klt

Thank you Andrew. I am using Classic CC. I have searched the Adobe Forum and haven't been able to find the solution for this new updated version. I'm continue to search and hopefully someone here on Photo.net or Adobe themselves can help me :)

I have the most recently updated LR...... LR is filling up my (Windows) C: drive which is 128GB SSD. How do I move my files/LR to my D: drive? Everything that I have read so far is pertaining to LR versions prior to the latest update and hasn't been helpful. Thank you in advance, Kim

Digital Dog, Is it true to say that most Macs use 72 ppi and 96 ppi for PCs? I guess what I'm super confused about is the actual cropping inside the developing module of LR. Does this not set your dimensions for your file automatically as far as pixels per long edge? Or, does it take this new sized image and then you must resize in the export according to pixels? I'm using a Nikon D7200. So,according to my metadata my RAW dimensions are 4000x6000. I went in and cropped it in the develop module at the 4x5/8x10 apect. If I export as is and just keep the 300ppi, I should be able to get an 8x10 printable image of good quality? The cropped dimensions are 2343x2929. That would make it an image size of 2343/8=293dpi, correct? This should be a good quality print?? Do I need to not crop in the develop module and only use the long edge and height? So, how do the pros deliver digital files to their clients without having to do this for each and every individual image???? Sorry for all of the questions, I'm really trying to understand.....

I am trying to export from LR and I have read so much regarding file sizes, ppi, etc . I am thoroughly confused now. I understand (or at least I think I do) that a high resolution digital image file should be at least 300ppi and anything above that I heard was overkill. Now, for the confusion to begin.... What happens if I crop during developing mode of LR? Does this change the whole resolution, file size, etc.? I was using the 8x10 crop tool thinking that I would only need to then export it with a 300ppi and no other dimensions and I was good to go. However, I was told not to crop in developing. Why? How do I determine what file size I need along with the dimensions in order to send it to someone for multiple prints at various sizes of 8x10 or less? I will also need settings for websites, Facebook, Linked-In, etc. I have the FB one at 2048 pixels on the long edge as FB has specified and I use 300ppi (again, is it true I shouldn't crop the photo in developing?). However, I'm confused with all of the other file size recommendations/requirements. Anyone willing to clarify and help me? Thank you, Kim

<p>I am searching for a great tutorial on how to exactly use the Nikon SB-910. I'm a visual person so video would be great. I checked on You Tube and all I found was a review on the SB-910. I would like to know how to set it up so the camera controls the speed light whether I have it on or off camera. I'm finding myself having to manually change it when it's off camera. The store where I bought it...... Well, they aren't familiar with the SB-910.....<br> Also, powering down the speedlight, etc. would be great info...<br> One other question........ Do I need a radio trigger for off camera with the SB-910 for most situations, especially if I am going to use 2 off camera speed lights or a system? Just want to plan ahead.</p> <p>Thanks in advance,<br> Kim</p>

<p>I wanted to share with you what I did this past week. I took your advice and increased the ISO, decreased aperture and increased shutter speed. Did not use a tripod though. I post processed all except last image. <img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/18311638-md.jpg" alt="" width="524" height="680" /></p> <p><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/18311639-md.jpg" alt="" width="453" height="680" /><br> The next two images I struggled again with clarity/crispness. I'm not sure why.<br> <img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/18311637-md.jpg" alt="" width="414" height="680" /><br> ISO 280, 50mm, f 8.0, 1/500sec</p> <p><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/18311645-md.jpg" alt="" width="453" height="680" /><br> ISO 800 52mm, f 5.6, 1/1000sec</p> <p>Well, I'm showing improvement overall. Thank you for your advice. I'll keep working:)</p>

<p><strong>Barry Fisher </strong>Thank you. I have a LR 2 day course today and tomorrow. However, I'm not so sure it's going to be able to give me everything I need. I appreciate your advice. I will look into it.</p>

<p><strong> Emmanuel Enyinwa</strong> I want to thank you for commenting. Reading between the derogatory remarks against this Photo.net group (BTW which was not necessary to get your point across), I was able to ascertain that you feel my photos are good enough. Yes, I am fairly new to Photography. I have played around with it for more than 17 years but didn't know or understand anything about it, really. I truly did better with taking images when I was younger (BTW, I'm not that old, just 44 is all). Life tends to change your perception of how you view the world and I am thankful and blessed to be where I am. Now, in life, I want to take it up a notch and not settle for "good enough." I have a passion and a goal. I want to UNDERSTAND why things worked out they way they did. I don't want to accept it for just BECAUSE. Yes, I am a problem solver. I feel that if I have a REAL understanding for the results which I am obtaining, I at least have tools from which I can work and better myself in this profession. I find people in the industry have truly lost the art of using their camera the way it should be used and getting results purely with the awesome technology that can make even the worst image look better. I don't want to be that individual. I want it to be because I learned the skill and art of photography. (I've pondered going to a photography school. Yet, I have to weigh the pros and cons and the reality of saving for my own children's college funds.) There are so many people out there calling themselves photographers who shoot only in auto, sport, portrait, children, etc. modes that they don't really have to think at all. Then, they sell their images. If I was a seasoned photographer, this would really rub me the wrong way. <br> As far as my imagination........... I accept that critique. You're somewhat spot on with the images I have shared. There was not imagination at all. I was practicing technique. I had a group of 6 people surrounding me and it was difficult as a newby to get "lost" in what I was doing and allow my imagination to take over. Once I acquire the consistent and reliable skills needed for my goal, then my imagination will soar. Like I mentioned, and several other very supportive individuals have indirectly said on this forum, I need to take one step at a time. So, with all of what you call "analysis paralysis", I have tons of options and tools with which I can work and continue to progress in this field. And, for those who productively agreed to disagree, showed us why through explanation or images other methods are better, etc. I am greatly appreciative for their input, thoughts, and guidance. I may not at this moment understand all of the concepts that they mentioned, nor the jargon; however, I have saved their comments for a later date. Once I master my basic camera manual skills, then I have something to look forward to learning along my way. <br> Regarding my image that you post processed. Yes, it does look great in Black and White, the subject is crisp looking and it appears that you did a good job. But, why is the background so dark? This again is my inquisitive mind... I truly am curious so that I can later use that philosophy as a possible tool in the future. <br> I am not a professional, yet. However, I have noticed alot of people using black and white these days. I usually use it to hide my short comings in a photo because they are definitely less noticeable to the untrained eye and it's appealing to the consumers today because it gives it a "modern" look for today's fads and the general public doesn't know what they are really looking at. So, it truly is a go to for me on occasion. But, I know there's way more to B&W photography than the photo that I took and the post-processing of the image.<br> It is my hope that you do not find my response to your post as an attack on you personally or become offended in any way. It was meant to be one of conducive communication and accepting conductive criticism for myself and hopefully for you as well. Thank you again.</p>

<p>Thanks everyone. I will make sure to set my camera and LR export on sRGB. I will Google how to activate the color management in Windows. However, I am not sure how to "embed color profile" into my image. Is there a setting on LR CC or is this just during the LR export settings only, and LR already does it automatically?</p>

<p>Hi there again. I thought I'd ask this question since you are discussing editing......</p> <p>Why in the world does the pictures that I edited look gray on the Windows photo viewer and when I had them printed at a cheap printer? Yet, in LR, they look okay??<br> Here is an example:<img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/18307490-md.jpg" alt="" width="453" height="680" /><br> This is before editing.<br> <img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/18309264-md.jpg" alt="" width="453" height="680" /><br> This is after. When I looked at it in LR it looked okay. But, as I see it here, look at the developed pic, etc. It is gray. This happened to a few pics I took and tried editing.</p> <p>This pic looked way too vibrant in LR and it was not edited. However, when viewed in Windows photo viewer and printed it wasn't so vibrant. I toned it down a bit and it was <br> <img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/18307493-lg.jpg" alt="" width="1000" height="1500" /><br> This pic looks way too vibrant in LR and I wasn't sure ho to even begin to try to get a natural look to it. If at all possible.</p> <p>Thank again. </p> <p> </p>

<p><strong>Charles Monday -- </strong>Thank you for trying to prevent me from making a huge mistake with my RAW files. I just want to clarify my thinking process and the way I have tinkered up until now in LR for post-processing. In agreement with Mike Blume, what little I have been taught about LR is that I should use my RAW files right out of the camera and upload them into LR. Then I am able to post-process them there. After I am finished, I have saved the changed images (don't know how else to describe them) in a different format (I chose JPEG because as that was what was required by FB or the local Walgreens). I am still able to clear out all of my changes that I made in LR and it can return me straight back to my original RAW file without any harm. However, if I do make changes and I want to keep them. I must save them as a separate file. Otherwise, my changes won't be permanent. LR directs your RAW files to a folder in the cloud or hard drive or wherever the user determines the folder to be stored. This has been my understanding of LR all along. So, I am not permanently changing my RAW file.<br> <strong>Mike Blume -- </strong>Is what I stated above correct or did I miss something along the way? Like I said, I am still learning the lingo, the programs, and most importantly how to take sharp, clear images. And, if I am misinformed I definitely appreciate feedback. Thank you for helping me!<br> <strong>John Crowe -- </strong>You have been extremely helpful. I love how you showed me the settings and the effects. It has put things into perspective. I was worried about using the sharpening tool at all. Thank you for the encouragement to give this all a try and let me know that I'm totally not going in the wrong direction:)</p>

<p>So, here it is, my second and last allowable post of the day. That's why I waited to see what everyone was going to say:)<br> Wow! Lots of info I still need to learn. I think for now, I'm going to stick with post-processing in RAW since that's what I've known so far and it's straight from the camera. That's not to say that I won't try TIFF, I'm just not familiar with it, other than it's considered to be "lossless". I am somewhat familiar with JPEG compression and it is not what the engineers call "lossless". No, I'm not an engineer. Far from it! But, I did work with one who taught me alot about compression. I'll be looking into that a little more eventually.<br> <strong>Stephen Lewis --</strong> The info regarding my 85mm lens being better at a certain aperture is great to know. Is there a resource available for such info regarding specific lenses. Or, is it one of those things you obtain through experience and trial/error? I'm going to a 2 day course on Lightroom which hopefully will help with my post-processing. So far, what little knowledge I have of it has been self taught through the Adobe tutorials and a book I'm reading on it. This class is hands-on and hopefully will help make things more clear for me.<br> <strong>Jochen Schrey -- </strong>Thank you! I have heard the rule of Shutter Speed needing to equal 1/focal length x crop factor (in my case 1.3). Thus, I thought I was safe. However, I did not know to double it.You provided alot of info to consider and I greatly appreciate it. Also, thank you for providing me with tools to work with and giving the perspective that I may be asking for too much at this point. I need a dose of good reality at times:)<br> <strong>E.J. --</strong> No, I have not performed the fine-focus of each lens at this time. I was originally told that I didn't need to do that with newly purchased lenses. However, you have changed my mind that it's something I should at least try. This way I truly can't blame my equipment :) I also copied your link for future reference!<br> <strong>John Crowe -- </strong> I have to admit, you made my image look so much better with your post-processing. I can't believe it was something that I took. I really appreciate you showing me what it can look like and you shared the info of what you did. Thank you! I'm inspired to try it myself and see what I can come up with. Also, thank you for all of the great ideas. Once I get the A, S, and use of a tripod down and results are much better, I'd like to take a course on lighting. Any suggestions??<br> <strong>Randy Cooprider --</strong> I have been told that the D7200 does well at higher ISO. However, I have not had good luck with higher ISO. Of course, it most likely was my technique and settings, knowing what you all have taught me now. Thus, I will revisit this idea as well.<br> <strong>Steve Murray -- </strong>How did you know that I needed simple info like that for photo.net :) Thanks!<br> I will be working on my post-processing over the next day or two. And, will go out and shoot some more. I am excited to try the techniques you all suggested. I'm learning that I need to go back to baby steps first, then build on them. I do want you all to know, that I was hesitant to post on this forum. I wasn't sure if I'd get any feedback at all. And once I did, I couldn't believe how supportive, constructive and feasible it is for me to use. You all have given me hope that maybe my goals are achievable in the future with practice, trial/error, and dedication.Thank you!</p>

<p>Thank all of you for your great suggestions. I planned on replying to each one of you separately. However, due to Photo.net's policy, I am a new subscriber and I am only permitted two posts per day..........<br> <strong>Mike Blume--</strong> Great idea! I never even considered using a tripod because I heard somewhere that hand held is typically done anywhere greater or equal to 1/60sec. Thus, I felt I would be okay. However, your suggestion makes complete sense and I'm going to give it a try. Thank you for your help and support. As far as DOF, I will be working on that as well. I guess I was wanting it all. And, maybe it's still a little early for that right now:)<br> <strong>Charles Monday -- </strong>Thank you so much for the info. You brought up a good point. After viewing my images, I wondered if distance of lens to subject might have been my problem. Now that I see your calculations, it definitely is a contributor. Thank you for including the link to the calculator. I will be putting that in my "toolbox". I will also look into the file conversions you suggested. I do have a question... Once I convert the files to TIFF or JPEG, will it affect the post-processing? <br> <strong>Kerry Grim -- </strong>I am going to definitely attempt the tripod idea. I did not post-process the images that I posted on photo.net. Thank you for the point of the hand held rule. I sometimes take things literally and need to learn to play around a little more to see what works. Other times, I get so wrapped up in two things and I forget the third and even the most import aspect of the situation. I'm hoping that comes with more experience and practice.<br> <strong>Leszek Vogh --</strong> I will be bumping up my ISO and shutter speed. I will trying out the tripod too. As far as the lenses, I tried them on one of their new cameras at the shop and they performed well. So, I thought I was safe. Thank you for you suggestions.<br> <strong>Alan Olander -- </strong>When I sent my camera to Nikon to be repaired, they outsourced it to a company named Cam Tech. I guess they are a certified repair center for Nikon on the East Coast. The work that was supposedly done on the camera: Repaired the AF unit; adjusted the AF operation; adjusted the mirror angle; checked communication; modified firmware upgrade; cleaned the CCD; and checked the general check and clean. Due to extreme lack of communication with Cam Tech (which Nikon is aware of), I'm not sure why exactly or what exactly they found and felt the need to do these things. But, that's another story and definitely water under the bridge. I will definitely take your suggestion and fine tune my lenses. I asked the camera shop that exact question and they told me it was not necessary for every lens I purchase, only if I seem to have trouble with it. So, I wasn't sure if it was me or the lens. However, I will definitely revisit that idea. Thank you.<br> <strong>John Kent Hill -- </strong>I am definitely going to try some post processing today. Great idea to create copies of different sized images. Thank you for the encouragement!<br> <strong>Steve Murray -- </strong>Thank you for the suggestions. I was wondering what the images would look like in an 8x10 or slightly larger. I will be looking into the adobe camera raw. I believe I get that with the adobe cc. I will look you up on Photo.net since I didn't see a link at the end of your post. Thank you!</p> <p> </p>

<p>Wow! Thank All of you for quick responses and giving me great advice. I will definitely try your suggestions.<br> <strong>Charles Becker - </strong>The images I posted on the photo.net url are <strong>not</strong> processed. I truly took them straight out of the camera and uploaded them from the SD card. The only thing that may possibly be processed is if the camera does something itself during compression, etc. I have played around in Lightroom with other images of mine. I tend to stay away from clarity, contrast and sharpening. I guess my reasoning is that I have heard of so many others using it and "overdoing it" which resulted in ruined images. It's my beginner mindset. I have a subscription to Adobe CC which includes Lightroom and Photoshop. I am still learning what Lightroom does and Photoshop looks very overwhelming at this point. I hope to get better with the whole processing. It's just a step by step method and I thought starting with my focusing would be the better way to go. However, if my focus is acceptable, then maybe my priority should be processing instead. I will definitely look into it. Thank you!</p>

<p>Let me apologize in advance for a lengthy post. But, this problem has been my nemesis....<br> I am searching high and low for the answer to "Why are my images not crisp?" I have taken classes, sat through webinars, I have bought new lenses (4 of them recently), I have sent my Nikon D7200 in for repair (per suggestion of the camera shop referred by several professional photographers), I looked into having a professional photographer follow me around and tell me what I'm doing wrong (that's definitely not in my budget), and so here I am. My last effort to save the day. It's either I solve this problem or I'm going to put the camera up on a shelf and call it quits. Yes, I'm to that point.....<br> My equipment consists of the following: Nikon D7200 (with new autofocus and updated firmware along with mirror adjustment per Cam Tech); Nikon Nikkor lenses -- 50mm fixed 1:1.6, 85mm fixed 1:1.6 (I have tried my kit lens 15-105mm and a Nikon VRI 70mm-200m f/2.6 with the same results). I do own more lenses, however, I did not use them on this trip.<br> I took these images on 11/05/2016. The time of day was 3:30pm- 5pm. The images looked great on the camera display zoomed in at least 100%. I got all excited and uploaded the RAW/NEF files into Lightroom. I ALWAYS view them at 1:1 because somewhere along the way, I was told that if the images are clear at 100%, then it is good, if not great. So, being an over-achiever, I want at least good, but, really want great. Then, BOOM! All I saw was out of focus/grainy (not sure how else to describe it) images. I then looked at the JPEG files on whatever Windows viewer has to offer. The JPEG files were a little better, but, not enough to say, "Yes, I think I've got it!" I then sent off a whole pile of images to the local Walgreens just to get an idea of what they may possibly look like printed (didn't want to spend alot of money on mistakes). The printed images look a whole lot better. I have to admit, that I have seen some "Photographers" actually sell that type of quality. But, I want to improve my skills, not settle.<br> So here are some of the images: http://www.photo.net/photos/klt <br> <br />Here is the metadata for each image as well. No, I haven't learned the proper way to post images on this site's forums. So, bear with me, please. (It's my first day)<br> Image 0072 -- ISO 320, 50mm fixed lens, f/5.0, 1/125sec<br> Image 0095 -- ISO 400, 85mm fixed lens, f/4.5, 1/160sec<br> Image 0134 -- ISO 320, 85mm fixed lens, f/1.8, 1/640sec<br> Image 0237 -- ISO 200, 85mm fixed lens, f/2.8, 1/200sec<br> Image 0330 -- ISO 400, 85mm fixed lens, f/2.8, 1/200sec (focus eye on your left)<br> Image 0426 -- ISO 160, 85mm fixed lens, f/2.8, 1/125sec (focus on baby's ear on your left in hope to address DOF issues since not all subjects were in a straight line)<br> When I was shooting these images, I used AF-S, center weighted focal point set at 8pt. I set the autofocus "beep" on to make sure the camera was recognizing the subject as "in focus" and I didn't second guess myself. I did not use a speedlight. I did not use focus point wrap-around (truthfully, I'm not sure what that really is...). I did take a couple images on Auto to compare. There wasn't much difference. I took these in Aperture priority mode. My autofocus is set on Focus, not shutter button. However, I have in the past, had it on the shutter button with no difference.<br> I apologize, once again, for a lengthy post. However, I am extremely grateful to any input on what in the world I could possible be doing wrong. I am use to constructive criticism and welcome it. That's truthfully a great learning experience. So, feel free to tell me honestly what you feel the problem is.<br> Thank You!</p>