Auto reduction of fill flash on a 20D

On my 10D I could use custom function 14 to enable or disable the auto reduction of fill flash. The custom function 14 on the 20D just gives a choice between evaluative or average E-TTL 2.

I'm wondering what has happened to the fill flash auto reduction feature? Is the E-TTL 2 good enough to not need this feature any more? Or is it found under another custom function?

The ONLY way to do away with the Automatic Reduction of Fill Flash on the 1D Mark II and 20D is by putting the Camera's metering mode to Manual. See the post in the EOS Flash Sticky on Underexposure with ETTLII. It pays to read the whole thread.
Scott

scottbergerphoto wrote:
The ONLY way to do away with the Automatic Reduction of Fill Flash on the 1D Mark II and 20D is by putting the Camera's metering mode to Manual. See the post in the EOS Flash Sticky on Underexposure with ETTLII. It pays to read the whole thread.
Scott

Y'know I ask about one question a month. If you don't want to answer fine, but spare me the superiority.

DaveG wrote:

scottbergerphoto wrote:
The ONLY way to do away with the Automatic Reduction of Fill Flash on the 1D Mark II and 20D is by putting the Camera's metering mode to Manual. See the post in the EOS Flash Sticky on Underexposure with ETTLII. It pays to read the whole thread.
Scott

Y'know I ask about one question a month. If you don't want to answer fine, but spare me the superiority.

Dave,
I have no idea what you are talking about. I was just trying to help. This question and ones similiar to it have been asked alot lately. You aren't the only one that reads the responses to your questions. The answers are meant to help anyone who may have the same question. The thread I referred to is 5 pages long and worth the whole read. Whatever you are seeing just isn't there.
PS: You may not have liked the form of the answer, but at least you got the answer to your question.
Scott

I'm not sure what Dave is mad about?
Scott answered the question with a really nice link?
Perhaps he misinterpreted the "it pays to read the whole thread", which is really a helpful tip as the thread is very long.
I think Dave owes Scott an apology.

drisley wrote:

I'm not sure what Dave is mad about?
Scott answered the question with a really nice link?
Perhaps he misinterpreted the "it pays to read the whole thread", which is really a helpful tip as the thread is very long.
I think Dave owes Scott an apology.

No I think that got it right. I read "It pays to read the whole thread." as a suggestion to not to waste time and to do better research before asking a question. I'd guess that 50% of the questions here are redundant, and I try to answer - the ones that I can - patiently and fully. If I want to take the time to do so who cares?

I've read comments from posters suggesting that "it's been done" or "wrong forum". My feeling is to either answer the question or ignore it. But pointing out that better research " ... read the whole thread." puts the lie to "There's no such thing as a dumb question."

Actually, DaveG, I think you got it all wrong... In fact, I know so.

"It pays to read the whole thread" is a good tip, and has NOTHING to do with "wasting time" or "doing better research".
If that was the case, he would have said "it pays to do better research", not "it pays to read the whole thread". It makes no sense.
That can be a problem with the written word, you can often get many meanings from the same sentence. But, I say with 100% confidence you got it wrong.
Plus, I know what scottbergerphoto's manerims are like in this forum, and he is nothing but polite and helpful, as is shown in his reply.

Exactly Drisley, and Thank You. The linked thread is 5 pages long on the web and prints out to 22 pages. Interspersed with all the talk are some very useful tips. No more, no less.
Regards,
Scott

Calm down everyone. Let's breakdown Scott's reply:

This is the answer to the original question.

See the post in the EOS Flash Sticky on Underexposure with ETTLII.

This is where additional information and/or a more comprehensive explanation may be found.

I guess this is where there's some misunderstanding. Apparently, the link above is a very long thread with information dispersed throughout the whole of it. Hence, the recommendation to "read the whole thread".

I suppose the above statement would be negative if you had previously been directed to that link and then returned without finding the answer. Then, the interpretation would be like "the answer is there, you just didn't read the whole thread". This is not the case though. The answer has already been provided. The link is just a bonus.

oh my god, I found someone who prints out forum posts

I've had to refer to that thread so many times myself, that I printed it out and put it in my Flash Binder.
Scott

You have a whole binder full of flash related material?

excellent link, Scott, very informative, thanks a lot!

As a matter of fact I have one 2" binder for small flash(speedlights) and one for studio lighting. What can I say? If I find a good article, I print it or copy it and stash it. It's a gift.
Regards,
Scott

You're welcome! (And your signature line is right on!)
Scott