paddler4

That's a plus. it's easy enough to handle in Windows, but I've had to explain it to people many times. I don't think so, but I never tried. I used Linux primarily for heavy-duty statistical work (it was the front end of a large compute server network) and related tasks, never for photo editing.

Re OS upgrades: Indeed, it used to be a pain with windows and much easier with Macs. However, things are changing. My university finally gave the green light to upgrade from Windows 10 to Windows 11, and it was almost entirely seamless. I had to do almost nothing. I think I had to reinstall one of my three printers, and there may have been one or two other tweaks, but almost everything worked just as it had before. I was surprised and delighted. There are still things that are much easier with Macs, like changing to a new computer. Even if you aren't a power user, there are some differences in interface that are initially a PITA whichever way you change. For example, I had three GUIs to deal with: Windows, my wife's mac, and Linux Gnome. The windows work differently in all three of them. Not a big deal, but I spent some time fumbling when the actions that were automatic for me didn't work. A few weeks, however, and that problem vanishes. There may be one thing about using Adobe products that is different for the two platforms, but a mac user would have to say. In windows, at least with Canon printers, you access the printer's firmware via the properties link in the Windows print dialog. For example, if you want to avoid double profiling, you have to turn off the printer's control of colors, and that's done via the print dialog. I don't know if that's the same on a Mac.

GPUs are only one issue. The web was full of people complaining about initial compatibility problems with at least 4 MacOS updates. The sole OS-related update problem I've had under Windows was the need to specify a better GPU when I bought my most recent computer. But I think this is not really the core point. Most people using adobe products will be fine on either OS, with the occasional annoying hiccup. And inside the Adobe programs, there is essentially no difference, apart from things like print dialogs. So my advice is to consider the hiccups only one factor in making the decision. Others are the cost of an unfamiliar OS if one changes, the costs of the gear itself, and the availability of other software for each of the OSs. These will lead to different decisions for different people. For me, given that I'm an OS power user, the issue of changing OSs looms large. If I were on a Mac now, I would be very resistant to changing to Windows, just as I am now very resistant to changing from Windows to the Mac. But different strokes for different folks.

I don't care either, but search <adobe photoshop problems mac os> without quotes. Not a short list.

Buying a brand-name GPU that meets their specs is all that is needed. Other than having to specify that, I have had exactly zero problems running Adobe software on three or four different windows machines. I have never had driver problems related to adobe.

Yes. Adobe has on its website the GPU requirements to get things like the neural filters to work. I have an Nvidia GForce GTX 1660 Super, which is not super high end and works flawlessly with Adobe products. If you don't have a GPU that meets their requirements (my old computer didn't), then you will find, as I did, that some features won't work. You can find the requirements spelled out in detail at https://helpx.adobe.com/photoshop/system-requirements.html. I simply specified a Dell computer that met or exceeded the specs. Years ago, my wife brought home the first generation of MacBook Air. I was blown away--that is, until I tried using it for a while and started confronting all of the little odds and ends I rely on that I would have to re-learn and for some of which I would need different software. Simple things, most of them, but they take time. And solving problems when they arise are a whole additional thing to learn. E.g., when a print driver installation failed on my wife's Mac recently, I was helpless, even though I generally can solve these problems on Windows. I had to call a Mac expert friend, who explained why the default Mac installation wouldn't work in that case and how to fix it. Having spent the time learning my way around Linux and the Gnome GUI for statistical work, I decided that two OS's were more than enough for me. I really think the issue is how much you stray from simple, plain-vanilla use of the OS. The more you rely on the details, the more pain there is in switching. I'm a real "power user", so the cost to me would be substantial. None of which is to say you shouldn't switch. I wouldn't presume to say one way or the other. I am just pointing out a real cost of switching IN EITHER DIRECTION that you ought to add to your calculations.

Once you are in the software, the operating system makes no difference. I've also read that the new Apple processors are faster, but I question whether it actually matters. My PC is moderately high end [Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-10700 CPU @ 2.90GHz 2.90 GHz, with an SSD and 16 GB RAM], and it is perfectly fine for photo editing. As someone who has used three operating systems (Windows, Linux, and to a very small degree, MacOS), I think there is a major factor that is often ignored: the cost of changing to one that you are not familiar with. If your use of the OS is rudimentary, it won't matter much. But if you have become reasonably expert at using the OS, switching to another is a real PITA.

I've never done it, but apparently it can be done in Lightroom and Photoshop: https://phlearn.com/tutorial/photo-mosaic/

If you want to be safe, you should have two backups, one local and one not local, presumably online. For an online backup, I use Backblaze. For a local backup, I actually do a mirror rather than a backup, using an external drive plugged into my computer. If you aren't familiar with the terminology, a mirror is a simple exact copy of the material you want backed up. I create it by synchronizing the relevant stuff on my hard drive to the external drive. I keep all of the photos that need backing up in subdirectories of a single directory, so I just tell the software to sync that directory. There are lots of sync programs, including the free sync toys included in Windows, but I use the sync function in the file manager software I use, Directory Opus. The nice thing about a mirror is that restoring is simple: you just drag the file(s) from the mirror to the original hard drive.

Start with what Gerald said. I have a second, small rocket blower that I can throw in my camera bag. You didn't say what camera you have, and that matters. In the case of a DSLR, there is a mirror between the opening and the sensor. Obviously, you don't have that with a mirrorless. Some but not all mirrorless cameras either by default drop the mechanical shutter when turned off or give you the option in settings to have that done. You should make sure that option is on if you have a mirrorless and have the option. It's also better to turn off the camera before changing lenses, even apart from that issue. I don't live in a dusty location, but I change lenses outdoors frequently and end up having to deal with dust on the sensor only rarely, maybe once or twice a year, if even that.

It's a huge step forward for people whose photography entails a lot of very fast moving stuff. It's a step backwards for many of the rest of us. It solves a problem I have never had and is likely to have significant downsides. There have been several interesting articles about this on the web. The likely tradeoff is smaller dynamic range and inferior low-light performance because the additional electronics will create smaller photosites. The high base ISO is a minus, not a plus. In addition to the inconvenience of not having a lower ISO, this is probably the flip side of the design issues that will reduce dynamic range. So I would wait for real-world tests before getting too excited about what this means for the camera market generally.

Three different questions: re Sharpening: I like the Adobe suite because it provides a variety of different sharpening methods, and the best depends on the image. I do most of my sharpening with three tools: the sharpening sliders in Lightroom, which are quite good for some images; Smart Sharpen in Photoshop, and a high-pass filter in Photoshop. Re changing size: I don't know how well Topaz does this, but the Adobe suite does it well. For printing, I find the built-in up- and down-rezzing algorithm in Lightroom does a very good job, so I have given up bothering with doing it manually in Photoshop. There is now also the enhance option in LR/ACR for raw images, which I have used when I am really short of detail, e.g., severe crops. It works some of the time. Re noise reduction: I don't use it much because of the way I shoot. However, if you shoot raw, the new AI-based NR in LR/ACR is very good. For example, I used it recently on faces in images I took at a high ISO, and it was better than I could do at distinguishing between areas that needed detail preserved (e.g., eyelashes) and areas that could take more smoothing (e.g., cheeks). If you have Adobe already, you might find that it does well enough, once you learn it well, that you won't want to bother with an additional piece of software. That was my decision.

While not disagreeing with anything Dog wrote, I think this can be much simpler for a newbie to printing. 1. Printers have a native resolution. It's 360 ppi for Epsons and 300 dpi for Canons. I have no idea for HPs. After reading Schewe, I did a comparison of 300 and 600 (using my Canon printer) at various sizes. It was very hard to tell the difference, and in some cases impossible. If you use 300 or 360, you'll be fine. 2. Printing software will increase or decrease the resolution as needed if you print larger or smaller than the native resolution. How well it does this depends on hte software. I print from Lightroom, and it generally does a superb job. 3. Yes, resizing can change the amount of output sharpening needed. Lightroom does this automatically, as does at least one other printing software package. Photoshop requires that you do it manually. 4. Re brightness and getting things to look like the screen: this is a big question. First, it will never look exactly the same: the screen is emissive, while prints are reflective. However, getting it close requires calibrating the monitor, adjusting the brightness of the monitor, and controlling the brightness of the room. Even doing that carefully, I have found that I need to brighten prints slightly.

PS: you should think about the size of the objects you want to photograph before choosing a lens. If your interest is images of entire large flowers, you won't need a true macro lens because you will want to reduce the size of the subject to fit onto your APS-C sensor, which is roughly 25 x 17mm. So if you have a non-macro lens with maximum magnification of only 0.25, you can fit something 4 times that size onto your sensor. With a little room for a border, say 3.8 x 2.7 inches. So if you want entire flowers, you can make do with a close-focusing non-macro lens. The smaller the subject, the more magnification you need. Tiny flowers, or bugs, require true macro lenses.

By linear displacement I'm referring to the sensor (and camera) moving up, down, or sideways. As you get closer to an object, rotation becomes less of an issue, and linear movement becomes more of one. Minimum working distance is related to focal length, but indirectly. it refers to the distance between the subject and the front of the lens at maximum magnification, which for most true macro lenses is 1:1 (image on the sensor is the same size as the object in real life). The minimum working distance of the EF-S 60mm macro is 90mm. Minimum focusing distance is often given but isn't quite as useful; it's the distance from the subject to the sensor. Re the 55-250: No! Don't be misled. Manufacturers routinely put "macro" on zoom lenses to indicate that they can focus reasonably close, but that isn't what macro means. Virtually all true macro lenses focus at least to 1:1. None of them, as far as I know, are zooms. The maximum magnification of the 55-150 is 0.29x, meaning that the maximum image on the sensor is a bit more than 1/4 the size of the subject. It sounds like you are really at the beginning stages. Macro is a very technical type of photography, and it isn't for everyone. So I recommend that you buy a decent but cheap second-hand macro lens to try it out and see whether it's for you. That's what I did. I started with a used Canon EF 50mm "compact macro" (https://www.keh.com/shop/canon-ef-50mm-f-2-5-compact-macro-lens.html), which isn't quite a regular macro lens because it goes only to .5x, not 1x. But it's very sharp and enough magnification for flowers. I graduated from there to the EF-S 60 mm, which is a true macro, and then to the 100mm.

First, regular image stablization isn't much use for macro. It controls for angular movement, which isn't the primary problem in macro work. the more important problem is linear displacement of the sensor. To control that, you need either Canon's hybrid lens IS or the 5-axis in-body stabilization in many mirrorless cameras. However, depending on the sort of macro you do, it doesn't much matter. Flowers you can do with a tripod. There are fewer macro lenses available for EF or EF-S mount Canons than there used to be. You can get the old EF-S 60mm macro used in Ex+ condition for about $350 from KEH.com, less for more worn copies. This is a very sharp lens and is small and light. the only drawback is that because it's only 60mm, the working distance is short, so it's not great for bugs (although I've used it for that). A common focal length for macro is 100mm, plus or minus. The Canon 100mm EF L is superb and reasonably light (625g, 1.4 pounds). It also has hybrid IS. However, it's very expensive and has gone up in price recently. Canon used to make a 100mm non-L macro that was just about as sharp, but much cheaper and without the hybrid IS. You could probably find one used. I don't know the weight, however. If you do look at used, be careful which of the two you are buying. The L has a red ring by the front end.

I don't do video, so I can't speak to that aspect of this thread, but I shot with a 5D III and 5D IV for years. the 5D IV is a wonderful camera: solid as a rock, with superb ergonomics and a very sensible menu system. It's also highly customizable. I sold the 5D IV to buy an R6 II because some of the mirrorless features are relevant for the some types of photography I do. For example, I find the focus bracketing function helpful for my studio macro, and the better AF is very helpful for candids of little kids. However, if you don't need the specific advantages of mirrorless, IMHO, the 5D IV is a very good choice. Enjoy it!

To add to Dog's comment: with the default settings, LR always tries to open the last catalog it had opened. However, if you manually open a catalog from within Lightroom, that one becomes the default. So the bottom line is that it makes no difference where you put the stuff on your new SSD, as long as you know the path so that you can direct LR to it.

I don't know about that phone, but the way iPhones use their huge resolution is to pin pixels together under normal usage, to lessen the unavoidable drawbacks of tiny photosites, but then to use individual pixels when one needs to crop a lot for an optical zoom. It also uses a lot of computational photography to try to compensate for the lower quality.

From my brief experience being represented by a gallery, I think what sells is a mystery. I use mat borders on all of mine. I just checked a 17 x 22 that I exhibited last year, and it has 3 3/4 inch on three sides, with an extra half inch of "weight" on the bottom side. On the other hand, museums most often put paintings into elaborate (often ugly) frames with no borders. I personally find that distracting, but who am I? I suggest that you do what you think look best unless the venue where you are going to try to sell prints has a particular style or preference. When I was in a gallery, the director gave me no input on that at all.

TTL means "through the lens". it should correctly meter the light hitting the photosensor regardless of what's in front of it. I have never had a problem metering with a teleconverter on any of the Canon bodies I've owned. HOWEVER: for the image to be properly exposed, the electronic communications between the lens and the camera have to be maintained properly, and the lens has to achieve the correct aperture. So perhaps something is going wrong there.

I agree. In the US, one can get a good used body for under $200 or $250, depending on how outdated the model is. For example, at KEH, an old and reputable used equipment dealer, you can buy a Canon 50D in excellent condition for $150. That's a very old body, more susceptible to noise in low light conditions than modern bodies, but I had one for years, and I've exhibited prints I made with it. There are lots of choices. One comment about color: this depends on how accurate one wants. Canon, to continue with that example, has excellent "color science", and the JPEG picture styles are quite good. However, for full control over color, one has to shoot raw, regardless of the body.

Sigh. I wish I had your experience. A few years ago, a gallery owner decided to show some of my images. She was very excited about them and even placed a huge poster of one of my prints outside the front door. 18 months later, she told me that because of meager sales, she wasn't going to drop me. When I came by to pick up my remaining prints (most of them, to be fair to her), she said she picks artists based on what she likes, but sometimes that doesn't align well with her customer base. Ce la vie. But I'm retired and don't have to sell photos, so I postprocess to get images to look the way I want.

I couldn't agree more. The first sentence is the key. Asking people whether they postprocess their images is the wrong question. ALL digital photos are postprocessed. The question is: "do you postprocess yourself, or do you leave it to a recipe the camera manufacturer's programmers devised?" Those recipes--the camera's styles for creating a JPEG from the capture--are often good enough for many people. I rarely even look at them. I want control over the image I create, so I virtually always shoot only raw. Sometimes an image doesn't need much work; the software's initial rendering is pretty close. Often it isn't remotely close. It's all a matter of the conditions under which the image was captured and the photographer's intent. Some people will respond to your question by saying "I try to get it in camera as close as possible to what I want." I do as well. That's an entirely different question. The capture is the raw material, and you want the best material you can create. Then you have to put that raw material to work, and that's postprocessing.

A shorter answer: for almost all users, it's absurd. First, almost no one needs that much resolution. I have exhibited and sold roughly A3 and A2 prints (13 x 19, 17 x 22 inch) from 22 and 30 MP cameras, and the printing was superb at that size. I exhibited one 11 x 19 print from an 8 megapixel crop. Decent printing software does a good job of modestly increasing resolution if needed, and humans don't perceive the individual pixels in a print anyway. And most people display smartphone images online, which requires far less resolution than that. Second, more pixels for a given sensor size means lower light gathering, more noise, and worse difffraction. Third, some high-resolution phones use pixel binning, combining a number of the tiny photosites into a smaller number of larger ones to lessen the problems of tiny photosites. Fourth, smartphones use computational photography to impose fixes for these problems, which may or may not be entirely realistic.