Definitely!

I've never tried stacking either, but my approach to deciding on a rail would be to look carefully at the more expensive models and then check out less expensive ones for the same or similar capabilities. [B&H has all the way from cheap to ReallyRightStuff rails.] We can all appreciate expensive, but also realize that a better price does not always mean sacrificing the ability to do the same job.

This is not true. When I upload RAW images from the camera into LightRoom, and they are also automatically placed in a file on my hard drive, those RAW images are completely viewable without LR. Many people will transfer images directly from the camera to their hard drive, sort through them, before ever sending them to LR [or any other pp program}.

[quote=paver]I beleive, after the pp, the pp software has the ability to convert the said image to a GIFF, or TIFF, etc.

Question is since JPEGs are heavily compressed files, with a lot of lost info. aren't the pp converted JPEGs, lossy as well, throwing away information?[/quote]
I suspect you are speaking of the difference between a camera-generated .jpg and one made after pp a RAW file. Yes, information is "thrown away" during the compression that occurs when converting to .jpg. BUT with more information available for pp, you can make more effective edits to the RAW which in turn can produce a better rendering when converted to .jpg.


If you start with RAW, you can save in a lossless format [.tiff is my preference, .psd is another], which preserves all the data in an image. From that file, you can, in turn, produce a .jpg that despite losing some information, will look just like the .tiff or .psd file. For many of us, the lossless format has another advantage - we can go back and change our edits without compromising the quality, and we can also create new versions without losing the original edit. For instance - color to black and white, experimenting with a newly learned editing technique, trying different levels of saturation, contrast, etc., and many other features.

You have invested in a digital camera, which can be used as though it is a point-and-shoot. But since you did not purchase a point-and-shoot, why not explore the camera's capabilities? Keep an open mind about which features you will use, try them all! There is a learning curve, but worth the effort - this refers to the camera and lenses, and also to the editing programs.

There are many sources of information to explore, some free [YouTube, CreativeLive, Photography websites, forums, etc.] and some that will charge a fee [Photographers will have websites and/or Facebook pages where they charge membership fees or rely on selling video tutorials.] And of course there are forums such as this one, DP Review, Cambridge in Colour, etc.

This discussion is very interesting, especially since I gave up on understanding EC a long time ago! I agree with swartfort that it is best to work with the camera's capabilities to get more keepers. But I also do not accept the concept of aiming for less work in post! I actually enjoy doing post-processing. The camera does not always adequately capture what our brain sees, simply because of the way it works!

Instead of using EC, I have compensated for my lack of comprehension by using larryepage's basic procedure. [I shoot in mostly manual mode.]


Perhaps I ought to re-visit EC, but not sure if I will! Too used to "EC on the fly"!



[

If you want one, you should do the pre-order. They always fill orders as soon as possible. I ordered my tripod from them, at a time when that model was out-of-stock - it arrived within a couple of weeks.

I used to be a Flickr member [free]. I liked it a lot - it was easy to use, and I thought it was quite good - until it was not. One day I opened up my page, and it was NOT the one I had been using for several years. Apparently it was one I had started and not finished because I wasn't sure if I was doing it right. I could still see the page I had developed, but it no longer recognized me as administrator!

When I tried to get help, it was pretty much impossible. There was not a person to communicate with. I tried all sorts of things, including the forum. Even sent one of those messages that is reporting abuse! By that time I felt very abused. I did get a response, but it was to tell me I should go to the forum and the online help, which I had already done. Finally I received a message that my case had been resolved and closed.

I see in one of the emails they keep sending me that the Pro level does get support. But it is difficult to understand why I could not get help at all. About a year later, I finally did get some help, but I was no longer using Flickr, so just had my account deleted.

I switched to 500px, where I had been able to get help from a person, and that was at the free level. Now I see comments about the Flickr site crashing! Even more reason to be happy I went somewhere else.

Welcome to UHH! The benefits of better resolution in an image far outweigh the problem of larger file size! These days storage is inexpensive. As for workflow, it will be impacted if the computer setup is inadequate for the job. LR and PS have certain requirements on their own that need to be met. It seems reasonable to believe that anyone who spends the money for an expensive, high-quality camera ought to be willing to invest in a system that can handle the processing.

I went through this, going from a laptop to a desktop to accommodate my editing needs for photography. Then last year, with a better camera [more megapixels] and higher objectives for editing, I upgraded that desktop by replacing a number of its components. There are more changes I can make, but later when they become necessary. Plus I will buy larger hard drives when necessary!

You have received a lot of thoughtful responses, both for keeping and for replacing. In the end it is up to you, and in my opinion it at least partially depends on your personal needs and objectives.

First, since you like to print large, you undoubtedly will appreciate more pixels if you acquire a camera with a lot more of them than your D700.

Second, you need to consider the purpose behind your photography. Is it for your enjoyment and perhaps those with whom you share? Do you sell at least some of your work and work to increase skills needed to achieve the level of a pro? [Excuse me if you are already near or at that level!]

Third, in my opinion, there is a balance to be sought in photography. As an attempt to explain, I will first tell you about my journey. I started digital photography with a point-and-shoot, after a number of years without a camera [film]. Loved it, got some great photos, learned a lot about composition and a bit about editing. That lasted several years. Then I began to want more control over how the images turned out, so after doing some research, asking questions, and holding the candidates in my hands, decided on my first DSLR, the Nikon D7000. At that time [2012] it was the top model of crop-sensor cameras and the best I could afford. With it I purchased two "kit" lenses to cover most of the most common focal lengths. This kept me happy for another few years.

As I learned more about so many aspects of photography and improved my skills, it became clear I would eventually want to upgrade to an FX camera. Quality and detail of images were important to me. I began to make purchases of peripherals as I began to see the need for them - better tripod, filters, and FX lenses. After all that I bought a D810 when it was on sale in the fall - Black Friday/Cyber Monday! Of course the D850 came out after that, but I had enough camera to satisfy me and was not about to succumb to "GAS"" And, once again, it was the best I could afford!

So back to balance. What you need and what you can spend are two things to balance. Some can go for it all at the same time, others like myself have to take a more gradual approach. Evaluate what you have and what new gear would best suit your photographic objectives.

The camera and lenses are inter-related because each one functions in relationship to the other's capabilities. If you already have good FX lenses, that is a good start. However, they can only perform as well as the camera's capabilities will let them. Better lenses do improve a camera's performance as much as they are allowed. So owning better lenses and wanting to improve quality of images does suggest that a better camera will increase the performance of those lenses. On the other hand, if the lenses are not high quality, they will not improve significantly on a better camera because this time it is the lenses holding the camera back from its full potential!

As technology advances, the camera manufacturers have taken advantage of that to make changes to how the cameras are made and perform. Sometimes photographers do not like some aspect of a new camera, and the manufacturer may revise their design eventually. But in general, the advances have been improvements. Thinking of it that way, you have a good camera, but Nikon lists it as "archived" because it has been succeeded by models that do what it can do but better, and that also can do more.

So in your situation, it is a matter of whether new lenses or a new camera will be the best investment to achieve your objectives. It is often said that it is the photographer behind the camera that makes the most difference. That is true, but on the other hand an artist seeks the best tools to accomplish the fulfillment of the vision. Sometimes the tools at hand are good enough, but other times the artist decides a new tool would allow better workflow and better results.

Hope this helps!
Susan

Do you know someone with a D810? You could do a comparison with their camera to see if they are comparable.

Are there any good camera places near you that work on Nikons? You could take it in for an evaluation. Of course you could send it to Nikon, but that may prove inconvenient as well as costly.

I know I am very happy with my D810, but never had a better camera to compare it with!

Even with outside sources of help, you still should read through the manual. Don't fret over what you do not understand, just keep going. Then read the manual again, with camera in hand. Get to know where all the controls are located, and practice using them to see what they do. The manual will have a section on how to set up the camera, which is also an excellent place to find useful information.

The manuals have improved a great deal since I got my first DSLR 7 years ago. So they really are more readable. There is just so much information to absorb, making it difficult to get through the whole manual. Keep the manual with you so you can look up things you forget or are not sure how to proceed when shooting.

I purchased Steve Perry's eBook about Nikon's focus system, which is excellent. Learning the focus system is NOT just about a narrow topic, because pretty much everything in a camera is interrelated! He even includes camera-specific information, since there are some significant differences to be found in various models.

When you have something for which you still need answers, pose the question and you will undoubtedly get more advice than you can imagine! There are plenty of helpful, knowledgeable people on UHH.

Your comments are interesting and informative, but somehow don't quite get to the heart of the matter.

First, technology does have its place, but only when used appropriately. Landscape painters may not want to use spray paint because it does not work to accomplish their goals. Spray paint HAS been used by artists, however. Graffiti, Wall Murals, etc. Of course they could just throw paint on a canvas like Pollock!

Artists of all kinds get their education from multiple sources in their life experiences. Even advertising! Even though a source has an objective that does not appear to be relevant to art, it reveals a lot about how people are thinking and living their lives.

I do agree that just "keeping up with the latest gadgets" is not relevant to creativity because that is akin to "one-ups-man-ship". It is also a question of commercialization and advertising creating the desire to follow the trends. Art is about expression, revealing, and drawing the attention of the person experiencing it. However, using those "gadgets" in a creative manner is a different thing altogether. In any endeavor, we can improve our results by having the right tools. Technology has given us many things that make our lives better [and worse, too!]. It is how we use our tools to get the desired results that matters.

There have always been those who fit your description. And there have always been those who value what people create. Also, many cannot afford more than "digital gadgets" that are useful and inexpensive. But the desire to surround ourselves with beauty, to get pleasure from our environment, to BE creative, run through all levels of human experience.

Basically, I think you have attempted to dismiss those who are, in different ways, trying to be creative or to appreciate creativity, because they do not fit the mold you prefer. In the end, it is not what tools we use for expression, it is HOW we use them! The best tools will not produce good results in hands that do not know how to use them. When someone does know how to use them, the results can be amazing! Don't ignore the fact that when one tool does not allow reaching a certain result, we seek one that will.

For now, I think that F8Lee's suggestion will work the best. When moving the files, and you get the message, just choose the option to keep both. Then they will each have a different file name.

Later, when you have less work to do, when moving images over is done, you can always change file names to accommodate whatever you decide on for a naming format. Many will use a date system, others will use a word system, I use the numbers out of the camera, with changes that reflect the camera used [I have 2]. If it is a different version of an image I usually add -1 or -2, etc., or if a special technique was used, at the end of the file name I include terms like HDR, pan [Panorama], comp [Composite], etc.]

Don't know specifics about Canon, but for Nikon, I can go into the camera's menu and set the pre-fix to the file number. This is where I change it in each camera to reflect what camera it is. After images are imported, when I edit them I can go into the metadata in LR and add my special notations at the end.

Hope this helps.

There are a lot of photo editing programs out there, and while so many of us use the Adobe CC subcription with LR Classic CC and PS CC, others will find programs that suit their needs for free, a flat fee, or a different subscription. But, as others have said, LR and PS are considered the gold standard. If you want to investigate further, there is a free trial available. Most programs will offer a trial period. In the meantime, if the point and shoot you own came with an editing program, that is a good place to start. Once you get familiar with using the controls [usually sliders, tools, and buttons], it will give you an idea of some things that can be done on the computer.

Whenever you decide to go to a camera that lets you control the settings more than the P&S, there will be a whole new learning curve! I know because I went through it myself 6-7 years ago. I had a digital P&S, then decided on a DSLR. Bought the best I could afford [a crop-sensor camera, but at that time the top of that line] and gradually learned to use it. Now I also own a full frame camera and continue to learn more and more all the time!

Hope this helps.

I watched the video - Using Apply Image in Photoshop. It is a fairly complex tutorial, but very well explained. I suspect you have either skipped a step or misinterpreted something.


In the examples in the video, there are always 2 layers. This may be where you are running into problems! When you change settings in the top layer, using the brush will either hide of reveal what you see in the bottom layer. When painting directly on the image with the brush, it actually removes the pixels so you see the layer below.

With a mask active, the mask is what changes, and a black brush reveals brighter areas when the top layer is too dark. So you are not actually darkening or brightening the image, you are revealing brighter or darker areas in the image below.

In order to actually lighten or darken an image, this calls for a new blank layer. Then the brush will work as you described - lightening or darkening the image. This is "Dodge and Burn" technique.

Hope this helps. I am subscribed to the same channel, and Piximperfect does a very good job. However, he moves quickly, so I often will pause the video and catch up, or even click on the progress line to go back to something showed before. That is one of the great advantages to these videos - you can force them to move at your pace!

For many, it is too much trouble to research this and find out there are monitors that are calibrated when they arrive, although they do need to be adjusted for photography, and then as they get older, calibrated more frequently. Even better, the prices of these have begun to drop! Much more affordable now.