Thx. That's why I keep going there.

My personal belief is that the only important thing is the final image. To me, whether the image is realistic is almost irrelevant.

thx for posting. I especially like the third one.

thx

I don't mind. In fact, I'd appreciate it. The initial post specifically asks people to post.

I have a HP Omen with 32 GB of RAM, two 1-TB SSDs and one 1-TB hard disk. I keep Windows and my applications on the first SSD, my software files (I used to be a software developer) on the second SSD, and my pictures on the hard disk. I am very pleased with this "laptop"; it has a 17" screen, so you have to have a capacious lap if you want it on the top of your lap. A big advantage of the Omen I have is that its screen gamut is full Adobe RGB.

For photo editing, the choice is to get as large a screen as you can or always use an external monitor. I have a 32" monitor hooked up to my laptop as an auxiliary screen; I find that having two screens works very well with Lightroom.

How much space you need for your 16,000 pictures is easy to figure out: multiply the file size in bytes of a representative and recent image by 16,000. Then double or triple that amount; the result is a rough estimate of the size drive you need. Note that you should always have a bit of free space on your disk. As a rule of thumb, 25 % free is OK, 10 % free is marginal, and less than 5 % free is tempting fate.

I strongly advise you to configure as much RAM as you can afford. Some people here think that 16 GB is OK; my opinion is that 32 or 64 GB is better.

You need to consider how long you want to keep your laptop going. The longer you want to keep it, the more RAM, CPU speed, and disk space will be needed. The reason is that software tends to get more and more bloated (and, thus, more resource-intensive) as time goes by.

IMHO, as long as you are not a serious pixel peeper and do not print enormous enlargements, diffraction is of minor importance.

If diffraction is important to you, you have to use the DLA (diffraction-limited aperture; around F5.6 to F10, depending on number of megapixels in the sensor and the sensor size) or a bigger opening. If the DLA does not give you enough depth of field, the easiest remedy is focus stacking.

As part of their testing, The Digital Picture give the DLA for some the camera bodies they test. The most recent table I have seen is in their review of the Canon EOS R.

Also, Photography Life have an article on diffraction.

I thought it might be a good idea to show the UHH public some less known but very scenic areas. Please post additional images so that we can get as complete coverage as possible.

(Download)

thx

Very neat place. I didn't give the link because I think the photo there is immensely overcooked; the colors in the park are nowhere near as saturated as in the photo there.

thx

I thought it might be a good idea to show the UHH public some less known but very scenic areas. Please post additional images so that we can get as complete coverage as possible.

(Download)


(Download)

I thought it might be a good idea to show the UHH public some less known but very scenic areas. Please post additional images so that we can get as complete coverage as possible.

(Download)

I thought it might be a good idea to show the UHH public some less known but very scenic areas. Please post additional images so that we can get as complete coverage as possible.

(Download)


(Download)

The full manual is ~600 pages. Given that the contents are highly technical, I figure it might take close to a year to read and absorb the manual.