patrick.mason

Thanks Robert, I'll checkout my drop-down menus a bit more closely. I get so used to the

post process work flow, I don't even see the other menus. Many thanks again, to all!

Patrick

Lex your remarks... very timely. Thank you. I agree about sharpening. I only sharpen to

compensate for the filter in front of the sensor, I let the 1DS do the 'heavy lifting'. I figure

if it isn't sharp enough after that, I screwed it up. Regarding my software: I may have to

find someone who has the same setup I have... PhotoShop Elements 4.01.0 + new iMac.

Maybe the finer points of knowing all the parameters just weren't included in the 'strip-

down' version of PS... ? I love the editor and tools it just seems like I'm flying blind in this

area of photo downsizing, etc. At any rate... THANK YOU, you're a gentleman and a

patient one at that!

Patrick, JUNEAU ALASKA

You may be very correct Lex, I hadn't given that much thought. OK. Then how do I guarantee my photo is a) Under 3 MB AND no bigger than 1500X1500 pixels? I just tried

submitting a 2.7 MB photo and was refused because of its dimensions. How do I know

what the new dimensions are in PS? As a matter of fact, I don't know how big the JPG is

until I actually save it! I've just got to be missing something really simple here... and, I'm

not smarter than a 5th grader! 8-)

Thanks so very much for the responses...

Patrick

Just reread my post above. I apologize for not clearly stating that my frustration is about

the constraints of this site, Photo.net. Is everyone limited to 3 MB pictures? They sure

don't look like it to me... that is until I scrunch my photos down small enough to comply

with the maximum size of 3 MB. I understand the necessity of having some maximum

limit, but GeeezLoueeez!

By the way, the method I use to 'downsize' my photos in PS is using the 'transform'

function to size the photo, then crop it. The JPG doesn't look half bad, but by the time I

post it there's no resemblance.

How does one resize a photo from, in my case, 13.5 MB to a mere 3 MB and not have it look like crap?

Sorry, I'm a bit frustrated about this. I know how to capture and process my work, I just don't see the efficacy of compressing a beautiful picture down to a representation that looks nothing like the original.

My passion is landscape photography. I have great equipment and software... I'm just at a loss as to how

others are getting around this. Educate me, please!

Patrick,

JUNEAU, AK

Landrum: Lad Lueck's post... look at the first frame again. This is no exaggeration what this

camera will do, nor is it an exception or fluke, I have hundreds of unretouched frames from

my 1DS that are that good and better. And he's dead right, "... when you've figured out color

calibration, and sharpening technique,"... and I might add, exposure compensation, etc. ...

this camera is second to NONE!

Patrick,

JUNEAU, AK

Juergen is right on the target. I own what is considered to be a 'professional' camera, a

Canon 1DS Mark I full-frame... and shoot RAW exclusively. Every frame, with no

exception, demands SOME adjustment. Merely getting the exposure between and well

expanded in the histogram NEVER guarantees a redeemable photo... it just means you're

exposure didn't challenge the sensor beyond its limits, that's all. Like film, and I've shot a

lot of it, post-production is a fact and necessity of photography... you're challenge: Adopt

post-processing techniques that reveal the exact image you saw at the moment the

shutter was pressed. Anything beyond that is 'artistic license'.

JUNEAU, AK.

Nihtyan: I too own a 1DS; purchased it out of a studio in NY about 14 months ago. I am so

delighted at the performance of this camera that truly, I will not even bother with a Mark II. I

have exposed frames on snow covered glaciers in mid-afternoon, blazing sunlight... to a

pitch-black dark room illuminated by one, single candle and have NEVER seen the banding I

see in your pictures. The only time I can see a hint of banding is when I abuse its limits. It is

true if you set aperture at f20 and ISO at 1250, expect issues. Typically the following extreme setting should not produce banding on a 1DS: ISO 50/f15 - ISO 1250/f2.8.

JUNEAU, AK.

Bob, you have a crystal, cleaver sense of humor. None of us should take ourselves too

seriously... no matter how adept we are at 'pressing the button' at the right moment of the

stars, karma and nature co-conspiring against us.

JUNEAU 8-)

EOS3... no brainer.

JUNEAU

KC: I have seen error 99 once with my Sigma 70-200. I was doing a lot of walking

around and was aware that the lens/camera coupling seemed to wiggle some. Owing to

the fact that the lens is no light weight, I believe... at least in my case, my camera to lens

contacts wiggled just enough to momentarily disconnect resulting in error 99. I turned

the camera off, removed the camera batteries, removed and replaced the lens, battery and

turned ON the camera, presto! I now carry the two, camera and lens, equally supporting

BOTH when I move about... the error has never return as a result. My camera body is solid magnesium. Expect some issues from time to time if your camera body flexes. By the

way, this lens by Sigma is fabulous. I've never had a problem/complaint... it was worth

every dollar. JUNEAU.

Puppy Face is right on. Different applications do produce different histograms. I believe this

happens because of differing algorithms from application to application. Bottom line: How's

it look? You might also want to be sure you are using the same color spec from camera to

processing application to final pic to browser.

Gentlemen, gentlemen... I know I'm going to be crucified for my comment, but here goes:

I'll make this short but not too sweet. Assumption: We are all shooting digital... no one

here is shooting film. Thesis: {There is NOTHING a filter can add or subtract from any

digitally captured frame that can not be manipulated in post production with today's

software.} When we capture a digital frame, we are capturing a DIGITAL representation of

what the lens saw NOT a chemical reaction on film... BIG difference. When the capture is

in the digital domain, in the raw, anything... ANYTHING can be adjusted, augmented or

subtracted... conversely, if we were in the film domain (chemistry, one shot!)... we would

need all the help technology and the state of the art could provide. I did not spend nearly

$10K on digital equipment not to capture the image, as nature presented it. We always

have the original 'digital negative' to do with as we please, but, if we capture a 'tinted' or

otherwise falsely altered record of the shoot... we're screwed. We can never return to the

naked original that first captivated our interest. Filters have their place, I'm not convinced,

however, that 'warming' the frame, for instance, during the capture is the proper time or

application. Just one man's opinion, but think about it.

Coincident to the purchase of my camera, I also ordered a Canon ER 85mm f 1.8 USM lens.

Subsequently also ordered two Sigma lenses: 24-70mm f 2.8 DG Macro and the Sigma 70-

200 mm f 2.8 Tele. The Canon lens has been a disappointment from the instant I opened

the box. As you said, the build, in my opinion, is crap, it's soft through f9...totally useless at

f2.8. The two Sigma lenses on the other hand, are beautifully designed both mechanically

and optically. No lens is perfect, but these two damn near are. I can only speak to these two

lenses, the two I received from Sigma. The 70-200mm is as good as Canon L glass...at least

the copy I got. 8-)

According to my 1DS Mark I manual, bracketing for either white balance and/or exposure is

BALANCED to either side of 'normal' and is limited to six (6) stops, +3 to -3. The amount can

be in increments of 1 full stop, 1/2 stop or 1/3 stop per 'click'. The sequence of how it

brackets can be user selected in C.Fn-09. Just a note: Make sure you get the Canon EOS-

1Ds Instruction Manual with your camera, otherwise, you will need to obtain a copy from

someone. 8-)

Peter: Wow! That was quick. thank you so much for the link. That is the very screen and

section I was dabbling in earlier this evening...I'll give these instructions some very careful

reading. Again, thanks so much!

Patrick, Juneau, AK.

Several months ago I purchased a new iMac, my first venture from Microsoft. Subsequently, I purchased

Adobe's Photoshop 'Elements 4.0'. I'm a seasoned PC user. I've processed upwards of 5,000 digital

photos but I've never 'resized' any of them...no reason to, until now. I am brand new to Photo.Net and

I'd like to post some of my work, however, for the life of me, I can't figure out how to resize my pics

down to 1024 pixels on the longest side. I know this has to be stupid simple...but can anyone give me

some help how to do this? I realize a full frame photo will be compromised but I need to make sure I

use a technique the doesn't make it worse than it has to be. Thanks so much for your help!

Baivab: Oh my, four good questions. I'll answer these backward, first (d): The Canon 5D

is in a class by itself, in my opinion. One of the best engineering designs on the planet. It

has 'inherently' better noise performance than the Mark I primarily a consequence of its

second generation internal processor. Does this prohibit equal or near equal quality

frames from a Mark I, I say no, if you're willing to 'tinker' a bit in Photoshop you can get

the same results. I love to 'tinker'...I feel I can fine tune and supplement the 5D's slight

edge. ©: You know, Baivab, I've seen some pretty extraordinary photos on this forum

captured with very cheap, and I mean CHEAP equip/glass. Time has taught me the quality

of the resulting photo has nearly little (and in some cases), nothing to do with the

lens/camera/tripod/filter/classy bag or lens shades...but everything to do with the person

behind the camera. Of course a good camera must be complimented by similar or better

quality lenses, but in the end, it's up to the photographer! (b): ISO and noise are a much exaggerated subject. It seems there are just too many people ready to eat 'hook-line-and

sinker' what Madison Ave is selling, i.e.: Megapixels, high ISO/low noise. To be honest

with you, yes, the noise increases to visibility above about ISO 600 or so...depending on

the subject AND the lighting. Under some circumstances, I have exposed 'keepers' at ISO

1250! Does that mean I can shoot anything, anywhere in any light at ISO 800 and not see

noise, no. Technique, patience, trial and error are the big teachers in this arena. I am

sorry, I have not posted any of my work on the forum as yet, this is my first time on line,

as it were. In the final game, I believe the 5D would be easier to master especially if

you've never shot any amount of film. As I stated, it's a fine camera, great camera. I just

prefer the feel, look and performance of the Mark I. 8-)

I had this same dilemma about a year ago. I shot film for 15 years from about 1970 to

1985. When through a few life changes, lost all my photo gear in '85 or so. Two plus

years ago I began serious research for a camera purchase. My options did NOT include

anything less than FF. I couldn't afford or justify a Mark II but found instead a Mark I. It

was either the Mark I or 5D, period. I read several 'horror' stories of weather seal issues,

among other design probs, and decided on the Mark I. The pictures out of this camera are

almost unbelievable. It has an uncanny, almost 3 dimensional rendering to landscape and

nature photography. It's sensitivity to shadow detail, white balance, brilliant-natural color

is utterly amazing. Contrary to a lot of comments on this forum, I prefer the 'hefty' build

of the 1DSxx series...very reminiscent of my film days. This camera will produce consistent, knock your socks off pictures. I have not had one second of regret purchasing

my Mark I. Hope this helps some. 8-)