Thanks for your reply.

You'll have to pardon my ignorance, but what would the advantages of a global shutter be and how is it mechanically/physically different than conventional shutters?

Very nice as usual. So, what post editing process did you use? Is there a particular plug-in involved. Thanks for sharing.

Perhaps the deciding question should be...How ugly do you have to be...if you don't count the lady members. .🤔

I have been using PS since version 2.5 and switched grudgingly to PSCC when I could no longer buy my upgrades. I know...about the constantly updated CC concept. I still don't particularly like subscriptions. Now I continue to use PSCC and I have a copy of PS6 as backup. That said, I also have tried LR on a few occasions and I find it to be unnecessary if I have PS installed. The original reason I considered LR was for its cataloging capability, however, it took no time at all for me to conclude that LR was fraught with unnecessary problems. The cataloging function is cryptic, constantly troublesome, and complex, IMHO. I have found it MUCH more advantageous to use PSCC for post and Bridge for locating and managing image files. I have developed a simple file management system that allows me to locate my files easily using Bridge. I have none of the problems cited by members on this forum when it comes to storing or moving image files from one place to another or one HD to another at will. Bridge doesn't get confused if I change those locations. LR has what I would consider limited or redundant post production capabilities that are already present in PSCC. I personally see no need to deal with learning how to do things in LR that I can already do in PS. Save yourself a headache and stick with PSCC. Better the devil you know than the devil you don't know, as my dearly departed father recommended.

My goodness this is getting tedious. There has already been a plethora of solutions offered for what was really not a big problem in the first place. Earlier I pointed out that the terms Upload/Download were literally used to indicate whether information was being sent to a room on the second floor where the mainframe computer components were housed in air conditioned comfort, or if information was being retrieved from the mainframe to terminals located "down" on the first floor. In that context, the terms were essentially self-explanatory. It would seem that the conditions/locations of hardware have changed and been thankfully miniaturized to the degree that we no longer need a second floor room in which to keep our computers. Thus, up and down references have become obsolete. That doesn't mean that users won't continue to use the terms, however, we can probably figure out, without such lengthy analysis, that we are talking about storing, moving, or accessing files residing on various devices. Since they no longer need to move "up" or "down" to get to where they are needed, we should probably just accept that they are being moved or copied from one location to another and let it go at that. It would seem that, in the end, it really doesn't matter how their movement is described as long as they get to where they are going and their location can be determined. Another way of saying this would be to simply admit that I, for one, am tired of this line of exchange and I am going to cease to follow it further in favor of using what little time I have left for something more stimulating and perhaps educational. Y'all carry on...

I'm astounded that someone hasn't reminded us of the original meaning and uses of the terms "upload" and "download" harkening back to the days when the computer mainframe resided on the second floor and data was "uploaded" to the computer upstairs. When that data was retrieved, it was "downloaded". As with many old camera terms from the film days, they were adopted to reference similar contemporary operations. Can anyone site specific examples?

Yes, I have to say that I have had similar experience with continuous lighting (CL) and I must admit finding CL of very limited practical use unless you have significant amounts of video projects. You can indeed find a way to take stills if you are shooting stationary objects. Or if you can accept high ISO settings. I agree that CL doesn't begin to compare with IQ attainable using good strobes. I find CL to be interesting for limited situations.

Good point! I rely on strobes 99% of the time, but I do have three LED continuous light units (2 - 500 light modules and 1 - 1000 light module) that can be used for video or stills and the light temp is near daylight. Not my first choice for studio lighting, but an interesting addition.

To answer your question about where I might have needed 640WS, I have to explain that my choice of equipment is never to pick the least capable available. Rather I tend to select the best I can find in keeping with what I can afford. In building my business, I was fortunate to start with rather demanding commercial product assignments in a niche industry. I was able to acquire a used Speedotron lighting system that gave me a very capable power pack with four hi-performance heads. This equipment allowed me a great deal of flexibility in subject selection and I was able to accept a broad range of projects. The downside was that it was a bit cumbersome. While that system is still operational, I decided to downsize to a modern system that turned out to be the Alien Bees heads with Lithium portable battery pack and assorted accessories. I downsized to two 640WS and one 320WS units. The difference in cost for less capable strobes was not great and the ability to take on more demanding assignments made it an easy choice. If you knew you were only going to be photographing small items in small popup product tents, you could indeed get by with lower WS units. I felt that having more capability allowed me to consider bigger projects so I was free to make moderate WS units my work horses and fall back on my Speedotron units when I needed to blow a lot of light into the scene. Frankly, I have not had to use the Speedotron system for quite a while, but I have also not felt limited by my moderate selection of Alien Bees equipment. If you don't know where you are going, any road will eventually get you there. I prefer to have a reasonable buffer of resources with which to get the job done without having to compromise because of a shortfall. Can you get by for a lot of projects with less than 640 WS? Sure you can. I have gotten some nice results light painting a portrait with an LED pen light, but I wouldn't want to have to rely on that light source for everything. I have heard the argument that no one needs a 50 MP camera, but in my line of work I like having a 5Ds in my studio. My 5D Mk4 affords the latitude to do things that I may not have been able to do with an earlier model, but I prefer to have that capability. My 7D Mk2 rounds out my selection of camera bodies and I feel that I can address most projects that I might encounter. The question at hand was about how to approach selecting lighting equipment as an entry into studio lighting. My experience says that one should take a middle ground and leave room to expand. Underestimating your needs tends to be more costly in the long run. Thus my advice to consider 640 WS strobes. Your 500WS units are in the same ballpark and I assume you don't regret your choice either. My intent was to give my best considered opinion to address the question. To compare, I guess I probably average power usage at 1/4th to 3/4th levels. I don't feel overpowered at all.

I chose to use Cyber Commander with the Paul C. Buff Alien Bees. I haven't used the Pocket Wizard but I believe it should work fine with any of the strobes of major manufacturers. Someone on this site can give you a specific answer to that question I'm sure. I am tempted to recommend various soft box designs, but for now you just need the basics and some time to learn how to use them. You'll get plenty of ideas about how to spend your money on accessories. Good luck.

In the studio, either for commercial product photography or portraiture, I have always used strobes. Modifiers are certainly an important component in controlling the light produced by your strobes. I started out using umbrellas and then graduated to soft boxes. My preference is the soft box because of the degree of light control afforded. Using umbrellas, you can opt to shoot through a white translucent fabric or reflect the light off of the inside of the umbrella back at your subject. With soft boxes, you can choose to diffuse the light using one or more layers of translucent fabric in addition to having the option to use bare bulbs for certain effects. I rarely resort to bare bulbs. If you read tutorials on the Internet, you can find many techniques for adjusting soft boxes or umbrellas including the feathering technique that most portrait photographers use. The size of the umbrella or soft box makes a tremendous difference in your ability to distribute the light evenly and to control the degree of softness. How you position your lights with regard to your subject is critical. The closer you can place the diffused light to your subject, the softer the light. Greater distance from the subject increases harshness. The best reason I can think of for spending a little more money on good strobes vs cheaper models is to increase the range or power of those units. The power is normally referred to in Watt Seconds and the greater the Watt seconds, the greater the range of power you have at your disposal. I recommend main lights at 640 WS or more, and some accent lights having at least 320 WS. While you can actually start out with one or two strobes, I recommend a minimum of three for a studio setup. I do use speed lights on and off camera in mobile situations where lugging strobes and power supply is not practical. I have worked with photographers who use speed lights and smaller soft box accessories. Some have soft boxes that accommodate two speed lights in each box. I have not used these and have no opinion of the results except to say that I haven't heard loud complaints. My use of speed lights is mostly limited to providing fill light in outdoor situations, so referring to someone who uses them more extensively would provide better ideas for you. You don't have to spend a ton of money on strobes. Good professional results can be achieved with new or used units having the desired specifications for a few hundred dollars each. Good reliable units like Alien Bees are affordable. See https://www.paulcbuff.com/Flash-Units/ for examples. RF transmitters are nice and I use them extensively, however, don't forget that most good strobes can be hardwired from your camera for studio use. If you are working in your studio by yourself, the practical and cheaper answer may just be IR units like those from Wein for example. We all have our favorites and firm opinions, so UHH members are certain to give you excellent advice from their extensive experience.

PhotoKurtz,
There is indeed a lot of material published about the 5D4 and with good reason. There is a lot you can choose to use among its many capabilities. I think that sometimes this plethora of choices becomes the tail wagging the dog. I believe that buying new equipment, or even older models for that matter, should be aimed at addressing a perceived needs. There has to be a balance between need and want combined with justified use of one's resources. I don't subscribe to the practice of buying new "stuff" just to say I own the latest and greatest. There is always the point at which I can't afford it anyway, but from a practical point of view, I need to feel that there is a real purpose in any purchase. To begin with, I'm approaching 75 years old and have recently made what I said is my final camera body purchase, that being the 5D4. The 600 page manual means very little to me because the basic operation of the camera is consistent with the other two camera bodies I currently own and use. Before buying the 5D4, I had the 5D2, and the 5D before that. Each new body brought some new technology, higher ISO availability with a bit lower noise, and what I believe to have been improved image quality. As a professional specializing in product photography, I felt that these cameras provided me with the results I needed to satisfy my clients at the time I owned them. To help with that goal, I also purchased a 5Ds specifically for use in my studio where I commonly shoot product and portraiture. The 50MP resolution provides a big plus in flexibility of image use for my clients and it improves my ability to use creative cropping among other things. Because some of my clients use my images in large print application for trade shows and trade publications, the higher resolution represents a real improvement in what I can offer them. I find that the 5D4, with 30MP resolution, satisfies some of that need as well, but it also provides flexibility in terms of subject matter I can address in a variety of settings, both in the studio and outside. I have great confidence in the 5D4 when shooting live performances of the local symphony, dance groups, and other low-light venues. The quiet operation is an added plus. My third camera body is the 7D2 which I purchased when I found myself occasionally shooting sports events and wildlife for my personal gratification. The 7D2 offers the crop sensor, giving me a frame rate of 10 frames/sec which serves well when shooting action sports and moving wildlife. The obvious advantage to my selection of these three bodies is that my full-frame lenses interchange well and I can be very flexible in choosing what projects I can shoot. The reason I say the 600 page manual means little to me is because I use a very small amount of the features built into these cameras. I like that I can pick up any of the three and know instinctively how to operate them with ease. In rare situations where I need what I consider an unusual capability, I know that I can learn to use what is not in my normal realm of feature selection. In the same way that I only use Photoshop CC for post work, I am certain that many of the things PSCC can do go unused in my daily work and play. Still, I know that there is probably a way to accomplish the unusual should I need to do that at some point. Thus, at this stage of my game, I am reasonably sure that the equipment I now own will serve my needs well for the predictable future, and I don't expect that I'll need to buy more capability for the time I have left. I predict that you will be delighted with the 5D4. It is a marvelous piece of equipment. While it can't do EVERYTHING, it can do a tremendous amount of quality work. For my purposes, the 5Ds and the 7D2 beautifully fill in the very few holes left by the 5D4. Together, they remove most obstacles to executing my creative process. From here on out, I expect GAS attacks to be extremely rare. I don't think you need to justify your investment at all. Just use and enjoy it to the fullest.

OK...I'll ask a question that has bugged me since I first heard about tuning a lens. I have 3 cameras, a 5D IV, a 5Ds, and 7DII. I have 5 different lenses I use on these 3 bodies. If I'm unhappy with sharpness on one lens and I tune that lens to the 5D IV, would that screw up focus on the other two bodies using that lens, or is the change made in the body and it would mess with focus using other lenses on that body? I'm obviously confused about what gets changed where.

While I completely agree with your suggestion to return the neg, the answer to your integrity question is simply...Not Many! One only has to look to Washington DC to see that integrity is sadly dead.