Just as there was a lens/film relationship, there is a lens/sensor relationship. Film had a resolution limit based on halide grain size and a lens had only provide a matching resolution (think abberations for example). So a lens for a digital need only provide a resolution that matches that of the sensor. Any greater lens resolution would not be noticeable. In digital all lies in the sensor design. If you think of sensor dimensional size and number of pixels, is resolution properly thought to be sensor area/#pixels square root of?

What needs to be updated is the Adobe Camera Raw plug-in, not the entire Photoshop software. All ACR does is read and convert the raw file data to Photoshop image format. Once it opens one can convert to DNG which is Adobe raw file format.

The a6000 sensor has aspect ratio of 3:2 - the same as 35 mm film. The physical size is smaller which only means a 3:2 subject area is uniformly compressed compared to a 36mm:24mm sensor.

That camera was one of Kodaks first mass oroduced cameras. I have my dad's Autographic stored away. It is not rare. There is a Wikipedia pages on Kodak cameras, I seem to recall.

We actually do holiday and anniversary and BD the year around. There are time we see things in strange places that make for a great gift for some one or maybe even a gag gift (in our famly finding the great gag gift is nearly an art form). It is usually stuff made one at a time by an individual and not by a machine.

The source of the smoke should remain, tho.

Trashing an image in-camera does not actually remove the image. What it does is erase the image file pointer in the card directory. That part of the directory is available and card file space for reuse, if the replacement file can fit. If the file was a jpeg and the next image is RAW, then there will not be enough space. In computers the CPU and OS is smart enough to segment the file, but I don't think camera CPUs and OSs are that sophisticated.

Reformating comes in different flavors: soft in which only the directory is cleared; hard in which the entire memory is set to "0"s or "1"s or some OS preferred pattern of 0s and 1s. Again I suspect camera OSs might not be that sophisticated. Now here is the rub with soft formatting. A binary file header has file information used only by the OS and one such is the checksum of the file which defines the endpoint of the file. If that number is in error for some reason or the reading defice reads in error, then while the image will open from the correct bit in card file space it might end either before or after the actual end of the binary file. So an image might look 'funny'. This is why one should use a card in just one camera at a time and if you put a prior camera used card in another camera, it would be advisable to reformat.

The web site does not designate a place of business location, so one can not waltz in and make an assessment: such as knowledge of staff or can you rent a lens for try out or knuckle the counter over a dissatisfaction. So I would beware.

The strength of FileMakerPro is that it is relational. Different databases can be referenced in each other.

Must take some nominal exception here. By PP the OP meant alteration of an images attributes. The 'processing in camera' is not image alteration. The data from a sensor is a long series of "0"s and "1"s organized in pixel groups. The camera has a limited capability CPU that does very few image things amoung which is a fixed form algorithm that compresses that data stream to make a jpeg file. When some external app opens that jpeg a reversing algorithm runs to restore the original binary signal. There have been several jpeg algorithms over the years: the original was 'lossy' and later developments sought to get closser to lossless. So it stands to reason that binary sensor data to jpeg in the oldest digital camera would be quite different from that of today's most advanced digital camera. Some cameras even compress 'raw' data: I read somewhere that some Sony cameras compress a raw 14 bit depth pixel to 11 pixels by some algorithm. If yor PP software or your photo viewer app are unaware of this algorithm, then you should see garbage for the most part. Considering all the camera manufacturers and all the viewing device manufacturers and all the PP software producers, isn't that enough to find lots of problems (I got lost in this last thought so throw me a break).

MacWorld is running a black friday special on"Creative Kit 2016" (several 100 $ for 90 $. It seems to be a package of image editors that uses 'presets.' Any one have experiece with it. The 2016 part might be new name for old name.

Are those crab apples and loved by birds. Are they sweet or do you have to have a freeze first. That is the way our Jade Crabapple feeds the birds.

By getting only three, what are plans for those 4 zoom days.

Does you Wacom pen have the pressure sensitivity capability. Are you pretty good at free hand tracing in the first case. My free hand skills were never great (therefore, not an artist), so doing Wacom is a piece of work for me.

Given that the brightness on the right side of his head and of her hair and the brightness on his face (toward the left) suggests a very difficult public lighting situation that no amount of meter tinkering could remedy. Only you were there so only you could repositioning yourself relative to the subjects would help.