EricM

<blockquote> <p>Their DNG converter really isn't a solution (or they could just build the damn thing into their ACR and LR RAW converter). - Dieter</p> </blockquote> <blockquote> <p>It IS built int Lightroom and has been pretty much from day one. ACR can save a DNG too.<br />Now, if you have an OLDER version of either, and a NEWER camera that it doesn't support, because those bad camera manufacturers are always slightly changing their raw formats with every new camera, for no reason, then you would need the DNG converter which too, would have to be <strong>updated</strong> to understand this new raw file. - Andrew</p> </blockquote> <blockquote> <p>I wasn't very clear, apparently. I wasn't talking about saving as DNG but opening/converting a RAW file (even one that isn't supported by ACR/LR). I get a new camera and my older version of ACR/LR can't deal with it. Yet, a DNG converter is made available to convert the RAW file to DNG and then I can open that DNG file in my old ACR/LR version. Just adds a step to the workflow. - Dieter</p> </blockquote> Clear and comprehensible to almost everyone. Perhaps spell it out to Andrew the next time with "Their DNG converter really isn't a solution (or they could just build the damn thing into their ACR and LR RAW converter) instead of making us download it separately."

<p>This might be of interest, Joe<br> <br />http://blog.thomasfitzgeraldphotography.com/blog/2015/11/what-makes-fujis-x-trans-sensor-unique-an-excerpt-from-my-fuji-x-trans-lightroom-processing-guide-booklet</p> <blockquote> <p>Nothing wrong with full frame, just as there's nothing wrong with Fuji X-Trans APS-C. The obvious weight issue advantage lies within Fuji and if one is interested in staring at hundreds of images for hours comparing Fuji X-Trans imagery next to full frame imagery, you would come to the conclusion that Fuji has the edge, I have.</p> </blockquote> <p><br /> Me too, Don. I'm loving this 24mp x-trans III.</p>

<blockquote> <p>So how do users find the latest generation of "serious" mirrorless cameras. Do you think they're a mature technology yet? Or do we have some way to go?</p> </blockquote> <p><br /> For me, it's not about the technology, it's about the glass. And Fuji has it over Sony. And Nikon for that matter. My Fuji 10-24, 16-55, and 50-140 zooms are better than my equivalent Nikon trinity set of zooms in terms of sharpness and image stabilization. The Fuji 56 f1.2 and 90 f2 are top notch primes! Fuji has been making lenses for some of the biggest names in cine and still photography for decades. <br /> <br /> I finally tested the waters with the Fuji x-t1 a year ago and it soon became my main camera. If I needed faster AF or my mini-studio with Nikon sb speedlights and pocket wizard tt5 ac3 system, then I would revert back to a Nikon dlsr. I've now had the x-t2 since Sept and the AF is faster than all my Nikons and consequently have started selling off my Nikon gear. I keep one Nikon dslr simply because I sometimes have to set up three sb speedlights into softboxes for a location portrait. It wont be long though before Fuji catches up in the ttl flash dept. <br /> <br /> I don't shoot jpg but apparently they are the best SOOC jpgs on the market. The raws from the the Fuji take less massaging in post than the dull flat Nikon nefs do. Customer service with Fuji is outstanding and there is almost no need for a Fuji Pro Service as more time is spent in transit than actually at Fuji. This is amazing and I'm not used to that turnaround. This can not be said for Sony. Or Nikon. The wifi app for Fuji to Android phones is brilliant compared to anything else I've used. Sometimes I have to put my camera in sensitive areas with sensitive people so I put it on a tripod, walk away, open my phone, and I get live view on my phone. I can control almost all functions of the camera and with the silent electronic shutter, everyone is happy! So you've asked if the technology is here yet? In my opinion, not only is it here, but it has surpassed Nikon and Canon.</p>

<p>Thanks for the reminder of that, Brooks. I <a href="https://petapixel.com/2014/09/19/simple-lightroom-plugin-shows-you-what-focus-points-your-camera-used-when-you-pressed-the-shutter/">read about it on Petapixel</a> a couple years ago and ment to give it a try.<br> https://petapixel.com/2014/09/19/simple-lightroom-plugin-shows-you-what-focus-points-your-camera-used-when-you-pressed-the-shutter/</p>

<blockquote> <p>Their DNG converter really isn't a solution (or they could just build the damn thing into their ACR and LR RAW converter). - Dieter</p> </blockquote> <p> </p> <blockquote> <p>It IS built int Lightroom and has been pretty much from day one. ACR can save a DNG too.<br />Now, if you have an OLDER version of either, and a NEWER camera that it doesn't support, because those bad camera manufacturers are always slightly changing their raw formats with every new camera, for no reason, then you would need the DNG converter which too, would have to be <strong>updated</strong> to understand this new raw file. - Andrew</p> </blockquote> <p> </p> <blockquote> <p>I wasn't very clear, apparently. I wasn't talking about saving as DNG but opening/converting a RAW file (even one that isn't supported by ACR/LR). I get a new camera and my older version of ACR/LR can't deal with it. Yet, a DNG converter is made available to convert the RAW file to DNG and then I can open that DNG file in my old ACR/LR version. Just adds a step to the workflow. - Dieter</p> </blockquote> <p> <br> Dieter, you were very clear to everyone. Your writing is great. Andrew on the other hand often misses key words in peoples questions and posts. Another tendency for him, perhaps a greater one, is to argue with people (It IS built int Lightroom) and then complete his statement by saying the same thing (you would need the DNG converter which too) you originally stated. That "camera profiles" thread was classic.<br> <br> Fun place, argue.net</p>

<blockquote> <p>Their DNG converter really isn't a solution (or they could just build the damn thing into their ACR and LR RAW converter).</p> </blockquote> <p>No kidding. And furthermore, if it was built in and people didn't have to download it separately, dng might actually gain traction instead of waning.</p> <blockquote> <p>Now, for the longest time, I have resisted the move to the subscription model but recently bit the bullet. I still don't like the model one bit; the thought to eternally pay for the use of a piece of software grates on me to no end. </p> </blockquote> <p>I love it, actually. It's much easier to install and jump to different computers with it. Best though is that before the subscription CC model, Adobe stock was $35. Now it's $112! I'd buy more ABDE as Adobe just announced that they will be releasing their mobile apps on the Google Chromebooks and for free! This is kind of a big deal. Do I need to say IMHO?</p>

<blockquote> <p>It IS built int Lightroom and has been pretty much from day one. ACR can save a DNG too.</p> </blockquote> <p>You misunderstood what Dieter said.</p>

<p>You can say it, Barry</p>

<p>If you need to convert to dng in order to open raws with CS5, then yes I would upgrade to CC in order to cut that dng conversion step out of your workflow</p>

<p>"<strong>Latest</strong> Lightroom learning sources"</p> <p>Latest. Andrew, you routinely miss key words in people questions. There's nothing "latest" about the site in your contribution. It's three years old, and now forgotten about.</p> <blockquote> <p>as like George and myself but unlike Eric, all three of us are Adobe LR Beta testers.<br> </p> </blockquote> <p>Oh whoopee. Anyone with an email address back in 2006 was a beta tester if they wanted, including myself. I still have my 1.1 install cd on the book shelf.<br> <img src="http://68.media.tumblr.com/1d4b9efcc9145dfc5dd3969417776ec7/tumblr_ok27p3EtEy1sk9xpyo1_1280.jpg" alt="" /></p> <p> <br> </p>

<p>The most recent Jardine post is a year ago and its for apologising for a two year old post on his Lightroom 5 videos being presented in Flash player? I couldn't find a single article on Lr 6 CC. Nice clean site but seems abandoned...<br /> <br /> The three most popular Lightroom video resource sites are<br /> <a href="https://phlearn.com/photoshop-lightroom">Phlearn</a> https://phlearn.com/photoshop-lightroom<br /> <a href="https://www.lynda.com/in/Photoshop-Lightroom">Lynda.com</a> https://www.lynda.com/in/Photoshop-Lightroom<br /> <a href="https://www.creativelive.com/lightroom-tutorials">CreativeLive</a> https://www.creativelive.com/lightroom-tutorials<br /> And after all these years, I still really like<br /> <a href="http://tv.adobe.com/product/lightroom/">Adobe Tv</a> http://tv.adobe.com/product/lightroom/</p> <p>For bogs, I like<br /> <a href="https://www.lightroomqueen.com/">Lightroom Queen</a> https://www.lightroomqueen.com/<br /> and<br /> <a href="http://lightroomkillertips.com/">Lightrom Killer Tips</a> http://lightroomkillertips.com/</p>

<p>Congratulations! But why did it take weeks to do this little test? Is this how long it took Apple to replace your first 2016?</p> <p><a href="http://planeteric.ca/">Planet Eric</a>. I love that so much I bought the domain! http://planeteric.ca/. Thanks Andrew, you're the best!</p>

<p>Congratulations! But why did it take weeks to do this little test? Is this how long it took Apple to replace your first 2016?</p>

<p>Yawn...just a skipping record with more words and no results. It's no wonder you're not on social media trying to pull this make-believe crap. </p>

<p>That low-end NEC can be found cheaper elsewhere, with no ebay seller, AND comes with SpectraviewII. I don't know anyone that owns one, though. How about you, Andrew? Does it serve you well? </p> <p>Here you are, Dave. Dell's killing it lately. 7680 x 4320, the 10-bit panel sports the same resolution as four 4K monitors! <a href="/digital-darkroom-forum/petapixel.com/2017/01/06/dell-releases-crazy-8k-monitor-33mp-resolution-100-adobergb/">Dell Releases Crazy 8K Monitor with 33MP Resolution and 100% AdobeRGB </a>petapixel.com/2017/01/06/dell-releases-crazy-8k-monitor-33mp-resolution-100-adobergb/</p>

<p>Noreen: Does anyone have a recommendation for a car costing under $5000?<br> <br> Andrew: A Ferrari.<br> <br> Can you answer the op's question, Andrew, and suggest a monitor for under $500?</p>

<blockquote> <p>Does anyone have a recommendation (or two?) for a monitor costing under $500?</p> </blockquote> <p> <br> What GPU is in your MBP? Are you fine with sRGB or wish for RGB, Noreen? BenQ and Asus both make great 27" sRGB monitors for this price range. Options open up if you go for 24". <br> <br> I have three 27" Ultrasharps hooked up to my desktop and find they are great workhorses and also suggest one. My 13" MBP powers one @1920x1200 just fine for basic email and surfing. With the increased popularity of 4K, you can find used Dell u2711 on Cl or ebay for decent prices now. NEC is crème de la crème but sounds over-kill for you unless you're doing pre-press? I'd save your pennies.</p> <p> </p>

<p>(I guess we're going for another 100 replies...)</p> <blockquote> <p> <br> the new MBP was faster than the older one.<br> </p> </blockquote> <p>Was? What happened to it? Returned it due to a number of the issues they are having? But now it makes sense why you wont do a simple Lr speed test comparison between your old and new...you don't have one!<br> </p> <blockquote> <p>IF and WHEN you can figure out the testing parameters for import asked for, maybe I will.</p> <p> </p> </blockquote> <p>Maybe you wont. In the "other" thread ( <a href="/digital-darkroom-forum/00eB7U" rel="nofollow">http://www.photo.net/digital-darkroom-forum/00eB7U</a> ) you also danced around with insults while avoiding a simple Lr speed comparison test. I don't know about anyone else, but with all the know-it-all chest-pounding and badgering you do here and elsewhere with everyone over the decades, one can't help but think that this Lr test should be an easy task for your apparent skill set. Your Lr workflow is fine as one would assume they would be set up similarly on both machines by now. Real world use would be to import 1000 raws, continue to work while building previews, select all, make some adjustments or apply a preset perhaps, then export to jpg size 12 with sharpening. Really basic stuff. Chop chop, please come back with some numbers and prove to us that spending $5000 on a 2016 MBP and dongles has actually sped up Lr!<br> </p> <p> </p>

<p>Correct Carl, there is no full-proof media of any type. Multiple copies and in multiple mediums is full-proof though so for me it's hard drives, optical disc, and cloud.</p>

<p>That's why I love using Adobe Bridge and ACR. You can do almost all the same DAM functions and do it without the hassle of a sluggish proprietary database. Plus it's the best navigator in the universe for your computer. But I have to say I love Lr for non-destructive editing and its publishing services and is 90% of my workflow. But it sounds like Collections, Smart Collections, and keywording might be helpful for you to learn in Lr. I'd stick with it and go through some tutorials or ask more specific questions? </p>

<p>Mr Ad Hominem, I'm not sure how you can flat out lie to us when the link to the thread is contained in this thread? How about saving everyone the trouble of revisiting it and just re-post the method and results of your Lr test between your two mbps?</p>

<blockquote> <p>The only problem users have with Time Machine is OS-X (MacOS now) updates often rewrites the Time Machine backup software where it often doesn't work or works intermittently on some Macs. This is the current situation with MacOS 10.12.X.</p> </blockquote> <p> <br> As well of having multiple back up copies, we may need multiple software apps doing system backups. Carbon Copy Cloner and Chronosync are also popular.<br> </p> <blockquote> <p>On the other hand, I have CDs 20 years old and perfectly readable. Unlike hard drives, which can be erased or corrupted in a single careless moment, optical discs are nearly indestructible unless scratched or otherwise damaged. I've restored more than a few hard drives using my CD/DVD/BD archive discs.<br /><br /></p> </blockquote> <p>Golden advice. I burned $22 cds in 1996/7 via Toast and they still open. The cheap 100 spindles from Costco in 2003 also still read. Optical is great because a virus caught today on a hard drive wont be on the dvd that was burned yesterday. They can also be rinsed off after the fire fighters leave as they have been known to survive house fires...mechanical drives, not so much. And thieves do not seem to steal spindles of disks these days but a bank of shiny external hdds usually go with the computer. I couldn't imagine not having the precious ones on optical disc. <br> <br> For Windows, SyncBack SE is great. If in a hybrid Windows Mac sytem like myself, SyncBack Touch can be installed on Mac (and Android) and then files can be sent/recived through SyncBack SE.<br> <br> Sandford, you might wish to google the 3 2 1 backup strategy. BackBlaze has a starter post. https://www.backblaze.com/blog/the-3-2-1-backup-strategy/</p>

<blockquote> <p><strong>Wrong</strong> again. I provided tests that proved (to me, an actual experienced user of the product) that my new MPB was faster than my older one. </p> </blockquote> <p> <br> Tests? Where? All I know is that after repeated requests for a simple Lr import/export test between the 2013 and the 2016 mbp, that everyone else on the webernet can preform, you instead timed the duration of copying 17 raw files from memory card to their desktops. Then without even using an Adobe product in that test, you somehow determined that Lr and Ps is quicker on your 2016 mbp. Meanwhile, respectable individuals and bloggers have posted their rigours testing methods and conclude that Lr and Ps is sower on the 2016. But you say otherwise?</p>

<blockquote> <p>There's something about a battery life difference between using Safari and using Chrome, even more interesting. </p> </blockquote> <p>Chrome is known to be the most resource-intensive browser out of the big three and will effect battery life on a laptop more than the others.</p>

<blockquote> <p>And here's what the buyers on Amazon are stating thus far (13-inch Laptop with Touch Bar):<br /></p> </blockquote> <p> <br> Yes, aware. I'm not sure why you think going to the effort of finding and posting Amazon data is somehow counter to an argument I'm not even making? MBP historically sells well when first released, it's nothing new. Two months ago though, the first MBP was in eleventh spot, on page two of amazon best sellers. I use Amazon instead of otherwise reviews on biased sites that are monetizing off adverts or clicks. <br> </p> <blockquote> <p>Certainly from armchair reviewers, some without a lick of experience using the product.</p> </blockquote> <p> <br> That's big coming from someone that can't even do a simple Lr import test for us and compare his 2013 to the 2016.<br> http://www.photo.net/digital-darkroom-forum/00eB7U<br> <br> (Wish to go another 100 replies? An easy peaceful solution for all of Pn is to just stop quoting me in threads.)</p>