AzDavid

<p>Lexi ... greetings. It would be helpful to know what sort of budget you might have for this purchase. Under $500? Less than $1,000? Money no object?</p>

<p>I sure hope the original poster lets us know how things turned out. Unresolved threads drive me crazy ... sort of like a power outage 10 minutes before the movie ends.</p>

<p>Ditto what Patrick said. I wouldn't panic just yet as some college students can be very disorganized and flaky. But seeking her out instead of waiting for her to come to you seems to be the best way of resolving this issue. </p>

<p>I don't know about those cameras you mention, but it's pretty easy to insert the card into your computer (or card reader) and then check it's properties. FYI ... Remaining space only gives you a general idea about how many more images can fit on the card.</p>

<p>Don't know if this counts as "plain English" or not, but ... Adorama's comparison of the two cameras states that the low pass filter in the 5DS adds a slight blur to ward off moire. The extra filter in the 5DSR, Adorama says, "re-aligns the original pixel shift and thus eliminates the blur resulting in extreme sharpness in images." (http://www.adorama.com/alc/0015137/article/Canon-5Ds-vs-5DsR) So, the claim is that the extra filter actually makes images better (sharper) in the 5DSR. </p>

<p>Nope, no blue line for me, either.</p>

<p>Just ran across this tidbit that seems appropriate for this thread: On Eyeem.com, an online photo marketplace, their top 30 photos from 2016 include 13 images taken with iPhones. So, as Jeff just pointed out, some people are taking "outstanding photos with them."</p>

<p>John ... ha! You crack me up. Thanks!</p>

<p>The elves that live and work inside the camera (that's what the "E" stands for) are just having fun with you.</p>

<p>Well, carbon fiber is the way to go if you are looking for lightweight durability. There are many such tripods listed between $100 and $200. I have a Promaster T525P that is great but costs around $300. One option you might consider is a carbon fiber monopod, which would be cheaper and lighter weight. I recently purchased an Oben CTM-2500 that weighs about one pound (not including the head). And it just about fits your space requirement including the ball head I put on it. Of course, you can always remove the head for travel. </p>

<p>Cell phones, more specifically smart phones, are a potent destructive technology. They're not only contributing to the decline in interchangeable lens camera sales but are playing a big role in the decline in PC and tablet sales worldwide. Times are a changin'. To me, quick, easy and affordable seem to be the things younger people look for in technology. My sons both consider cameras unnecessary. And while they might work on PCs on the job, they don't have desktops waiting for them at home as I've always had. They just don't see the need. All thanks to the smart phone. </p>

<p>I would also recommend checking Wordpress tech support. I believe this has been an issue for others, too.</p>

<p>Oh, are you talking about "Sony DSC" appearing under photos in the blog itself? Like a caption under them? I thought you were describing something appearing on the photos, themselves. I did run across a brief mention of this that might offer some help. It involves adding a tiny bit of code. Find it here: http://www.kriesi.at/support/topic/how-to-remove-sony-dsc-from-pictures/</p>

<p>What camera are you using? Could this be a "date stamp" feature that you accidentally turned on?</p>

<p>I agree with Ilkka ... I love creating prints, especially when I have a great shot that I print larger than my computer screen. There was a time before the explosion of social media when I considered it a necessity to print virtually any decent photo. I still have the <a href="http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,1867895,00.asp">HP Photosmart 475</a> that made it easy to do so. But times have changed. Photos get shared electronically. And I'm now printing only a handful of times a month. And there are issues. For example, creating accurate prints isn't easy. Even with the paper Canon has been giving away when you order ink, the ink is still expensive. And we all know how difficult it can be to get a print that looks like the digital image on your screen. Another issue is what to do with your prints after you've shown everyone in the house. There's only so much space for display. My small office has piles of prints with nowhere to go. The best time I had creating prints was when I was still teaching. I'd take shots all year and hang them in the classroom or hallway for students to enjoy. Then at year's end I'd give the prints away to students. </p>

<p>Another great source of Souza photos can be found here: https://www.flickr.com/photos/whitehouse/</p> <p>Just click on the first image and start a slide show.</p> <p>Many more than just the 65 favorites ... plus, you get a paragraph explaining what you are looking at and all the EXIF data from Souza's camera.</p>

<p>This type of issue has been reported before following an update to Lightroom 5.7 within Windows 10. The answer in at least one case was a "corrupted monitor profile." Apparently it occurred during the update. Not sure if this will help you, but it's worth checking out. Find the discussion here: https://feedback.photoshop.com/photoshop_family/topics/lr5-7-1-does-not-render-photos-since-upgrade-to-windows-10</p>

<p>Sounds like you've got it fixed. Unless there are other issues with the photos, the groom should be happy with 300 dpi. And you have an excellent camera. Good luck!</p>

<p>A quick Google search with "Fujifilm Provia 1600" brings up several hits including this 1999 discussion on Photo.net: http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=000e11</p>

<p>The couple's question is understandable. What camera do you use? And do you shoot JPEG or RAW images? It's possible that Lightroom is set to export low-resolution images. If so, you might be able to tweak that setting and provide your customer with the higher resolution he seeks. There are many ways to learn about Lightroom. One source is Lightroom maker, Adobe. Check out this page: https://helpx.adobe.com/lightroom/tutorials.html </p>

<p>Sarah ... the former teacher in me asks: What does the young high school student want? I know this camera might be intended as a surprise. But it's possible she's got her own ideas about what constitutes a great starter camera. She might want the same one as her best friend (or not). And her school may have recommended models and makes. Perhaps as the camera-savvy one in the bunch, you might have a conversation with this young girl and see what's what. Just my two cents.</p>

<p>Background blur is commonly known as "bokeh." And it's going to be easier to achieve with a "prime" lens than with a zoom lens like the one you already own. Prime lenses come in fixed focal lengths such as 50mm, 85mm, 100mm, etc ... You might be able to rent a prime lens for a day or weekend. That way you'll be able to see how it works before you shell out cash for your own.</p> <p>This handy Nikon site explains bokeh in detail:</p> <p>http://www.nikonusa.com/en/learn-and-explore/article/h0ndz86v/bokeh-for-beginners.html</p> <p> </p>

<p>It's largely personal choice and allows better organization. But folders can be "public" or "private" or even "hidden." (All options available at creation of a new folder.) So you can also manage what people see and don't see.</p>

<p>It's my understanding that the program does auto cropping to match common aspect ratios (4:3 and 16:9). If your images are too big, the program chops from the top/bottom or left/right. Unless there is a newer version of this program that eliminates the problem your best solution might be to experiment a bit. Resize your images before importing and see what size works better. </p>

<p>Looking closer at the image (via the link provided) it seems as though the mystery substance is inside the lens, itself. You can see how it seems to follow the circular ridges that ring the central glass. If so, I think the substance is from the inside of the lens ... perhaps lubricant that leaked due to high temperatures? Was your camera/lens exposed to excess heat? Say, inside a hot car on a sunny day? I still think your best option is to have it examined by an expert!</p>