[quote=wingclui44][quote=Adicus]Dave its a very common error is the too's and the to's and the two's it must drive anyone trying to learn English barmy.I suppose its all down to pronunciation maybe and how you personally say the to or the too . The way I say "too much" is with a long oo so I find it easy .[/quo

How about people uses the word "there" as "their"; "your" as " you are or you're"; " shouldent" as " shouldn't"...[/quote]

Having tried to study a second language, I do understand the complexity of the English language in particular, but most languages have such difficulties to overcome. Still, with a wife who was a stickler about grammar, and a mother-in-law who taught languages, I have been sensitized to sloppy writing and improper usage. The country is clearly getting sloppier every day and I find that to be inexcusable in this modern age of 'information at your fingertips'. We should care more and we should make our kids aware more.

Wouldn't that be "Never HAVE so many"...etc.?...or did I miss the joke?

I only shoot in RAW that are first placed in a RAW folder and then at the end of PP in PS, I save to a JPG folder, a PSD folder if layers were involved, and reduce one file for a WEB folder. It makes it easy to organize by file type and easy to locate for further work or for distribution. LR doesn't work for me and this system is perfect for my needs.

Why would you put a bumper sticker on a body like that...let alone two??? Makes an old man wanna cry.

I had the same problem and outcome. That's why I said above that cleaning contacts will likely not work.

What lens is giving the problem? If it is a 24-105 L it is quite likely the ribbon wire and cleaning the contacts won't help. Worth trying the cleaning but don't be surprised if it doesn't work.

If I understand you correctly, you are using your cards as archive copies much as I would keep a copy on an external hard drive. Personally, that seems excessively costly, but if that is your choice and you are happy with your process, I can't think of a reason you should change. On the other hand, I firmly believe that products should be expected to perform as advertised. Memory cards are advertised as reusable, compatible with formatting to reuse them, and designed to be reused for an indeterminate period of time. Otherwise, why provide instructions for continued use? While your process works for you, those memory cards should be expected to also perform repeatedly as advertised. Of course, there are stories of card failures, but most cards are successfully used over and over again without incident. You paid for this ability and wanting the cards to perform repeatedly should not be that hard to understand IMHO. Yes, I spend thousands on camera bodies and often less than $100 on memory cards. I also spend a few bucks on cables, a hundred or so on an external hard drive, less than $50 on lithium camera batteries, and $10 a month to use Photoshop. I accept those charges because the prices are worth paying for what I get in return. Still, I expect all of them to work as advertised repeatedly for a reasonable period of time. The only one I expect will cease to work as I want it to is Photoshop CC when they raise the monthly cost and I refuse to continue paying. In my opinion, your process is unexpectedly and unnecessarily wasteful.

Won't be long but they will be implanting chips in our heads that capture digital images from the optic nerve. Instead of WIFI, you'll just recall an image from the chip and transmit it from person to person. No interchangeable lenses required unless you count those special prescription glasses for macro or telephoto acquisition. In the meantime, I think I'll just keep tripping the shudders of my DSLRs for as long as they last. I suspect they will outlast me, so the rest of this is rather academic.

Not surprised...new gets attention. I own a Sony NEX7 and almost never use it. I just hate the view finder. I also own 5D4, 5Ds, & 7D2...use them when getting good pics is important...which is whenever I take a pic. The NEX7 is smaller and lighter, but it doesn't replace my DSLRs and never will. Just personal preference I suppose.

On the surface, your logic would make sense. I own both the 24-105L and the 28-300L. I would not get rid of the 24-105 because it is 1. a good crisp lens...2. light and easy to carry around compared to the 28-300. The latter is pretty HEAVY, and there are many times when I know that my subject will not lend itself to the range beyond 100mm. I use my 24-105 in my studio for product photography and for portraits. It's much easier to hand-hold than the 28-300 due to weight. In short, the 24-105 is a flexible lens that can be used in many situations. At the same time, the 28-300 is a very good, crisp lens with a wide range in terms of reach. It has been improved over the one I own if you are buying a new version II. Keep the 24-105 and invest in the 28-300 when you can afford it...MHO.

I should add that both lenses work well with my current cameras. I use them on the 5D MkIV, the 5Ds, and the 7D MkII. Yes, I have a couple of prime lenses, but these two are the work horses I rely on the most. For really long reach I go to the Tamron 150-600mm which I have learned to like a lot. I have noticed that the Tamron is limited in terms of having too much reach in many situations and, at those times, the 28-300 is the perfect solution.

Hallelujah Brother!

IMO LR doesn't do anything without the potential for a hassle...just read the frustrated posts on this forum. No one reports such problems using PS or Bridge that I have seen lately. I too have LRCC/PSCC and, if the price doesn't escalate, I'll be happy for the foreseeable future. The difference is that I would be even happier if LRCC were gone and I just paid what I'm paying now for PSCC. LR has no value whatsoever to me, and if I didn't fear physically removing LRCC from my computer, I would do it right NOW. But, because they MADE ME DOWNLOAD AND INSTALL LR before they would let me install PSCC, I'm not going to take a chance that removing LR might cause me headaches with PSCC due to the way they made me load them. I know...I've been told I should be able to dump LR and have no problem with PS thereafter, but I've played that tune before and heard nothing but sour notes at the end of the piece. Bridge works and I didn't have to take a course in order to learn to use it. It's the perfect work flow for me as it interacts with ACR and PS to produce the images I need. Why would I want to introduce a misbehaving, complicated program to mess with my currently functioning system. Some wise sage said..."If it ain't broke, don't fix it!" Wisdom to live by. I'll end with one last quote by Emory Austin..."When the pain of staying the same becomes greater than the pain of change, you will change." HOWEVER, if the pain created by change is great enough, you will return to that which works and is painless. (my quote) Adding LR is ANYTHING BUT PAINLESS.

I have no problem with what your are saying. I just don't want to learn to build a database when I have no need for it. You are comfortable with building them and I say have at it. I have found that I don't need a DB to find my files. My original reason for buying LR was because they said it could provide a catalog. They didn't say it was cryptic as it could be and impossible to rely on. I work in PS, ACR, and Bridge. I don't need another program that requires that I do everything in it (LR) or it threatens to lose track of my files. If I save something while working in PS it stays where I saved it. If I move something while in Bridge, it stays where I put it....AND it doesn't have another program throwing a hissy fit about it. I became especially disenchanted with LR when I discovered that it brought nothing to the table that wasn't already on the PS table of capabilities. I don't consider a cataloging system that doesn't work to be a necessary asset.

Bottom line...do what pleases you and I'll do the same. We're both good.

My approach to organization without LR is equally effective for me. When I finish a shoot I make a folder that dates and ID's the contents making it easy for me to later locate.
Next I make four folders within the main folder...RAW, JPG, PSD, & WEB. I then download my RAW files to the RAW folder. I do the post work in ACR on each file selected after browsing through them in Bridge. After adjustments are made to the RAW image I save as a PSD file to the PSD folder if layers or other detailed work have been created. I also save the finished image as a JPG in the JPG folder. At that point, if needed, I resize the image to reflect the resolution I want for use on the WEB (probably 72ppi and an appropriate dimension). I then save the reduced image using Ctrl-Alt-Shift-S which takes me to the Save for WEB dialog so I can save the lo-res file to the WEB folder. I always add "WEB" to the file name so I can easily differentiate the lo-res files from the hi-res JPGS. Lo-res WEB files can then be easily located and sent to clients as proofs or for direct Internet applications. Hi-res JPGs are easy to locate and send via a large file service. If other hi-res formats are required they are located in their own format folder. More complex images will always be saved in the PSD folder so conversion to specific formats is quick and easy. No confusion, no LR necessary. I personally like it that way. It works for me.

Thanks for your comments. I am not unaware that there is a sizable following for LR and there are those who find it useful or they wouldn't be joining the flock. I fully agree with your observation that the ability to go smoothly from Bridge to ACR and then subsequently open the image in PS for further post work creates logical and efficient workflow. I frequently refer to the metadata in bridge as well. In my opinion, serious photography requires some post processing before I would ever deliver a file to one of my clients. While the adjustments may, in some instances, be rather minor, I can not risk my reputation on anything but post processed images. As a result, I can't imagine not using bridge/ACR/PS as the necessary tools to produce a finished image. LR to me is just superfluous. Perhaps for hobbyists, LR may provide limited help, but then I have to wonder why a hobbyist wouldn't use one of many image editors that are intuitive, less expensive, and much less daunting to learn. I know mine is but one opinion and what is right for me isn't necessarily right for all however.