First, let me say that your images are great! I'm sure that they look even better on the metal substrate. I hope that you are ok with my following comments on the so-called Dye Sub process. This mis-information has been passed around for a couple of decades. I hope this explanation/clarification is received in the spirit in which it is given.

In Dye "sublimation", the connotation of sublimation is a misnomer. The dye does not change phase from solid to gas (a sublimation process). Rather the transfer process requires physical contact between the donor film (which contains the dye dissolved in a polymer layer) and a receiver layer (typically another polymer layer into which the dye dissolves). The dye diffuses from one layer to the other, a simple concentration-dependent diffusion process. No phase change occurs.

Diffusion from the donor to receiver layer is driven by the dye concentration difference, high in the donor and low (i.e.zero) in the receiver layer. If one were to do this at room temperature, it would take an uncomfortably long, long time. The "real time" driving force for the diffusion process is heat that is applied via heating elements to the back side of the donor film. There may be several hundred individually addressable heating elements per inch of the heating head, typically 300/inch. So it is very analogous to the dpi concept in ink jet of which we may be more familiar with. The print head that spans the width of the printing device contains perhaps 2400 of these individually addressable resistive heating elements in an 8inch width, for example. The head does not move like an ink jet print head. Once a line of dots has been printed, the transport rollers advance the donor-receiver layers a bit, and the next line of dots are printed in the image dependent way of course.

The "amount" of heat applied to an individual heating element during a single event is determined by the number of pulses of energy delivered. More pulses in the event (an instantaneous event) gives more heat. More heat drives more dye to diffuse thereby giving more image density in that "dot". The fewer number of pulses, the less heat...well you get the idea. In conventional Dye "Sub" prints, there are at least 3 donor layers, that is cyan magenta, and yellow, from which dye is sequentially transferred to the receiving layer to make the image. So the receiver layer is printed 3 times in this example, once for each of the colors. The printer "backs up" the receiver layer so that the next donor color (C, M, or Y) can be printed in image wise/registered fashion.

I don't know details of the transfer of the receiver layer that now contains the image to the aluminum substrate, but I would guess that it is a heat-assisted lamination process, not at all sure about that part of generating the final print but a reasonable guess perhaps. (This would imply,of course, that the image is mirror-image printed so that it is right-reading once transferred to the metal). It is also possible that a UV and physical-handling protective layer would be laminated (or sprayed...less likely) over the whole image as a final step.

There must be a receiving polymer layer to hold the molecularly dissolved dye. Organic dyes are obviously not soluble in aluminum. If the dye were deposited on the metal surface directly, the dye would be very a dull and muddy looking powder, not to mention easily removed by wiping.

I hope this helps to understand this process. It is meant to clarify, not to detract in any way from the discussion about metal prints and their use in presenting an image. Quite obviously they have a good place in photographic presentation.

Thanks, Don. I wish you and your family a good holiday.

The renaming of the file was done on first import into catalogue 1. Then a new catalogue was created for whatever reason, and the file name was changed within LR catalogue 2. The pictures are themselves still the same, no PP of any kind done on either image. Chalk up the doubling to just plain brain f***.

So now when combining catalogues, I presume both would be included in the merged catalogue since they have unique names. Again all naming done within LR, so there are no pointer issues. Is my supposition true? Or does an image have some kind of unseen file name or number so that as long as the file has not been PP'ed or otherwise altered, it is the same as far as LR is concerned even if you give one of them a different name? Sorry, my last statement must have come from a recent discussion about conspiracies. That last one seems to be far fetched, I admit.

Don, sorry I wasn't clear previously. Searcher might have an input here, but he seems to be absent from this forum lately. I sincerely hope that it is not another serious health issue. He is such a wealth of expertise and a true gentleman.

Thanks again, Don, for your thoughtful consideration.

So if one merges catalogues within LR, duplicates will be detected and NOT added to the now-merged catalogue?

If this is true, does it also apply if you have renamed pictures, that is, to give your pictures unique file names (but possibly included in two catalogues that you now want to merge)?

I presume that if you renamed a picture in only one of the catalogues (yeah, I know, might be unlikely) that both pictures would be included in the merge even though they would technically be the same picture but with different names. I'm just looking for clarification.

Thanks very much. I appreciate the info, always useful.

What type of head do you recommend for a monopod and why?

The

"...download the latest version of OUR products." I'm just wondering for clarification purposes, are you an owner or employee of this company, or was this statement meant to say "...THEIR products." I am honestly not trying to start a rant or cause a problem, just trying to understand where 35,000 feet is. Thank you for the clarification...and if you are an employee or owner, do you five forum members a discount? 😀 I will take a look at this...always looking for alternatives.

Ron, please be sure to post the link to your upcoming (when?) page. I and many others appreciate constructive info. Sorry for the minor hijack.

Thank you for the quick and complete response.

You might consider contacting the George Eastman Museum (think Eastman Kodak) in Rochester, NY for their input. Send pictures and note any written info that is on it. They are the premier photography museum in the world. They might even be able to give you info on a museum that is closer to where you live so that if you donate it, you could visit it if you desire to do so. Or if you and they find mutual agreement, perhaps they would like it for their collection. If they do, they would take excellent care of it. Most definitely DONT junk it!

Admittedly I'm not a macro lens user at present, but I've taken several so called closeup pictures of flowers and bugs. I'm definitely intrigued about macro photography...maybe someday when $$ become available. I've read some posts about it here, and I thought perhaps a longer focal length macro would be a better option than the ~100mm length because it would allow me to be farther from my subject (think bugs) and therefore less likely to disturb them thereby increasing likelihood of successfully capturing the image. I understand that it would cost more for longer focal length lens of course.

So bottom line, if one was to choose between 100 and 150 mm macro lens of similar quality, for example, and $$ wasn't an issue, which would you choose and why? I will review the information in the link that you provided as well... just wondering about your thoughts on it. Thank you... good advice here usually.

You

Not for nuthin', but could you share Searcher's explanation if not excessively long? Thank you...appreciate it.

Bill and others, when shooting the moon and perhaps other very distant objects, would you agree that it is best to manually set focus (spot focus on moon) at infinity or very slightly short of it and leave it there? That seemed to work best for me, one less thing to fool with as well.

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that you had to explain to me your reasons for selling. My apologies; no insult intended. I was just interested in whether it was performing well in your opinion after it was returned or was still lacking again in your opinion. I've heard both good and bad regarding this lens, especially with regard to Canon versions.

I understand that the Canon lens, albeit 200 mm shorter on the long end, it likely to be a superior performer in almost every other way but at double the price.

Just looking for clarification, that's all.

And apparently, you still cannot get a sharp image? Hence, you're selling it... If it was fixed by Tamron, why sell it? Is it fixed?

What caused you to switch from the Tamron to the Canon?