Thank you mflowe. I have an older machine, so it may in fact be that the video card is too ancient.

Irwin

I had a similar incident last week. When I checked on the internet it seems to be a known quirk using Macs and the latest update. I have not taken the time to get Adobe help on the phone and see if there is a workaround other than opening the two images and manually draging the layer from one onto the other. If you get an answer from Adobe please publish.

Irwin

Bobby123, the answers given by David Martin are dead on correct on this topic. If you follow his advice and find the topaz installer file(s) in your downloads file and continue with his instructions you should be home free. If you continue to have problems you can PM me with your phone # and we will talk it through.

Irwin

It is in fact illegal to use another's photographs without permission under copyright law. The problem is usually the lack of a meaningful remedy. You may be able to force a takedown of the photo, it you are willing to put in the time, money and effort. Before you can sue for damages, your image has to be registered with the Copyright Office. Then you will need an attorney, pay court fees, time and emotional stress in the hopes of collecting on the back end. Taking someone else's images is more than immoral, it is illegal...even on the internet (unless the photographer waived copyright rights or gave permission); but in most cases, it is not practical to enforce.

I did a google search on a several of images I had posted and found them being used on numerous sites. With place like Facebook, Etsy, and Ebay, a takedown notice was sufficient to get them to remove my images. Walmart, which was using one of my images that had been supplied by their vendor, also removed my image after a take down notice. However, I did not even know where to begin with international postings made in cyrillic scripts or asian pictogram languages.

I suppose I could put big old watermarks on my work, but they uglify the picture enough so that I wouldn't look or want my name associated with it.

Though it took me awhile, I have reached the stage where I just don't post images I care about.

Irwin

edit: After I posted, I see that mallen1330 gave the right answer while I was typing.

The zoom I would consider for the Canon R Systems is the RF 100-500mm L. It is as light as the EF 100-400L, delivers at least as good image quality even at 500mm, though it costs substantially more. It is a fantastic lens. But I expensive. If it is within you budget, I would recommend it highly.

Irwin

There was a time when I changed my behavior to protect my expensive camera body, but it was based on the fact that rivulets of sweat and camera circuitry don't mix well. In the late film camera days (the days were bodies were relatively cheap and the big expense was film, particularly if you bracketed your exposure and shot chromes), I would shoot macros for hours in my hot Texas greenhouse. After several years, sweat would corrode some circuit, and I would have to purchase a new body. After I fried my first expensive digital body, I taught myself studio lighting so I could shoot in airconditoned comfort and preserve my camera bodies. With the advent of live view, mirrorless bodies, and apps that allow me to focus on an auxiliary screen, I don't have to schlepp my plants indoors to my upstairs studio quite so often. These days, being much older and perhaps a little wiser, it's my body is seek to preserve. I don't shoot for extended periods in the greenhouse on sunny days. Even in the dead of winter, on bright sunny days, it is not uncommon for the temperature to reach 100.

The beauty of a tripod ring is that it allows you to switch to a vertical position without awkwardly hanging the lens off to the side. It is far faster to use and keeps the lens balenced over the center of the tripod.

Shooting in live view should eliminate the issue of mirror slap. Depending on your camera model, it may also eliminate shutter shake. Many DSLRs have electronic first curtain, where the shutter remains open and the exposure starts electronically thereby eliminating the shutter shake at the beginning of the exposure.

Irwin

I had the same dilemma. I purchased the R5 and have been ecstatic about the result. Between the ability to focus on the eye, the higher frame rate, the lower noise at higher ISO's and the in camera ibis system that works in conjunction with the in lens image stabilization, I have increased the percentage of keepers for my bird in flight photos. There are other features that also get high use such as focus bracketing.

I am upgrading my kit to include some of the RF lenses, which seem truly better than their EF counterparts. For example, when I got my RF 100-500, I wanted to see how much quality I lost in comparison to my EF 500 f4L lens version 1, which was one of my favorite lenses and which had been cleaned by Canon. So I tested it against the 100-500 at 500mm. As I was very pleased with the 500's sharpness prior to the test, I was surprised when the new zoom out performed the prime by a slight bit. Although the 500 still had the advantage of being a much faster lens, I opted of the much lighter and more versatile zoom. The fact that the zoom was a tad sharper at 500mm than the prime was a game changer.

If you are pushing against the limits of your camera and you are financially able, then why not.

Irwin

Where precision is required outside I also use the Passport Color Checker. Like you, I shoot in raw and for the most part, my camera is set to Daylight WB. The profile that I get from an outdoor shoot doesn't radically change the the white balance but certain colors my be tweaked with the profile.

Irwin

Actually with some cameras, focus shifting (focus bracketing) has major advantages when working in nature. With my CanonR5, the electronic shutter is used. As a consequence, the time I used to allow between shots for the camera to settle, about 2 seconds per shot, is eliminated. With a focus stack of 30 shots, I eliminate a minute from the process. With a stack of 60, I eliminate 2 minutes. By eliminating this time, fewer of my stacks are destroyed by movement or changing light. Moreover, I have not seen a decrease of quality or know of any reason for it to be so. I do like to manually stack but its because it's fun rather than it yields better results. Since I purchased my R5 I have stacked over 200 images using camera focus bracketing.

All cameras my not implement focus bracketing in an identical manner and your experience with a different camera may have different results.

Irwin

Like Gene, I shoot a Passport Color Checker and develop a profile. It is particularly useful for my work when I shoot product or artwork and have to match color. The profile is specific to the camera, the lighting, and the lens. I have profiles for most of my camera/lens combinations in common lighting situations such as overcast, sunny midday, etc.

I will add that sometimes it is just fun to shoot with vintage lenses. But fun and expense are just a few of the tradeoffs photographers make regarding ultimate sharpness.

Irwin

[quote=CHG_CANON]But, when you're setting up a landscape and have all the time in the world and a clean digital card, there's really no excuse to purposefully take actions that soften your overall results while claiming you're doing the opposite. To refuse to look at your pixel-level details and realize your issue and take corrective actions, that's just beyond understanding.

I vehemently disagree.

I started focus stacking in 2005 or 2006 because of the two limitations in stopping down. The first was diffraction. The second was that sometimes the depth of field was insufficient even stopped down. Although most of my stacks were macro, I've used stacking for landscapes also. When there is a deep subject that is subject to wind movement in the very near foreground, focus stacking often does not work. Even using hyperfocal focusing, sometimes you need to stop down to maintain an acceptable level of sharpness in the distance.

We all make tradeoffs in our photography. For me, sometimes pixel level sharpness is not as important as the perception of sharpness throughout the image. It's not that I don't understand the loss of pixel level sharpness, its just that sometime its less important to me than the using the absolute sharpest focus at the point of focus.

While I understand your shots are your vision based your preference, there are other valid approaches that are based on other preferences. We all have our artistic preferences. I for one have never been a fan of the wide open flower macro with just the tip of the flower in focus. Though it is not my photographic vision, that does not make it incomprehensible. Nor do I find it beyond my understanding if someone doesn't like my focus stacks (O.k., maybe a just a little) Sometimes I think that we forget that the styles and looks that work best for us may not be universal.

Irwin

I have used Drobos for a number of years. I currently have three Drobos each storing around 30+ TB. One is my main Drobo, the second a backup. The third is another backup that was stored offsite pre-Covid but is now stored at my house offline as I need a new offsite storage place. I alternate my backup Drobos so that even the third is relatively current.

Over the past dozen or so years time, I have had a number of individual drives fail in my Drobos. I've also had to replace smaller drives with larger ones. While I hold my breath over each rebuild, every one has been successful. I am hopeful that your rebuild is complete by the time you read this.

Irwin