By the way, do you recommend the catalogue or xmp organizational system in LR and why?

I had Picasa on my computer long before I got back into photography to view images friends had posted, but when I opened it recently for the first time in years, it was indeed grinding away for a long time, probably duplicating images and creating it's own library as you suggested, though I haven't had the time to delve into it to confirm any of that for myself. I've heard Picasa is a good editing program, however, and so I'm not likely to get rid of it, though I've primarily stuck with using the edits from iPhoto until now in anticipation of a complete transition soon to LR and PSE.

I think I'll do most of my editing in LR, but I am interested in being able to use layers, and I'm fascinated by the textures, and styles that people have converted their photos with here on the hog (is that what a filter is?). I haven't gotten far enough to know what all is included in PSE, what a "plug-in" is or how it's accessed, or many of the details of any of the other PP programs, but I know LR doesn't have layers, and I know that I'll want to have that. I've seen some interesting conversions by Photomatix that I would like to try someday, but again, I've got to take this one step at a time. I figure that rather than spread myself thin and take forever to make a decision by trying everything out (besides the fact that I just don't have the time to dedicate to that, working 50-60 hrs a week), I'd just get software that has served many of the hogs well, and learn to use it as I go. I can usually figure things like that out reasonably well.

I certainly appreciate your help here, and if you've got any other suggestions, I'm all ears.

Awesome response, thanks! A couple of things I am still a little unsure of based on your answer. If I export the image I edit in LR so that it can be synced through iPhoto, would that be creating a second image that I have to store? It seems that it would, based on the way you described it. And you mentioned that LR can sync with social media, but does that mean that it can be set up to sync with my iPhone and iPad, or that it won't?

Also, do all photo processing software programs share the same libraries (i.e. do not make additional copies of images that need to be stored)? I have iPhoto, Picasa, and anticipate LR (which you said only generates thumbnails if photos are modified), and PSE (though I probably ought to look at PSP one more time, as that seems to be another program that will give me a lot of editing options.) The reason I'm asking, is that when I opened Picasa, my iPhoto library showed up as having about 18,000 photos, but there was another folder called masters (or something like that--I'm not at home to verify it right now) bringing the Picasa total to over 34,000. I'm wondering what the masters file is all about, and how it relates to the iPhoto library. Is it a duplicate of everything in iPhoto?

I've had my D600, 24-70mm f/2.8, and 70-200mm f4 for a couple of months, have now got my iMac upgraded to be able to handle post processing, and have the external hard drives for the necessary storage, but I'm in a quandry now as to how to proceed. I enjoy the ease of syncing photos to my iPhone and iPad from iPhoto, but want more post processing power options than iPhoto offers. I've read hundred of threads here about the various options and had all but decided to go with Lightroom 5, and PSE11. But now, along comes Adobe with their creative cloud program. I don't feel I will get enough out of CS6 to justify the monthly subscription, but fear that PSE might become a subscription product in the future (my understanding is that both Lightroom 5 and PSE11 can be owned outside of the CC).

First, should I get Lightroom 5 and PSE11 now, or wait to see how things with adobe shake out, or should I rethink my software choices altogether. Perhaps start with LR5, and then move on to PSE11--though I think these programs are most often used together?

Second, if I do get those two programs, should I use them and still have iPhoto as the primary vehicle to sync photos to my other devices, or should I abandon iPhoto altogether (if so, will I create headaches in syncing photos to my eternal devices, or is that an easy thing to work around)? How is the best way to set things up? I would like to set things up so that my starting point is importing into LR, but I want to have access to the photos in iPhoto for syncing (or can I set up to sync through LR?). I'm interested in responses from those of you using apple products, who have successfully continued to do so without a bunch of hassle. What works?

Lastly, are there any pitfalls in transitioning my library from iPhoto to Lightroom? Will the organizational delineations I have made in iPhoto be maintained, or will I have to reorganize everything? (That is not a pleasant thought!) When I opened Picasa, the photos did not seem to have the organization/labels/etc. I had in iPhoto. Will all these programs create their own copies of the same photos (thus reducing available memory through redundancy?)

Here are a few of my favorites with my new equipment! It's fun to be taking pictures again--I'm addicted!

From a recent trip to the mountains


From a cultural show in China


Guards of the Forbidden City

Interesting! How is something like that done?

Very nice!! :thumbup:

There are certainly many hard working people who have difficulty making ends meet and who who lack the insurances mentioned above for a real lack of financial ability. However, I can't tell you how many people I've cared for who have the latest cell phone with unlimited everything plans, have car payments they can't afford, and have spent thousands of dollars on tattoos and cigarettes who show up at the ER expecting others to foot the bill for things they could and should manage themselves if they altered their priorities a little. I think my father-in-law had it right when he always said, "We get what we can afford, not what we deserve."

Thanks for all the great input. I can't wait--but have to for just a bit longer(my wife is renovating part of the house, and I have to make sure that gets paid for) --to make my dream a reality! Just in the last couple of months, following the hog, reading, and researching, I feel like my knowledge base is infinitely improved. I just need to put it into practice and get the experience to go along with it. I'll keep you posted.

I think my problem is that I'm waiting around for my birthday for this purchase, and so all I have to do is keep reading and rethinking everything. I just need to get there and take the plunge. I'm sure I'll be happy no matter what I choose, as with all I've learned, I won't make a bad decision. In all reality, there's probably no perfect one either--which is why there are so many lenses to choose from anyway! I just hadn't considered the weight issue before, it had always been about lens quality and capability.

I'm planning to make the D600 my body--entry level full frame. I'm the kind of person that always tends to buy more than I will use, though I'm pretty serious about making photography a serious long-term hobby--hence the full frame body and fx lenses. I had convinced myself that I would eventually need the best lenses, and so I began planning the series of lens purchases based on that alone. Then I started seeing feedback of people returning lenses I thought would be the most desired ones to have, and many times it was because they were too big and heavy. I guess I have trouble imagining how inconvenient it might be to have a heavy lens. I've also considered getting into an f/4 aperture set, as they are less expensive and less weight, but I just don't know if I'll wind up replacing everything, feeling that I'm missing out without the fast glass--an expensive way to go. I'm practical enough to know that though a f/2.8 lens offers things an f/4 lens doesn't, I may not use the f/2.8 like I would an f/4, so maybe the f/4 lens with good VR will get me where I want to be.

I feel like I'm to the point now where I understand what lenses are good for what, and what sacrifices I will have to make for low light (hefty lenses, etc.). I know I can't have it all now, and am looking for a good place to start. I guess since I haven't carried one of these larger lenses around all day yet, it' hard for me to know how much weight to place on the weight! Thanks for the thoughts so far!

I'm still putting together a system from scratch and I've read a lot about the heavy but awesome Nikon lenses like the Nikon 24-70mm f2.8, and the Nikon 70-200mm f2.8, that provide a lot of flexibility and sharpness in shooting--especially in low light. But I've also read that many of you who own these lenses use a slower, say, 28-300mm lens, for the vast majority of your photography. Would it be a mistake for me to make my initial lens investments in a heavier quality lens and just deal with the inconvenience of size and weight while using it as an initial walk around lens, or would it be better to get a lighter, more user friendly lens like the 28-300mm? I guess I just wonder how inconvenient a relatively heavy lens is if used routinely, and how much the weight of that lens would impact the joy of photography? If you had to start with one lens, which path would you choose?

That's kind of the impression I got in reading about it. It seems to be kind of an annoying topic, but I wanted to make sure I wasn't missing something! Thanks!

I keep seeing the issue of "bokeh" discussed and understand that there is a difference between DOF and "bokeh". I've looked at the links that have been shared and know the definitions. Contributors talk about the quality of "bokeh" as what is important, and that there is good "bokeh" and bad "bokeh". That's where I'm having trouble. Could someone explain to me the difference between good and bad "bokeh"? Or is it in the eye of the beholder?

I'm a relative newcomer to this forum (first post--sorry it's long), but have followed it religiously for about 3 months. I'm in the process of resurrecting an old interest in photography and intend to make this a significant hobby for the rest of my life. I thank all the Hogs here who have facilitated and furthered my digital photography education thus far.

Years ago, I owned a Nikon 4004AF with a 50mm and a 70-200mm zoom, but 12 years of schooling got me away from it, during which the transition to the age of digital photography occurred. I've primarily been using a high-end point and shoot camera in recent years, and though I wouldn't consider myself a true beginner, I've got a lot to learn about the digital world. But now I am to the point where I am able to dedicate the necessary time and money to this interest.

Because of my long-term intentions in photography, I wanted to make my re-entrance into the digital field with an FX camera so that I can feel good about significantly investing in quality glass that I plan to keep long-term as my abilities increase. Especially so that when I decide to upgrade the body I won't have to reinvest in new glass. I'm leaning heavily toward the D600 body, and feel that in the end I will probably wind up with at least a Nikon 70-200mm VR II, possibly a 50mm f/1.4, and a wider angle zoom or some interest specific lenses if led in a different direction. My dilemma is where to start. I am prepared to spend the necessary money to get properly set up over time, but want to proceed at a pace that allows me to learn first, and then expand later with the option to alter my course as I go, rather than drop $6000 on equipment now that I end up not using like I thought I would, and wish I had waited to buy (or not buy).

I thought the 24-85mm kit lens (though a "kit" lens, it comes well-recommended) would be a good place to start, just to figure out the ins and outs of the new SLR, and thought that in a year or so to get the incredible 70-200mm keeper above. That would ultimately give me good focal range coverage between the two lenses, but I wonder if I would feel handicapped by not having a longer lens option in the meantime. That has made me consider the Nikon 28-300mm as a starting lens (which also seems to be well thought of). The downside of that choice being that, in addition to being more expensive, I've read that a lens with that much range usually doesn't perform as well at the ends of its spectrum as more specifically designed lenses do. That, and when/if I did want to move on to the 70-200mm f/2.8 lens, I would have a lot of redundancy in my lenses. I would love some suggestions from you veterans on how to intelligently proceed. I am one who usually buys more than I need, rather than less, because I fear limiting myself down the road.

I anticipate eventually photographing nature, candid artsy street stuff, travel, and low light indoor kids activities (recitals, etc.)--I know that is quite diverse and I won't be able to do all that with the first lens I get, but that's where I'm heading!