For clarity,
I'm in Adobe LR
I create a pano with Adobe LR which creates a DNG
I place the DNG pano into a LR book module along with several CR2 files (Blurb in Adobe LR)
I create a pdf of the book with the DNG photo
Adobe LR renders the CR2 files and when it gets to the DNG file it balks and says it can't render the DNG
The process stops dead

Why can't ADOBE LR render the DNG it created? Yes, I can export to TIF or open in PS and save for a TIF so I know LR can do it. I simply hate the idea of having to do multiple steps when one should do.

A couple.

Thanks to both of you, your comments are noted but that doesn't solve the problem of why won't the DNG's render properly? If I can't find a solution then your suggestions of exporting and adding to the catalog will have to do.

This is for LR users that utilize the built in pano and HDR functions. While it works just fine and I do appreciate that it gives the results in a RAW format (DNG) when I go to print in QImage I sometimes get an error that the DNG won't render. So it's off to PS and save for the TIF version and all is fine. However, I am using the book module and I have 34 panos that I wish to include but I get the same error. I really don't feel like running all through PS to get tif's. Does anyone else have DNG problems like this and have you found a solution? While I fully expect the normal "Oh use this program instead, it's great" I am committed to finding the solution to the problem at hand.

I have never used a Mikon but with BBF you focus and its set. Then use the shutter release at your own leisure. If the camera is stationery there should be no need to refocus. I do it all the time with my Canon.

I concur but I would suggest cropping 25% off top AND 20% bottom to create a panorama on shot #1. IMO, the greenery on top and rock on bottom add little to the overall experience. The rest are beautiful examples of intimate waterfalls.

When using the brush in LR (not PS Bill) set your exposure to + or -2 and then start brushing. Not that's what you want but it shows you where your masking out. Once you have your area set then move all the sliders to what your final intent is.

Example:
You have a wonderful photo of a sky with clouds and a second landscape photo with totally overcast dead sky. Open both on separate layers with the landscape on top layer. Highlight the landscape layer and create a layer mask. Now black brush over the dead sky to reveal the wonderful sky underneath. Make a mistake with the black brush? Simply switch to white and go back over the error areas to show the portion of the landscape you want to see.

You now have a wonderful landscape photo with wonderful sky. This can also used with more than 2 photos, skies the limit. No pun intended.

I suspect you are thinking of a layer mask on a single photo instead of multiple photos.

All the exposure metadata (and so much more) is located in each of the downloaded photos.

More congrats BUT you need to do a lot more work on the foreground cloning. Very obvious. Still a nice photo.

For mirroring you are looking to incorporate a raid 1 setup. In the event 1 drive crashes, the other will automatically take over and you need to manually replace the dead drive. This is not a back up system in the traditional sense as you can accidentally delete or change files that are immediately saved on the mirror. So in the event of a crash...good, in the event of operator error...bad.

If you have your main working drive as a stand alone and also add a 2 or more disk raid 1 that backs up the main drive every x hours/days/weeks then you are fairly safe with 2 copies of the back up data.

Thanks NS, it is a cool piece of software.

♪ ♫ Slow down, you're moving too fast, ♫ ♪
♫ ♪ Got to make the morning last, ♪ ♪ ♫
♪ ♫ ♪ Just, kickin down the cobblestone. ♫
♪ ♪ ♪ Look at the fun in feeling... GROOVY ♫ ♫ ♪

Now see if you can get the tune outa your heads.

In total agreement here. Erasers will damage the gold contacts but alcohol (or contact cleaner) won't, unless you dunk the camera/lens in a bucket of it.

f22 is a physical limit of the lens and has little to do with sensor size. Turn your camera's lens to f22 and hit the DOF preview then look at the opening of the aperture and you will see it is such a small opening there is no reasonably accurate method to make it smaller. When you get a larger telephoto lens then you may get f32 but the same principles apply. Once the opening is so small there is just no reasonable way to accurately make it smaller. Maybe Carter can weigh in and let us know if we are on the right path.