. NPZ looks to be OK, but grain will be a factor there. Press 400 I have not tried, X-TRA 400 is not consistent, but perhaps the "Evidence Pack" is, since it's in the pro line and emulsions are more consistent? Even then TOO contrasty!

Damn!

Alex

James,

Funny huh? You were right!

Steve,

I don't know what 400UC looks like properly, so I can't comment on if it's good or not for weddings. But it's definitely not from these pics! On the other hand I'm trying NPZ because NPH seems kind of flat to me. For weddings that's probably good, but I want a Fuji 400 all around film with more saturation.

Bill,

No, these were scanned from the negs. Maybe the operator was especially bad on this day?

Alex (IN DESPARATE NEED OF A COLORFUL ALL-AROUND FUJI 400 FILM!!)

Perhaps I may get chastised for this (and I pray not - I was just trying to see if anyone caught on), but this is NOT NPZ@400! I took these pictures a while ago using guess what? PORTRA 400UC!!!

I wanted to see what people would honestly say not knowing the real film that was used, and posted it as being NPZ@400 (since in truth I AM looking at that film to switch from 400UC - see my previous posts). Had I said it was 400UC would the replies have been the same? Before I got some inconsistent comments from different people regarding 400UC and Kodak vs. Fuji in general - hence this post here.

In truth I was always a fan of 400UC until I saw how much sharper and beter Fuji pro films were on the Frontier. Even NPH which is too bland for me. I will have to try it @250.

I do agree with some of the comments made (not all), and I think it's a result of me using 400UC on a Frontier and that's why I want to switch.

So I wanted to see if anyone caught on. I thought people honestly would. Not only that, but Fuji qualities were attributed to a Kodak film! This goes to show that a Frontier can really mess up 400UC scans.

Or perhaps 400UC is just bad with flash? Hence the lack of warmth?

Also an important point to be made is one that Scott has said from the beginning - don' mix Kodak films with Fuji labs and vice versa!

I hope I didn't offend anyone, it was not my intention. Nor to waste anyone's time. You guys are great - this was just perhaps a stupid test now..

Alex