Modify the '% of Slide to Show Main Images'

[goddi]

Greetings Barry,

Well, I have been around digital photography a long time and also Photoshop and rightly or wrongly I will always size my images to the size they will be seen.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by this. I understand this for printing purposes but not so much for PTE. If my original image from the camera is 4928x3264, what is wrong with resizing it to 1920x1080? My main purpose for doing this is to reduce the overall final size of the slideshow, but retain quality. I have looked at images at both sizes in PTE and I can not see any quality difference. Maybe if you stare really really closely, you might be able to detect something but the increase in the final file size does not justify it. And, when you bring a 4928x3264 sized image into PTE, it still shows the black strips on the left and right sides and you still have to use Cover Slide or % of the slide to show main images to fill the 16:9 aspect ratio. You suggested that I 'oversize' the image (ie, reducing quality) when I use 118% to fill out the 16:9 aspect ratio. Isn't this also being done if I use Cover Slide to accomplish the same thing?

I really can't see any point in spending a large amount of money on a camera to deliver quality images, then spend time and effort to take pictures, then put them in a slide show trusting to luck to some degree. Sorry, that doesn't sound quite how I meant it, no offense intended.

I see the benefit of having a camera that delivers high quality images from the stand point of being able to produce images for large prints AND images that you can reduce for a slide show. But, I don't think we are trusting anything to luck. I think we are all trying to make a slideshow of high quality but still be efficient in size. There has to be some balance.

Broadly speaking (very broadly) there are two types of slide show. Image based and story based. Story based slide shows are not quite so dependant on great quality images, because the story/commentary generally carries the whole thing.

I think I am more in the 'story based' group. But I also want high quality images. I don't think they are mutually exclusive.

In image based slide shows and from what I see, they contribute 95% of what is posted, the images must be really, really good, if the slide show is to have appeal and staying power.

Why give up ANY chance of that to save a few minutes.

Gary

[goddi]

Gary,

...Your method of adding %18 for your own display can possibly vary the view on other users displays.

========================

Greetings Nobeefstu,

Are you saying that if I use the % of the slide to show main images to increase my images to fill the O&A's 16:9 aspect ratio window, the PTE slideshow might show up differently on other displays? The 118% I use works for my images but you can put in whatever % that works for your images to eliminate the left and right black strips. I don't see it as adding a percentage for 'my own display'. It is only to fill the 16:9 aspect ratio that I am assuming will show up exactly the same on any wide screen monitor or TV. What am I missing here?

Thanks... Gary

[Barry Beckham]

Gary

what is wrong with resizing it to 1920x1080

Nothing and that is my point. If you want a slide show of 16:9 format then you should pre size your images to 16:9 format at 1920*1080 to retain the very best quality and only make images larger if you want to animate them. Forgive me if I have mis-understood, but that didn't appear to be what you were doing at the start of the thread. In that case you have no need of % of the slide show.

You originally said that

My camera's images need about a 118% amount to move the left and right edges of the image to fit the aspect ratio window in PTE.

They shouldn't need that at all if you do actually size your images at 1920*1080. You now seem to be indicating that you do size your images to 1920*1080 and in that case I am even more confused because I thought you indicated that you felt that took too long in an image editor.

[fh1805]

Gary,

In your reply to Barry, you wrote:

If my original image from the camera is 4928x3264, what is wrong with resizing it to 1920x1080?

4928x3264 is an aspect ration of 3:2. Well, almost! It sounds like your camera is a Nikon which, like mine, has some "extra pixels" over and above the 3:2 ratio (my D70 has 3008x2000).

1920x1080 is an exact 16:9 aspect ratio.

As you have discovered, you cannot fit a 3:2 image to a 16:9 hole and have a perfect fit side-to-side AND top-to-bottom. If you want your image to fill the 1920x1080 area (i.e. to be seen as 16:9) you must do one of three things:

- zoom every image a little bit to get it to fit the screen from top to bottom (as you are doing now)

- mark every main image as "Cover screen" (which you know about but don't do because it's too time consuming)

- "crop" your images in some way to get them to be 1920x1080

There is a technique that I use in Photoshop Elements to do just that cropping. The technique also allows me to assess the "third image" - the one that forms briefly as the two slide transition from one to the other. I'll try and describe it briefly here.

1 - File...Create...New... a new image of size 1920x1080 with a background colour of transparent (I'm going to refer to this as the dummy image).

2 - File...Open... a handful of your images (not too many, you don't want to overload the PC memory)

3 - Change the display to show these images tiled (part of every one visible at the same time)

4 - Use the Move tool to drag a copy of each real image onto the newly created 1920x1080 dummy image

5 - Once you have copied all of them you will have all the real images appearing, each in a layer, in the dummy image file.

6 - You should now "un-tile" the display back to showing just one file and select the dummy image file

7 - If you want to change the order of the layers just drag them up/down in the layer stack. I work with first image at bottom of stack just above the dummy image layer.

8 - Now hide all layers except the dummy image and the first real image.

9 - Select the real image and do Ctrl+0 to show this image filling the available space in Photoshop.

10 - Click on the drag handles and bring the edges closer to the edge of the dummy image area.

If you need to or want to, use Ctrl+0 again to enlarge the image as seen in the display area. This will allow you to refine the re-sizing. What are doing here is re-composing your image in a 1920x1080 "viewfinder". Now unhide the second real image and repeat steps 8 an 9 on it.

To assess the "third image", use the Photoshop opacity control on the second real image so that you can see the first image through it. You may find that you then want to make further adjsutments to the size and placement of the second image. Don't forget to return the opacity to 100 after you do this! As you process each real image file to your satisfaction, you can close down its original file copy. I recommend that you periodically save this assembly as a PSD file.

Add more real images using the same technique until you have all your images processed. I usually work with a maximum of thirty layers in each PSD file - no good reason for that, it just seemed a reasonable file size to ask my PC to handle. For a large sequence I have multiple PSD files. To achieve continuity of the design in that large sequence, each new PSD file is created from the previous one by deleting all layers except the dummy image layer and the top-most real image layer.

To create the JPEGs for the sequence you then hide everything except the dummy layer and the first real layer, select the dummy layer and do Ctrl+0 to give it one final visual check, then do File...Save As... giving it the name that you want and choosing your JPEG quality.

The beauty of this approach, to my mind, is that it is "non-destructive" until the final File...Save As... At any point, including months later, you can re-open the PSD file and re-adjust the sizing and positioning of any of the layers and produce a slightly different version of that image.

I don't claim to have thought of this technique all by myself. I was shown it at an AV day in the UK by another of the forum members - Jill K B. Thanks, Jill!

regards,

Peter

[goddi]

Gary

what is wrong with resizing it to 1920x1080

Nothing and that is my point. If you want a slide show of 16:9 format then you should pre size your images to 16:9 format at 1920*1080 to retain the very best quality and only make images larger if you want to animate them. Forgive me if I have mis-understood, but that didn't appear to be what you were doing at the start of the thread. In that case you have no need of % of the slide show.

You originally said that

My camera's images need about a 118% amount to move the left and right edges of the image to fit the aspect ratio window in PTE.

They shouldn't need that at all if you do actually size your images at 1920*1080. You now seem to be indicating that you do size your images to 1920*1080 and in that case I am even more confused because I thought you indicated that you felt that took too long in an image editor.

=====================================

Greetings Barry,

Sorry for any confusion I have made. Let me restate what my problem is because I am confused a bit from your response.

I resize my image, using Faststone, from my in camera's 4928x3264 , to 1920 on the long side, to reduce the overall size of the final PTE slide show. I do Levels and USM in Photoshop, but no cropping. So my images are not really 1920x1080 but come out as 1920x1272.

When I bring these images into PTE, with its aspect ratio set to 16:9, they do not fill the O&S's 16:9 screen. I have black strips on the left and right sides. Then I input about a 118% amount to the % of the slide to show main images, which gives me a global change (Cover Screen does not).

However, you say I don't need to use the % of the slide to show main images function if I have already resized my images to 1920 on the long side. Here is were I am confused. Whether I bring in an original 4928x3264 sized image or my resized 1920x1272 image (both 1:5), I get the black bars, left and right.

When I use the % of the slide to show main images, I don't mind that some of the top and bottom portions of the image are beyond the 16:9 screen. This gives me the opportunity to crop each image buy just moving the image up or down to get the best crop. I prefer this non-destructive method and very adjustable method then doing it in a photo editing software.

So, what am I missing if you say an image that is resized to 1920 on the long side does not need the % of the slide to show main images (or manually zooming in on the image) to get rid of the left and right black bars? Is there some other setting that I have missed?

STOP THE PRESS:

Just before I was going to post this response, I took an image and actually cropped it to 1920x1080 and brought it into PTE. I now see, says the blind man. This cropped image does fill the Q&A's 16:9 aspect ratio screen, no black bars! I had always assumed that if one side of the image was 1920 then it should fill the left and right sides of the 16:9 O&A screen, and the tops and bottoms would just extend beyond the screen. But since my resized images are 1920x1272, for whatever reason, I get the left/right black bars and I have to use the % of the slide to show main images to bring the left/right edges to fill the screen.

So now the question is, if I set the Q&A's aspect ratio to be 16:9, why does it not automatically fill the 16:9 screen to the left and right edges, regardless of the resized height of the image?

Gary

[davegee]

Re: the stop press.

So now the question is, if I set the Q&A's aspect ratio to be 16:9, why does it not automatically fill the 16:9 screen to the left and right edges, regardless of the resized height of the image?

If by this you mean the 1920x1272 images then you need to examine the definitions of "Fit To Screen" and "Cover Screen".

One means that it fits INSIDE the screen (in this case) and the other means that the image COVERS the screen completely. You knew that?

Now to my POLL - if Igor were to allow you to make "Cover Screen" a GLOBAL DEFAULT somehow it would allow you to insert your 1920x1272 images and get the same effect on all slides inserted (until you altered the default).

I am still not absolutely certain that the 118% "workaround" is doing what you think it is doing. JMHO!!

Best

DG

[goddi]

Re: the stop press.

So now the question is, if I set the Q&A's aspect ratio to be 16:9, why does it not automatically fill the 16:9 screen to the left and right edges, regardless of the resized height of the image?

If by this you mean the 1920x1272 images then you need to examine the definitions of "Fit To Screen" and "Cover Screen".

One means that it fits INSIDE the screen (in this case) and the other means that the image COVERS the screen completely. You knew that?

Now to my POLL - if Igor were to allow you to make "Cover Screen" a GLOBAL DEFAULT somehow it would allow you to insert your 1920x1272 images and get the same effect on all slides inserted (until you altered the default).

I am still not absolutely certain that the 118% "workaround" is doing what you think it is doing. JMHO!!

Best

DG

=============================

Davegee,

Yes, I think I understand what Fit To Screen and Cover Screen does. It seems to be useful for some people to apply it to individual images or Objects in O&A, as it does now. I don't use it but I am sure some people find it good for their purposes. But I would leave it where it is. It seems to me that if you choose the 16:9 aspect ratio, and you bring in a 1920x1272 landscape image, the left and right edges of the image would be placed at the left and right edges of the screen, as it does for the 1920x1080, and let the tops and bottoms extend past the screen. The portraits would brought in relative to what the landscape images are. Giving left and right black strips only makes it necessary to include more steps to remove them.

However, one of the problems with making Cover Screen a global default (at least how it works now) is that it is applied to portrait images the same way as it does to landscape images. The left and right edges of the portrait images are expanded so that the tops and bottoms are proportionally pushed out of the screen, making it useless. Also, it is all or nothing. You have no control over the results. With % of the slide to show main images, you can set the exact percentage and it is applied to each image (landscape or portrait) relatively equally. And you can always come back and tweak the percentage.

The reason I think it is a better idea to make % of the slide to show main images the global default function (and moved to Project Options) is that you can specify the exact percentage you need to cover the screen for your particular images (that is fill the left and right edges of the screen, and let the tops and bottoms extend beyond the screen), so the portraits get enlarged (or reduced) by the same percentage you input. For my Nikon D7000, the 188% works fine; for my other cameras, I can use a different global percentage, or adjust certain images if different images are combined in one slideshow in the O&A/Animation/Zoom function.

I resize my images in batch to 1920 on-the-long-side and with '80' or less quality setting to reduce the overall final slideshow size, but no cropping. This way, I do not have to spend time in my photo software doing any destructive cropping to exactly fit all side of the image into the 1920x1080 screen. I already have the landscape image's left and right edges moved to fill the screen. Now all I have to do is to 'crop' the images by adjusting the vertical position of the image--with no destructive cropping done. For me, it is simple, easy, adjustable. I don't consider it a 'workaround' but a good workflow.

And this is why I suggested to put a slider in so that it would be obvious that you could increase the percentage in the % of the slide to show main images function. It is also strange that once you put in a percentage greater than 100%, and select Set for Existing Slides, it does not retain that value when you come back to that menu as it does if you chose a percentage less than 100%.

Gary

[davegee]

But I would leave it where it is.

Perhaps I didn't explain properly - it needs a GLOBAL setting in PO as well as the current one in COMMON. That way when you look at COMMON it will default to whatever you set in the PO.

It seems to me that if you choose the 16:9 aspect ratio, and you bring in a 1920x1272 landscape image, the left and right edges of the image would be placed at the left and right edges of the screen, as it does for the 1920x1080, and let the tops and bottoms extend past the screen.

Only AFTER you press COVER (currently).

The portraits would brought in relative to what the landscape images are. Giving left and right black strips only makes it necessary to include more steps to remove them.

This is why the COMMON MODE would stay where it is - to cater for the anomalies. Alternatively, if the portrait image is 1080 high pressing SIZE in "Size of Parent etc" would sort that out.

However, one of the problems with making Cover Screen a global default (at least how it works now) is that it is applied to portrait images the same way as it does to landscape images. The left and right edges of the portrait images are expanded so that the tops and bottoms are proportionally pushed out of the screen, making it useless. Also, it is all or nothing. You have no control over the results. With % of the slide to show main images, you can set the exact percentage and it is applied to each image (landscape or portrait) relatively equally. And you can always come back and tweak the percentage.

The reason I think it is a better idea to make % of the slide to show main images the global default function (and moved to Project Options) is that you can specify the exact percentage you need to cover the screen for your particular images (that is fill the left and right edges of the screen, and let the tops and bottoms extend beyond the screen), so the portraits get enlarged (or reduced) by the same percentage you input. For my Nikon D7000, the 188% works fine; for my other cameras, I can use a different global percentage, or adjust certain images if different images are combined in one slideshow in the O&A/Animation/Zoom function.

% of the slide to show main images is already a Global function in PO?

DG

[goddi]

But I would leave it where it is.

Perhaps I didn't explain properly - it needs a GLOBAL setting in PO as well as the current one in COMMON. That way when you look at COMMON it will default to whatever you set in the PO.

Ok, I understand now. It was not clear that you would keep it in O&A's Common.

It seems to me that if you choose the 16:9 aspect ratio, and you bring in a 1920x1272 landscape image, the left and right edges of the image would be placed at the left and right edges of the screen, as it does for the 1920x1080, and let the tops and bottoms extend past the screen.

Only AFTER you press COVER (currently).

Yes, I understand that it does this in Cover Screen. When an the image (such at a 1920x1272 image) is added to the Screen in O&A, why does it not set the image's left and right edges automatically to the left and right edges of the Screen, as oppose to giving black strips?

The portraits would brought in relative to what the landscape images are. Giving left and right black strips only makes it necessary to include more steps to remove them.

This is why the COMMON MODE would stay where it is - to cater for the anomalies. Alternatively, if the portrait image is 1080 high pressing SIZE in "Size of Parent etc" would sort that out.

However, one of the problems with making Cover Screen a global default (at least how it works now) is that it is applied to portrait images the same way as it does to landscape images. The left and right edges of the portrait images are expanded so that the tops and bottoms are proportionally pushed out of the screen, making it useless. Also, it is all or nothing. You have no control over the results. With % of the slide to show main images, you can set the exact percentage and it is applied to each image (landscape or portrait) relatively equally. And you can always come back and tweak the percentage.

The reason I think it is a better idea to make % of the slide to show main images the global default function (and moved to Project Options) is that you can specify the exact percentage you need to cover the screen for your particular images (that is fill the left and right edges of the screen, and let the tops and bottoms extend beyond the screen), so the portraits get enlarged (or reduced) by the same percentage you input. For my Nikon D7000, the 188% works fine; for my other cameras, I can use a different global percentage, or adjust certain images if different images are combined in one slideshow in the O&A/Animation/Zoom function.

% of the slide to show main images is already a Global function in PO?

Yes, but I meant to say that % of the slide to show main images should be moved to Project Options, with the slider with negative and positive positions (instead of Cover Slide), right below Aspect Ratio.

Gary

DG

[fh1805]

Gary,

The images, as you have them sized for use in PTE are 1920x1272: this is not 16:9. PTE's default option is "Fit to Slide". Your images are being "Fitted to Slide". Think of it like this: PTE positions the image centrally in your Slide (in a space of 1920x1080); it sets a notional zoom to 1% and then increases it until one pair of edges of the image reach the edges of the Slide. In your case, the height will fill the Slide before the width does. Result: black bands at each side when the image is deemed to "Fit to Slide". The only way to have a 16:9 Slide filled with all of an image, with no black bands and no overlaps beyond the edge of the Slide is to use an image that is, itself, an exact 16:9 aspect ratio. Yours aren't.

Peter

[goddi]

Gary,

The images, as you have them sized for use in PTE are 1920x1272: this is not 16:9. PTE's default option is "Fit to Slide". Your images are being "Fitted to Slide". Think of it like this: PTE positions the image centrally in your Slide (in a space of 1920x1080); it sets a notional zoom to 1% and then increases it until one pair of edges of the image reach the edges of the Slide. In your case, the height will fill the Slide before the width does. Result: black bands at each side when the image is deemed to "Fit to Slide". The only way to have a 16:9 Slide filled with all of an image, with no black bands and no overlaps beyond the edge of the Slide is to use an image that is, itself, an exact 16:9 aspect ratio. Yours aren't.

Peter

=================

Peter,

Well, your explanation finally shed some light into my brain. I see the 'logic' of how Fit to Side and Cover Slide works is now. I saw what it did but I did not understand it as you explained it. I think one of the problems is the use of the word "Slide". I think its function would be better understood if "Slide' was changed to "Screen". An image is added to the Screen (the black box or window), not to a Slide. When I think of 'Slide', I think of the slide film. So in my mind, I read it as 'fitting my image to an image (the Slide)' or 'covering an image (the Slide) with my image'. Never made sense. When you said it "increases it until one pair of edges of the image reach the edges of the Slide", it really clarified it.

I still think that % of the slide to show main images is really useful for those who don't crop their images to exactly 1920x1080 and it should show the ability to input positive percentages for reasons stated in prior posts.

Thanks very much. Gary

[Barry Beckham]

Gary

I don't have any experience of the software your using to prepare images, but can I risk another suggestion. If the majority of the photographic/AV world around you is using Photoshop or Elements, you may want to think about doing the same. Sometimes is great to be different, but sometimes, not so much. Elements isn't that expensive and you can crop and size your images in one simple operation.

You can then easily make your images truly 16:9 and put all these issues behind you.

I have made a short video for you that may help. You can download it from MedieFire below.

http://www.mediafire.com/?clx9po2gom5uhad

[goddi]

Gary

I don't have any experience of the software your using to prepare images, but can I risk another suggestion. If the majority of the photographic/AV world around you is using Photoshop or Elements, you may want to think about doing the same. Sometimes is great to be different, but sometimes, not so much. Elements isn't that expensive and you can crop and size your images in one simple operation.

You can then easily make your images truly 16:9 and put all these issues behind you.

I have made a short video for you that may help. You can download it from MedieFire below.

http://www.mediafire...clx9po2gom5uhad

===============================

Greetings Barry,

Thanks for the video. That is exactly how I resize my images in Photoshop if I am going to make a print. I do use Photoshop CS5 for Levels and USM, mainly. I also use Faststone (free program) for batch renaming, resizing and quality reduction (80 or so). This gets them ready for PTE. I've got many other photo programs but these are my main ones. I don't get too fancy (I don't know how to get fancy). I understand the need to resize an image as you have shown in your video. But for my work in PTE, I just think it is too time consuming to crop/resize each image individually in Photoshop and it is not really needed.

I don't really want to crop my images to exactly 1920x1080 before I put them into PTE. My workprocess of doing the 'cropping' in the O&A window is, to me, so much easier and it is adjustable whenever I might want to tweak it. Since I resize using 1920 on-the-long-side, the height will be, in my case, 1272 (1920x1272). This gives me extra top and bottom portions of the image and the ability to just move the image up or down to suit me while I am in the process of creating the slideshow. It is really interesting how different crops of the same image can change the mood of the image. I can test different crops as I am creating the slide show. As I work with the making of the slideshow while in PTE, it is invaluable to me to be able to do it then, and not have to destructively crop each image before I put them in the slideshow, sort of out of context. Being able to preview the images while in PTE and make adjustment in the 'crop' without being destructive to the overall image makes it the way to go in my book.

I am sure you and others will know exactly the crop they will want and will do it in a software program. I just don't have that kind of eye to positively predict how it will look or should look in the slide show. So I just wait and do it in PTE. Also, I just thought of another reason I don't pre-crop images to 1920x1080. Sometimes, I tend to take the image not exactly horizontal. With the extra top and bottom portions of the image, I get a little more wiggle room to level them out in the O&A window. And more image to pan up or down. I see many good point to not crop exactly to 1920x1080. Just my thinking.

Thanks again for the video.

Gary

[Barry Beckham]

Gary

That is all fair enough, we all have our own ways of doing things and if it gives you the result your looking for, who is anyone else to say you should do things another way, but I hope you don't mind if go ahead and do just that. You said:-

I do use Photoshop CS5 for Levels and USM, mainly. I also use Faststone (free program) for batch renaming, resizing and quality reduction (80 or so). This gets them ready for PTE. I've got many other photo programs but these are my main ones. I don't get too fancy (I don't know how to get fancy).

I am not at all surpirsed that you don't know how to get fancy in Photoshop, as you put it. In my view its not likely you ever will. You have the best program on the planet that will do everything you want to do (CS-5) , but you choose to use all these different editing programs. Ever heard the saying jack of all trades master of none?

What I have found in my travels is that those who use lots of progams to do the same thing (usually because they have means to aquire them, if you know what I mean) never get the best from any of them. There isn't enough hours in the day to become competant with them all. Of course some claim they are, but they spend so much time becoming a technical expert that they rarely produce anything of value.

I appreciate that once you know how to do something in one program, we can be reluctant to learn all over again in another, but by their very nature, image editing programs are all very similar. Give some thought to dumping all those other programs and use the Rolls Royce you already have installed. The one thing Photoshop does have over many others is a vast array of automated tasks. Perhaps there is a way that you can use those in time to speed up the process of creating a slide show.

eg. I have an action that will run on a single button press in CS-5. It will save an image as a Jpeg at any level compression I desire. It will also save the file into the folder where I am making my slide show, so I don't have that tedious browsing around my PC. It even removes that image from the screen revealing the next ready for me to crop to shape. I think DaveG said that in the event that you later want to make a change to that cropped image, its a 20 second job to redo it, or change it.

[Guest Yachtsman1]

IMO batch cropping can never be done successfully, especially when using 16-9, each image has to be assesed & the best area selected before cropping.

Yachtsman1.

[Barry Beckham]

I wasn't suggesting batch cropping at all.

[Guest Yachtsman1]

I wasn't suggesting batch cropping at all.

I didn't say you were but someone sounds as if that is what they do???

Yachtsman1.

[goddi]

Gary

That is all fair enough, we all have our own ways of doing things and if it gives you the result your looking for, who is anyone else to say you should do things another way, but I hope you don't mind if go ahead and do just that. You said:-

I do use Photoshop CS5 for Levels and USM, mainly. I also use Faststone (free program) for batch renaming, resizing and quality reduction (80 or so). This gets them ready for PTE. I've got many other photo programs but these are my main ones. I don't get too fancy (I don't know how to get fancy).

I am not at all surprised that you don't know how to get fancy in Photoshop, as you put it. In my view its not likely you ever will. You have the best program on the planet that will do everything you want to do (CS-5) , but you choose to use all these different editing programs. Ever heard the saying jack of all trades master of none?

Well, our definitions of "fancy' might be a bit different. What I meant was that I prefer to keep the image as honest and authentic as possible without making it something it was not. I don't say it should not be done; I just don't get into that much. Before the world of digital, I only shot slide film. I liked it because I had to compose, focus, set the f-stop, etc., and that was it. Once the slide image was taken, that was it. I didn't do printing so I got what I got. I liked the challenge--no darkroom to fix mistakes. Some might like to use one big hammer for the job. I prefer to find the hammer that is just right for the circumstances. But I don't mind experimenting with other tools, either. In fact, I just ordered Lightroom 3. Many people say they hardly use Photoshop any more since they got Lightroom. We will see.

You mentioned Photoshop actions. I have made actions and I do use them for processing my images. I don't consider this being 'fancy". It is just a tool. I know that Photoshop can do really cool things, but I find PTE to be the most fund and creative tool I have. I prefer to spend most of my time there.

Thanks for posting your Image Size.zip file. I downloaded it and I will go through them. Looks like a lot of good info!

Gary

P.S. Batch cropping? Not me.

[davegee]

Batch Cropping and Batch Re-sizing are not the same thing.

Easy to get confused?

DG

[Barry Beckham]

I liked the challenge--no darkroom to fix mistakes

Well all I can say to that is you really must make a tutorial and tell me how you do this, because it is often well beyond me and the equipment I have.What we view is very different to what our cameras are capable of recording and image manipulation/darkroom work is a means of closing that gap. I find I do have to adjust the tones my camera records because it often cannot record them correctly. Now I use a computer, once I used a darkroom, so I guess I must have made loads of mistakes. Yes it can fix mistakes and do other things too, but to say you get it right in the camera and don't use anything to fix mistakes, well words fail me.

Have a look at this slide show http://www.beckhamdigital.co.uk/slideshow/slideshow/exposure/exposurePC.zip

let me see if I can change your mind

[goddi]

I liked the challenge--no darkroom to fix mistakes

Well all I can say to that is you really must make a tutorial and tell me how you do this, because it is often well beyond me and the equipment I have.What we view is very different to what our cameras are capable of recording and image manipulation/darkroom work is a means of closing that gap. I find I do have to adjust the tones my camera records because it often cannot record them correctly. Now I use a computer, once I used a darkroom, so I guess I must have made loads of mistakes. Yes it can fix mistakes and do other things too, but to say you get it right in the camera and don't use anything to fix mistakes, well words fail me.

Have a look at this slide show http://www.beckhamdi.../exposurePC.zip

let me see if I can change your mind

===============================

Barry,

You missed my point. You missed that I was talking about 'before the world of digital.' When you shot slide film, you had to do your best to get the correct exposure, etc., in-camera. Right? After you shot the slide film, and it was developed by the lab, you would put it in your slide projector and show it. No way to for manipulation/darkroom to 'close the gap.' We didn't have 'levels', or 'sharpening' or 'shadows/highlights', etc.

What we view has always been different then what our cameras are capable of recording--with digital camera and with film cameras. I don't think people who shot slide film went into the dark room to make the slide itself better...they did it for printing purposes and could fix mistakes for printing. So I am not disagreeing with you about, now in the digital age, we can make adjustments to digital images.

But I think you must agree that, even in the digital world, as a photographer, you want to make the best image you can in the camera, as we did in the old days with film. When I said I liked the challenge, I was referring to having to get the exposure, etc., the best I could when using slide film because we did not have Photoshop back then (yes, I am that old). Thank goodness we can now fix 'mistakes' and make improvements in the digital world, which is needed and can be done more now with digital, then with film.

Gary

[Barry Beckham]

Gary

Thank goodness for that, I don't mind getting the wrong end of the stick sometimes I agree with you. Exposure remains the holy grail of photographers.

In fact I think the exposure today is more critical than in our slide and B&W days for this reason. Our expectations in those days, were pretty low compared to now, although we didn't know it at the time. I have a number of lectures coming up in the next few months and those lectures are on Photoshop and PTE of course. However the theme is about getting the exposure as good as you can, prior to any Photoshop work.

I do one to one and group tuition here and what amateurs are doing is this. They do not understand contrast and exposure and therefore the images they take into Photoshop are often already way beyond redemption (even for Photoshop). Well, for any decent images they are. They know PS is powerful and it sort of makes them take their eye off the exposure ball, thinking I can fix that later. Often they can't because either the image is too far gone or their PS expertise isn't quite good enough to do what they would need to do.

Only last week a photographer sat beside me and said they under-expose ALL of their shots 1 stop to control highlights. It was advice given to them at their camera club. Have you ever heard anything so ridiculous. Compensate when the camera is going to get it wrong, but reduce exposure across the board is just daft.

I always say that, yes. Photoshop can come to our aid at times when we make a mistake, after all, we all do that sometimes. However, if it can right some exposure mistakes, think what you might achieve if you started off with a better exposure in the first place. What is the point of having to climb a steep hill, just to get to where you should have been when you pressed the shutter?