Consider looking at mu-43.com...a site dedicated to m43 users. There may be a yearly cost to post want ads...but it is also an excellent site for all things m43...and some outstanding photography where idiotic rancor is not allowed...unlike some places we know...

Sorry i was on the move and glanced at this quickly.

I cant write code or mess with dll stuff...but my only very novice question is if you edited the photo, exported it and did not include that data in the export? Thus it does not exist?

I use Lightroom Mobile and can edit raw files, place them into an album and then transfer to my desktop LRC version..all files come across as raw files and the sidecar file comes right along with it so I can continue editing. If you are a LR user try the mobile version and see how it goes.

I am not into admiring other peoples' equipment. It's kinda creepy.

Meanwhile on the camera front, if we all thought more deeply about the gear we would really use rather than collecting gear we do not use, we'd all be richer.

Too late. Carolina BBQ all the way

And yet you did. Maybe fire up a convo on raw vs jpeg; Subscription based software vs free vs buy once; Nikon vs Canon, SOOC vs processing and Trump v Biden!

Who among us are good enough for any of this to matter? Few.

Best of luck.

Larry, I reread your post and see the mention of "illustrations". You also mention reference photographs. So my translation is flat art and probably posted on-line or digital posting/use of the photograph. Depending on size of the illustrations, there are tabletop copy stands specifically designed for photographing flat objects, such as illustrations. As I mentioned, before the lunacy of sensor quality and high end cameras commenced, having lighting that is always on (rather than a flash) makes for much easier and consistent item photography. I have a very small light box with lighting I used to take photos of greeting cards for a disabled relative who made and sold them. In fact, we used an iPhone for some of the photos and they came out just fine....as good as using a dslr. I also did a few 3d objects just for insurance purposes, such as camera lenses, fishing reels, and the like. Once the light box got set up it was like an assembly line. "Twer I trying to get this right, I'd also PM BurkePhoto who has a lot of copying experience. But for a flat object, I would consider a table top copier similar to this:

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1603035-REG/impact_pclk_120_copy_lights_led_w_adjustable.html


The recommendations for upscale cameras, worrying about sensors and all that are totally off the mark. I disagree about in-camera raw and all that as well. While I shoot raw almost exclusively, if I were doing this, I'd use the set up as recommended, shoot in jpeg, edit slightly in what ever cheap and easy program I had, or even upload to my iPad and edit in snapseed (free and robust) post to my site and that would be that.

In this we agree. It’s downright goofy.

I’d think the camera is just fine for her purposes. Make sure lens is ok for her needs. I did some stuff back in the day with a plastic canon 50 mm lens. Worked just fine.

The issue will be set up such as lighting, exposures, tripod, etc. instead of flash I’d find cheaper constant lighting so she can adjust exactly as she wants. Maybe slight adjustments in a free editing program….canon’s? If I could control lighting then I’d just shoot in jpeg.

EasyPeeezy

Mixbook is very very good. I am a long time user, having done maybe 20 books with them. On line making of photo books is as easy as it can be. My only negatives are that they do not provide glossy paper (as far as I can tell) for their books and do not offer paper samples, even when I contacted customer service. I also requested they consider making boxes for their books so small keepsakes from trips can be kept with the book. They declined. ALWAYS ALWAYS WAIT FOR COUPONS ON MIXBOOK.!!!

I am putting together a book, via the feature in LRC, which is not very intuitive. I tried that because a fellow photo club member uses it, the integration between LRC and the software allow for image titles to be automatically placed in the book. Blurb, the publisher, uses Mohawk Paper of many types, so it is top notch. I quickly peeked at the online version of Blurb and it seems easy enough. From what I can tell, the prices are about the same. Blurb also has a cheaper "magazine" type book should one want to give out many copies. Blurb also offers a way to make a test copy of a book...it looks like you order a test run and you get a few pages to makes sure your book is as you might want it. I'd do this if I were a wedding photog or something like that. For a vacation? Nope. A downside is Blurb insists on putting their trademark on the book, I think at the back. If you do not want the mark, you pay a premium.

Shutterfly is another provider. Like the two above, their on line software is not difficult to use. And if you are a Costco member, you get an automatic 50% off photo items. I can't speak to their paper quality.

For a one and done, I'd use Mixbook. Did I say coupon? I meant to say coupon!!

He specifically says he does not teach organization, which I think is a mistake. As we've seen on this forum, that is a major issue for some people, particularity hobbyist, which is what most of us are. Not teaching the organizational tools of LRC (the one resident on one's computer) would be like only teaching shutter priority and ignoring aperture priority. It masks no sense. But at least he's open about it and leaves the customer to decide. I decided and no longer follow him.

In my case, I use LRC and most all of its features. If I later decide to go the LR (cloudy) I can easily do it because my file structure is in place and I can just use that.

I think you mean you now have the LRC which means the one installed directly on the computer. LR is the one in the cloud. (I made a similar nomenclature goof in my post the other day on this as well.) Either way, there is no pulling the old program out of anything. Your IT guy simply downloads (from Adobe) either/or both LR or LRC and then you sign on using your credentials. LR does not have quite the organizational capabilities of LRC. But if you just want to edit photos in place on your hard drive and store some pics on the cloud, then it will work perfectly. LR also has the ability to organize photos into albums, which I assume you know what that is. With LR your albums and cloud photos should appear upon sign on.

As BobHartung noted, make your choice and dive in. If using LR and Picasa works for you, then fine. But, I do not understand why people use multiple programs for a similar purpose when learning one program, to its fullest, seems to be a better way of doing things. For ME, the organizational aspects of LRC are valuable tools. It is my only organizational program other than Explorer. In my mind, simplify simplify simplify. As the old saying goes, fear the man who carries one gun, because he is probably quite proficient with it.

I just tested it. LR (the cloudy one) allows keywording on local photos. It also has sorting capabilities by date, etc. I had a back and forth with Matt Koslowski, Lr and Ps teacher - blogger, and we strongly disagreed on Lr vs. LRC. He thinks it is great. Me...not so much. The local side of LR does not allow albums to be local (collections in LRC). I just read that Lr allows facial recognition, but I havn't figured it out just yet. LR does not have the LRC features of mapping or photobook publishing. Any album created, even if it involves an off-line local photo, is stored to the cloud. Albums can be made avail off line but to do so, it appears that the photos are downloaded (obviously) somewhere onto the hard drive. That could balloon up hard drive usage where as local collections are simply "pointers" to where the photo is and documents/stores the collection.

I opined to Matt that this was for two reasons: 1- A catalog is needed to keep all this data together, such as collections. Without a catalog holding this data, I cannot see how LRc could accomplish collections. And more importantly, 2- Adobe stands to make more $$ from their cloud service. Amazon makes more money on its cloud storage and computing than on retail sales...something like $20 Billions per quarter. Matt poo-pood the notion of the local feature pushing people to the cloud...but I think it is obvious. Anyone who thinks there is not a profit motive for an action like this is mistaken, IMO.

I use LRC, LR mobile and LR for different purposes...mainly when I am traveling. I roughly edit pics on my iPad in LR mobile, it gets synced to the cloud (organized in an album), when I get home, I drag all the pics into my file structure on my local drive and delete the cloud pics. If I want to use some pics in Adobe Portfolio, I simply make a collection, sync it and upload to the cloud to put into Portfolio. It takes longer to type than to do.

To me, LRC is a much more robust way of handling photos. I've come to rely on collections, searching and filtering by meta data, the mapping feature, for so many projects. The plug-ins for LRC are also quite handy. I did not see a way to use plugins on the LR. In LRC, I have a plug in that allows me to query and make a report on what camera I used, focal lengths, etc. for a particular population of photos...say someone says they are going to Egypt and asks what gear to take. I can look and tell them what I used. Again, it is a 2 minute thing that takes longer to type than do.

My two cents worth...