EricM

<p>How do you carry on like this even after I post four links from page one of a Google Search result demonstrating that everything isn't "hunky dorey"? WFT does hunky dorey even mean? At least you're entertaining for us while we have our morning coffee, Andrew.<br /></p> <blockquote> <p> <br> Or you don't and have <strong>no</strong> actual and direct experience, just google? Big, big difference Eric.</p> </blockquote> <p> <br> Yes, most people would google and read what issues there may be before blindly installing a new OS on a machine that they depend on. With you going ahead and doing so on your cute little laptop Andrew, speaks volumes to people that actually do photography. Here's an idea, big shot. I'll grab some popcorn and observe while you come out from under this little rock called Photo.net and into the real world of Adobe's group on Facebook and tell these posters that everything is just fine.</p> <p>https://www.facebook.com/groups/pshopandlightroom/permalink/1307560929306717/?match=c2llcnJh</p> <p>https://www.facebook.com/groups/pshopandlightroom/permalink/1304478642948279/?match=c2llcnJh</p> <p>https://www.facebook.com/groups/pshopandlightroom/permalink/1303268239735986/?match=c2llcnJh</p> <p>https://www.facebook.com/groups/pshopandlightroom/permalink/1303112543084889/?match=c2llcnJh</p> <p>https://www.facebook.com/groups/pshopandlightroom/permalink/1303091683086975/?match=c2llcnJh</p> <p> </p>

<blockquote> <p>Oh and Eric, you really should <em>attempt</em> to read the OP's question before you start <strong>another</strong> of your rants:</p> </blockquote> <p> </p> <blockquote> <p>Again, everything <strong>including</strong> of course, Photoshop CC runs Hunky-dory as I posted.</p> </blockquote> <p>Nope. It isn't Hunky-dory. Is your google broken? <br> <br> </p>

<p>What is "this end"? Lol, yes, Sierra works fine for opening a browser and arguing on the internet...</p> <p>Good question, C., as no one that I know that depends on their computer for business or serious hobby just updates Mac OS these days. Seems a few problems, best info is often in the comments. <br> <strong><a href="http://www.macrumors.com/2016/10/03/photoshop-office-2016-macos-sierra-fixes-in-works/">Never install a new OS if you use your machine for productivity , always wait 2-3 major releases in, once it's stable.</a> <a href="http://www.macrumors.com/2016/10/03/photoshop-office-2016-macos-sierra-fixes-in-works/">The gimmicks and perceived upgrades are not worth stability issues in the short term</a></strong></p> <p><a href="http://www.macrumors.com/2016/10/03/photoshop">http://www.macrumors.com/2016/10/03/photoshop-office-2016-macos-sierra-fixes-in-works/</a><br> <a href="http://blogs.adobe.com/crawlspace/2016/09/photoshop-lightroom-compatibility">http://blogs.adobe.com/crawlspace/2016/09/photoshop-lightroom-compatibility</a>-with-macos-10-12-sierra.html</p> <p><a href="https://helpx.adobe.com/lightroom/kb/lightroom-and-mac-os-sierra">https://helpx.adobe.com/lightroom/kb/lightroom-and-mac-os-sierra</a>.html</p> <p> </p>

<p>That 21" iMac has a slow laptop grade i5 cpu from 2013...I wouldn't. Or at least wait for the refresh that is just around the corner. The current 27" iMac has been updated and is a bit faster but it's still an "all in one" laptop at the end of the day. IMO, if you're going with laptop grade hardware, I'd get the MacBook Pro and then add a nice monitor like a Dell Ultrasharp. I have a 2013 i7 MBP with 16gb of ram and 500Gb Samsung ssd but it's too slow for serious photography so I'd try to avoid the laptop hardware if you can afford it. <br /><br />You can run Windows on your Mac and have the best of both worlds. I put bootcamp and Windows 10 on my MBP so I can run Quickbooks 2016 (not available on Mac). For some reason, Ps and Lr CC run faster on Windows 10 on the MacBook Pro than under El Capitan. Strange. </p>

<p>The XT-2 is the beginning of the end for the dlsr. The only reason I would consider Nikon today would be if I relied on ttl flash systems.</p> <blockquote> <p>Fuji has superior lenses.<br> </p> </blockquote> <p>Yes they do. And at less money. </p>

<p>I use Crashplan as an emergency back up for recovering my entire system. But I'd look at Amazon "Prime Photos" as a cloud copy for your photos. It works well with synchronizing software so that when you add files locally to your hard drive, it in turn duplicates to amazon. It's $5/yr for 5Gb of anything but includes unlimited photos. I suggest Amazon as their mobile app is great and you have easy access to your photos. </p>

<blockquote> <p>Suspicion in error, evident only to one person. What is evident is that whenever A.R. participates in a thread, it becomes acrimonious. Technicalities are used not to help make and see fine photographs but to bludgeon.</p> </blockquote> <p>Eloquently stated.</p> <blockquote> <p>Well. Certainly has been an energetic thread with 60 responses.</p> </blockquote> <p>Sorry about that, Dave. Most here are aware of Andrew before mentioning the "M" word at Pn. And now you've gone and done it and mentioned the "W" word. </p>

Youre not stuck with compacts. The upcoming Hasselblad True Zoom attachment is pretty cool https://m.dpreview.com/news/2224329976/hasselblad-true- zoom-moto-mod-hands-on-preview

<blockquote> <p>Now back to the topic....</p> </blockquote> <p> <br> This is hilarious coming from the guy that first responded here with off topic irrelevancies, derailed the thread, and resulted in the the OP returning to state so</p>

<p>Lets keep beating it...<br> <br> </p> <blockquote> <p><strong>Most if not all of my output for commercial use is going to be viewed on screen which can be all over the place,</strong> though displays - with the majority of them now on mobile when used and viewed by consumers - have gotten better and better and more uniform. </p> <p dir="ltr"><strong>Print output too can vary and out of our control depending on the circumstances a print or magazine, book, etc is going to be viewed in</strong>. It's mostly in graphic design and certain photography like fashion or product ( and which too is now mainly viewed on screens ) where absolute color control and accuracy may be needed. <strong>And you can have the best color accuracy and calibration set up in the world, there will still be a lot of variety too of how one human eye sees a color vs the next human eye.</strong></p> </blockquote> <p dir="ltr"> </p> <p dir="ltr"> </p> <p dir="ltr"> </p> <p dir="ltr"> </p> <blockquote> <p dir="ltr"><strong>What I'm saying is that each person has their own tastes for how they like to view movies. That's why their are presets ,uch like you get in Photoshop. The different selections deliberately distort the image from calibrated. The point is, the viewer can adjust the settings until he gets what he likes. </strong></p> </blockquote> <p dir="ltr"> </p> <p dir="ltr">Exactly. Common sense from Phil and Alan.</p> <p dir="ltr"> </p> <p dir="ltr"> </p> <blockquote> <p dir="ltr">Is the Dell Ultra-Sharp 24" good enough for editing? That depends. If you are a professional whose livelihood depends upon customers accepting your work or an amateur who regularly submits work to contests for jury judging, possibly not.</p> </blockquote> <p dir="ltr"> </p> <p dir="ltr">After concluding that we all edit images on different devices, in different rooms, and under different light, and then send them to our audience who in turn views them on different (non-calibrated) devices, in different rooms, and under different light, Andrew, in what particular circumstances would a someone opening your jpg/tif or viewing your lovely print, be able to tell if you used a $900 Dell with Spyder or a $1200 NEC with xRite? </p>

I love my XT-2

<p>Yes David, a lot of noise from our resident hater that has no Dell experience. But several people have been helpful and put in a good effort though.</p> <blockquote> <p>Is the Dell Ultra-Sharp 24" good enough for editing? That depends. If you are a professional whose livelihood depends upon customers accepting your work or an amateur who regularly submits work to contests for jury judging, possibly not.</p> </blockquote> <p>Brooks, in what particular circumstances would a client opening your jpg/tif or viewing your lovely print, be able to tell if you used a $900 Dell or a $1200 NEC? If a NEC makes a difference over a Dell with your Epson printing, I don't think the better NEC monitor is a solution. And if you're like Andrew and only using a NEC to embed jpgs into pdfs for web documents on colour management, an NEC is a nice luxury but it is unnecessary. </p>

<blockquote> <p>The OP wants to know if a Dell UltraSharp is good but not the best, and then several posts, including Andrew's, confirm that it is not the best. Meaning what...? Not at all clear.<br> </p> </blockquote> <p>Blimey, it's really clear here. He's a troll laying his bait. And you took it. Now so have I ...</p> <p>Ultrasharps are a great line of monitors. They calibrate nicely, can be found in 10-bit and RGB; depends on your budget. Over the years I've had two 24" U2410's and three 27" Ultrasharps. I still use two of them. It's been a great year 2016 and I might treat myself to a UP3214Q if the accountant (wife) lets me. <br> <br> 99.99% of photographers send work to the net today and is displayed on peoples crapola phones and laptops. The other 0.01% send prints to an Epson or Costco and appreciate wysiwyg. An Ultrasharp is more than capable for either group. </p>

Helpful answer... Dell makes great work horses. Which 24" are you considering?

<blockquote> <p>Jim Downs posted a response to a thread in the <a href="/" target="_blank" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?hl=en&q=http://www.photo.net&source=gmail&ust=1473862918814000&usg=AFQjCNE4vqOB909uM-4Uam9jUoeEfGh77g">photo.net</a> <br> <br> Pierre has contributed so much to this site over the years that he has a right to say anything he pleases. There are a handful of arrogant, self righteous moderators whom I believe have contributed mightily to driving people away from PN. Yesterday, I checked the list of the 200+ people I follow on the site. Nearly 2/3 of them have not contributed anything for over a year. This is not to suggest that the moderators are responsible for all the decline but the atmosphere here these days is far too tidy and sanitized. Let the Wild West reign again! I am truly puzzled as to why V.2. was allowed to go live. Five beta testers could have determined that it was far from ready. FREE PDE!</p> </blockquote>

<p>+1, Don :) </p>

Fuji definitely makes the worst lens caps.

<p>I'm comparing Nikon glass on Nikon bodies and Fuji lenses on the XT-1. I shoot between 700 and 900 hundred images a day at work with a Nikon D810/D4s coupled to a 24-70 on one shoulder, and a Fuji XT-1 with 16-55 kit lens on the other shoulder. Later when I am home and in Lr, something seems to stand out with the raf files and I'm really pleased with that 16-55 kit lens. I can't wait for the XT-2 and the improved AF abilities so I can put done that heavy dslr. </p>

<blockquote> <p>Indeed. I've used Sony lenses and Zeiss and methinks they are in a lower division compared with Fuji.</p> </blockquote> <p> <br> I swear my $450 16-55 Fuji kit lens is sharper than my $2200 24-70 2.8 nikor. </p>

<p>Glass is the most important element of buying into an ecosytem. Fuji has been making some the best lenses for stills and cine for decades now and with out a doubt has the best available for the mirrorless market. The upcoming XT-2, body due out in a couple weeks, will have AF on par with mid-range dslrs. Personally, I'd re-think your Fuji conclusion.</p> <blockquote> <p>BTW, I'm doing landscape/street stuff. Long exposures etc. Another bonus to the Olympus, its quieter shutter.</p> </blockquote> <p> <br> Fuji and Sony are silent.</p>

<blockquote> <p>I wonder what the age bracket of that one person is that's still posting in PN 2.0? How does one find the age of a PN member so we can tell we're attracting the newer, younger generation who prefer PN 2.0?</p> </blockquote> <p>News flash, newer younger generations don't do forums </p>

<blockquote> <p>I don't know if this helps, but here is some info on who hacking me...I am using Firefox, Windows Vista and McAfee. My alerts from McAfee show...</p> </blockquote> <p> <br> You're asking for trouble with not only one, but with all three of those choices. Update to W10, use Chrome, and buy Kaspersky or Eset.</p>

<p>It has nothing to do with marketing. Sony and Fuji aren't at the Olympics because they can't even track focus on a running dog at the dog park. With the upcoming XT-2 though, I suspect Fuji will be there before Sony </p>

<p>Aside from ample horsepower, the Dell XPS 15 has a great monitor and offers Adobe RGB colour space. It's my first choice.</p> <p><a href="http://www.anandtech.com/show/10116/the-dell-xps-15-9550-review/6">http://www.anandtech.com/show/10116/the-dell-xps-15-9550-review/6</a> </p> <p><a href="http://www.colbybrownphotography.com/gear-review-photographers-take-dell-xps-15-laptop/">http://www.colbybrownphotography.com/gear-review-photographers-take-dell-xps-15-laptop/</a></p> <p>My second choice would be what I am using...an Apple MacBook Pro running Bootcamp and Windows 10. It's too bad their monitors are poor for photography </p>

<p>Keep your dngs on your desktop and sync them via Lr Mobile in a collection. It will upload the smart preview jpgs to your CC account. Your phone will download those smart preview jpgs. Any changes you do at either your desktop or on your phone/tab will be sync'd. I'd watch a youtube video or read the instructions first</p>