marc_rochkind

<p>I've done what Gus has recommended: "Try a bit of heat to possibly soften the hardened lube & debris". Excellent results.</p>

<p>And, if you want to see some of her photos, here are some links to my SmugMug pages (500+ photos in all):</p> <p>http://basepath.smugmug.com/LangeFSA/Lange-1933-37-large/n-C7tBk/<br> http://basepath.smugmug.com/LangeFSA/Lange-1938-42-large/n-C3Jhq/</p>

<p>I have the $9.99 plan. In my experience, Adobe is helpful is ironing out little problems like this. Give them a chance to make things right if you encounter problems, but I don't see why you wouldn't be able to install the new apps under your new plan.</p>

<blockquote> <p>Youd think that with windows having the custom profile installed then the windows image viewer would pick that up.</p> </blockquote> <p>I wouldn't think that. ;-)<br> Andrew is The Man on this stuff... follow closely what he's saying.</p>

<p>One thing that SD cards have is a little switch that makes them read-only. I'd engage that switch right away while you're horsing around with various options. Also, in addition to trying all these apps, you might see whether the Mac Finder can see the files. If so, copy them to a folder on your internal drive, and do all experiments with that copy.</p> <p>The suggestion to use a card reader is a good one. Many Macs have an SD card reader built in, or you can buy one for $10 or so.</p>

<p>Time Machine does keep earlier generations of every file, so you might search back in time until you find something usable.</p>

<p>The file-system folder structure is the physical organization*, and should be designed to best serve physical needs, the most important of which are storage (being able to go to additional volumes as they're needed) and backup. I think backup is easiest to set up if images are organized by date. You don't have to backup up images that are, say, a year old and are no longer changing as often as ones that are current and are still being changed. And a date organization allows you to easily check that images have been backed up.</p> <p>I use my asset manager (now LR; was iView several years ago) to organize images logically and to search for particular images. Database-oriented asset managers like LR don't care at all about the physical organization, so you can optimize the physical and logical organization simultaneously.</p> <p>The upshot of the above is to physically organize by date, and to use multiple logical organizations within LR, as many overlapping organizations as you wish.</p> <p>The above is essentially what Peter Krogh recommends in "The DAM Book" (DAM stands for Digital Asset Management).</p> <p>------<br> * Technically, from the perspective of the file system, folders are a logical organization, but what's going on inside the file system is irrelevant to the OP's question. Folders can be usefully thought of as the physical organization.</p>

<p>"... people never, ever feel the need to show any appreciation"<br> <br> This is an inaccurate generalization. I volunteer time for several non-profits, my local homeowner's association, and often photograph things for people as a favor. I have universally received repeated appreciations for all of these efforts.<br> <br> I'm sure your tale is true, but that's no reason for speaking so negatively about people in general.</p>

<p>I'm in a similar situation, with a Nikon D700 and its numerous lenses mostly staying at home nowadays. Some of these compact cameras are fairly large. The Sony RX100 is the perfect choice, as its lens collapses into the body and the whole thing easily fits in a pocket.</p>

<p>I think the import panel is the wrong place to evaluate JPEG vs. raw. LR is considering them as one image. Once imported, you can access either. Also, if you could see both during import, the comparison would be meaningless, because the raw is being shown with some sort of default rendering, not at all indicative of what you could reach with a bit of work in the Develop module.</p>

<p>I got slapped by PN for posting about my own products a while back, so I assume this is off limits as well. Also, the borrowing you speak of is one per month, or zero for July if someone has already borrowed. You'd be better off using KDP Select to make the books free for a few days, to try to get some reviews. (I have Kindle Unlimited, so I can read them for free, and I will take a look.)</p>

<p>Reading through these comments, I didn't see anything about protecting HD backups from surge, fire, flood, earthquake, explosion, etc. Ask yourself if you can afford to lose everything if any of these rare events occur. There needs to be a way of keeping backups far away from your computer. This is the primary advantage of the cloud, and if you don't use the cloud, you need to provide this protection another way.</p>

<p>If you stop your subscription, and have the CC version of LR, you can use all features of LR except the Develop and Map modules. In other words, you have full access to all work you did prior to the subscription end, but you can't create new work. Seems reasonable to me.</p> <p>I now have up-to-date versions of LR and PS for $120 per year, which is (1) less than what I was paying before, on average, and (2) gives me an up-to-date PS, whereas before it was usually a year or so behind.</p> <p>To my way of thinking, nearly all software is a subscription and has been for decades, but usually with an erratic payment plan, rather than a predictable one.</p>

<p>It's a fine article, very well researched. But the question of whether these photos are "art" is a minor part of the article, and is a silly question anyway, so your own title is a bit misleading.</p>

<p>Of course, much info isn't yet available, but one question that I can't find being raised (not even on Thom Hogan's site) is about Aperture's parametrized (a.k.a. non-destructive) edits. Will those move to the new Photos database, along with the processing engine that interprets them? Will an Aperture user have to move over only fully-baked images? I don't use Aperture (although I have a copy), but if I lost my Lightroom parameterized edits, I'd consider that a disaster.</p> <p>I suppose it's possible that Adobe could come up with an inexact, but workable way to convert Aperture parameterized edits to ones that worked with LR, which might be better than losing them entirely.</p> <p>Are any Aperrture users wondering about this?</p>

<p>The OP is in the "midst of a product job." I don't understand all this advice to save the work-in-progress in anything other that the app's native format. For long-term saving once the job is complete, the arguments for TIFF make more sense. I don't think anyone outside of the Photoshop development team is in a position to know what information might be stored in a PSD that doesn't have a representation in TIFF. It's very unlikely, pretty much impossible, that PS can save data in TIFF that it can't store in PSD.</p>

<p>In case what you have to do isn't clear:</p> <p>1. Crop the image to a ratio of 630:270, which is the same as 7:3.<br> <br> 2. Resize (reduce, most likely) the image size to 630x270 pixels.<br> <br> It sounds like you did #2 before you did #1, which results in distortion of the image. As several people already mentioned, the composition of the image may not lend itself to looking good when you crop to 7:3. Nonetheless, that's what you have to crop to. There's no choice in the matter.<br> <br> An optional step before step #1 is to letterbox the image. To do this, you place it on a black canvas that has dimensions in a ratio of 7:3. Then you can skip step #1, as the image is already in the right proportions. You do step #2 as before.<br> <br> All of the above are really easy in Photoshop.</p>

<p>Photographer Sean O'Connell in <em>The Secret Life of Walter Mitty</em> (played by Sean Penn), which takes place in the present day, uses an F3/T in a scene in what's called ungoverned Afghanistan.<br> It seems the film makers knew what they were doing. While the weather-sealed F3P might have been a better choice, as he's seen photographing in harsh conditions (flying into a volcanic eruption standing on the wing of an airplane), from what I've learned, the F3 remained in production until 2001, so it's very reasonable that he would still be using one or more of them.<br> Another good choice: The roll that plays a key role in the film is Tri-X, including, obviously, missing frame 25. That is of course the film he would be using for the shots on that roll, considering where he was shooting it. (Hint: no where near ungoverned Afghanistan--don't want to give anything away.)<br> So, Sean O'Connell is the real deal. Not just some poser.<br> (By the way, I really liked the movie. I suggest you ignore the critics and go see it.)</p>

OK, I know it's a little late to file a complaint, but in the Oct. 1957 issue of Modern Photography Exakta is claiming to be the first 35mm SLR with a penta prism finder. My understanding is that the Contax S and Rectaflex were first, with the Contax S having an earlier patent filing. <p> Any idea what Exakta means exactly, and whether there is any basis for their claim? <p> One theory is the use of the word "is" in the phrase "is the first." Perhaps by Oct. 1957 the Contax S and Rectaflex, being no longer made, could no longer be referred to in the present tense? That seems like a stretch. <p> --Marc <p> <img src='http://basepath.com/images/PhotoNet/ExaktaAd-Oct57-cropmarked.jpg'/> <p> <img src='http://basepath.com/images/PhotoNet/ExaktaAd-Oct57sm.jpg'/>