paddler4

Also, lots of files related to the OS could be either out of date or corrupted. You could run the Windows file system checker and let it repair what it finds, https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/topic/use-the-system-file-checker-tool-to-repair-missing-or-corrupted-system-files-79aa86cb-ca52-166a-92a3-966e85d4094e. that might not help, but it's easy enough to try.

My old windows machine became cranky because the graphics card was not sufficient for current Adobe programs. I upgraded to a new computer with Windows 10 in June 2022 and stayed on it only Sept 2023 because that was still what my university was using. I had zero problems with Adobe under Windows 10 after getting a new computer. The transition to Windows 11 was seamless.

sorry, i misunderstood.

You might get more answers in the wet darkroom forum. This is the forum for digital darkroom work.

It depends on what you shoot. For me, having the 70-105mm range and the IS trumps the difference in optical quality. I had both the EF versions and agree that the II is not greatly better than the I, but it did avoid zoom creep. I now use an RF 24-105, and it's one of my two most used lenses.

In this case, more than good enough, if it's in mint condition. The original 70-200 f/4 L was a superb lens.

Given how easy uninstalling and reinstalling adobe products is now that it's a subscription model, sometimes the simplest thing to do with a problem that won't go away is to uninstall and reinstall

By 1:4, do you mean f/4? If so: I've owned both the first generation and the second generation 70-200 f/4 L lenses. Both are excellent. The current II is truly a superb lens. In fact, I bought it because there was a rumor that it was one of the EF lenses that would be discontinued, and I wanted to buy one before they disappeared. That apparently didn't happen; they are still available at retailers. It's so good that I kept it when I switched to mirrorless and use it with an RF adapter. it is NOT the case that the f/2.8 is a better lens. It's just one stop faster. And the cost of that, when I bought mine (the RF specs are different) was that the f/2.8 was twice the price, twice the weight, and a lot bulkier. On a telephoto, I never need the slightly narrower DOF f/2.8 offers, and in the very rare cases where I need the extra stop, I just boost ISO by one stop. On modern cameras, a one stop increase in ISO is not a big deal. So for me, the f/4 was clearly the superior choice. I've had one or the other of these lenses for a long time, probably well over a decade, and I've never once regretted not buying the f/2.8.

An electronic, non-global shutter can create rolling shutter artifacts when the subject is fast moving. The point of the global shutter is to allow a fully electronic shutter without rolling shutter artifacts. I don't have this problem, but it can be avoided by using electronic first curtain shutter, which is fast enough for anything I do. See https://photographylife.com/mechanical-electronic-shutter-efcs

I don't know why people are getting so excited by this. I think the article's title is foolish and misleading. A global shutter will change photography for a very, very small subset of photographers, and for them, this is a big deal. For the rest of us, it provides no benefit at all and exacts a price in other aspects of image quality. I have zero use for a global shutter, and while I know a lot of photographers, I can't think of one who would benefit from this. For people who photograph car races and the like, maybe. And if you read about this, you'll see that Sony had to make other compromises to accomplish this. Bottom line is that if this were offered as an option for the camera I recently bought, I wouldn't have bought it. Remember what Ansel Adams said: the most important piece of photographic equipment is the 12 inches behind the viewfinder.

Certainly true. Lots of Windows and Linux machines don't match Adobe requirements. I had to specify a GPU when I ordered my current desktop. OOH, Adobe is virtually the sole software vendor for which I have ever found that true, and I switched away from Apple after the Apple II. The only other example I can think of is that one of the software packages I use holds your entire database in memory and therefore required specific amounts of memory to be able to handle large databases, but that had nothing to do with the PC architecture. People in my group ended up using a compute server farm running Linux rather than their Macs or PCs for really big jobs.

I can only speak from my experience, that's not been my experience. I can't recollect the last crash I've had with LR Classic (always kept up to date) on either my desktop or my laptop. Neither is super high end, but both are only a few years old, and the desktop meets Adobe's listed requirements. Seems to me that one has to take into account market share, as Robin noted. Also, a lot of the PC GPU problems are from people who haven't checked to make sure their machines meet Adobe requirements.

I'd post this in the digital darkroom forum. The Dog is the person to give you the best answer. However, not being an expert, I'll take a stab at it: 1. yes 2. I suspect this depends on the monitor, but I would calibrate it to sRGB, which is a standard, unlike the characteristics of your particular monitor. I use a NEC wide gamut monitor, the same model Dog uses, and NEC advises first calibrating the monitor and then using the full native gamut. I think that's because a printer isn't exactly Adobe RGB, and the idea is to get the best possible rendition and then let the ICC and softproofing narrow it if need be. But really, ask Dog. He's the expert.

I don't take huge numbers of photographs with my digital cameras, but I take a lot more than I did with my film cameras. And that's a good thing. I feel free to experiment and take chances without worrying about cost or the number of frames I had left in my camera or my bag. And I can essentially change "films" with the press of a button. No more stopping everything to take out a changing bag, carefully rewinding just enough, inserting another roll, etc.) The complexity of modern digital cameras is unavoidable: the manufacturers have to spread the costs of development over a wide variety of potential buyers. I don't take videos with my digital cameras, so all of the increasingly sophisticated video capabilities are wasted. I don't even understand some of them. Doesn't bother me in the slightest because I simply ignore those features. They never get in the way of doing what I want to do. The only time I find the complexity a nuisance is when I buy a new camera and have to spend a few hours figuring out how it works, how to customize it for my needs, and what I can ignore. What's omitted from this discussion, if I'm not missing something, is the vastly greater control digital gives us. I can do things that I was incapable of doing with analog (e.g., focus stacking), and I can do others vastly more easily and better (tonality adjustments, sharpening, color adjustments, yada yada). I loved my old FTb, which I still have, but I haven't shot a single roll of film since I bought my first DSLR years ago,. Re people who use digital to shoot far too many images: not my problem. Unlike, say, the many people who misuse the capabilities of cars, they pose no danger.

Doesn't take any math to recalibrate a monitor. Just a little bit of patience. I use an X-Rite, but it has the same issue: by default, it prompts me too early. In the days of CRTs, calibration apparently went off kilter fairly quickly. It doesn't seem to with modern displays, at least the ones I've had. So, I set the software to remind me less often, and then I ignore it until I'm ready to spend the time doing it.