All Activity

Brian I'm just wondering what you think of this laptop https://a.co/d/5yLSCdE I was going to go with the Lenovo Legion 7ipro that you recommended then I saw that this has the newer AI chip and didn't know if that makes a difference with Photoshop.

Brian, what do you think of this video card for running photoshop? MSI 4060 Ti https://www.amazon.com/MSI-GeForce-Ventus-Black-Graphics/dp/B0CBK7BRL9/

Everywhere I look, and every time I listen to a tech segment on the radio, everybody is trying to tell me to use IMAP instead of POP3. Screw 'em all. I love POP3. My life centres around my desktop computer, where all my emails are downloaded, and diligently backed up, and they only stay on the server for as long as I dictate (7 days). If somebody hacks my email addresses, they'd better be able to steal my identity based on last week's emails, 'cos that's all they're getting. Am I the only POP3 guy left in the world?

I've spent the last few months trying (on and off because found it pretty frustrating) to fix the issue. Then decided my computer was too old and didnt have enough RAM for the ever expanding cloud based PS. Checked out Ask Brian. Eyes watered at price of replacement Mac that he recommended. Pondered if I could handle using Macs for work, phone, music etc ie everything except a photo PC computer. Decided no, so have been saving money. Ordering the new computer this week. So should be back submitting photos soon.

Yeah...I thought about that with your post. There is a "Whole Ecosystem" that revolves around your camera. Especially ones that are 45MP or more. The Raw File Sizes are just insane. In fact, my stupid D850 Camera costed me so much money. Had to upgrade RAM to 64GB, buy new lenses because the ones that I had couldn't keep up with the sensor, had to purchase a larger HD, etc. etc. So much money...all for a stupid camera body that I really didn't "need." So a new idea for an article popped into my head. Now, since you have a Dell Desktop, you can add a 2nd Hard Drive. Such as this one: Western Digital Blace 10TB Internal HD. I've had good luck with the WD "Black" Series of drives. Installing one isn't THAT bad, and I can help you go this route. Unless you want to stick with Externals. The hardest part is getting the stupid Dell Case open, then it's just a matter of a few screws, a data cable and power cable. Then you partition / format it in Windows. The whole process takes about 30-45min your 1st time. The reason I'm recommending a "Spinning HD" instead of a SSD is due to capacity. 8TB SSD Drives are EXPENSIVE. Since you are just using this drive for storage, you just need capacity over everything. This new drive would be your "D:\ Drive."

In Dec. 2023 I bought a desktop Dell XPS 8960 with all the options you recommended. With cameras going nuts for MP maybe you'd consider making a side note in your post regarding computer recommendations. I use a 4TB G-Drive for one source of backup. And like I mentioned, I only like to store a handful of sessions on my HD until they're archived. I was just nervous seeing half of it used up and hoping I wouldn't get a PS glitch from lack of space.

Personally, I like all of the Data that the camera captures, so I’m in the camp of uncompressed Raw files. I have seen many reports of CRAW working just fine, but there is a quality loss, but most people wouldn’t notice. In reality, if you do choose to shoot CRaw, then nailing your exposure becomes a little more important vs all the wiggle room you get with an uncompressed file. But again, if all you are doing is photographing things as a hobby and posting to social media, then CRaw is probably fine. If you are shooting things and it counts, like doing commercial work or shooting a wedding, then I would use Raw hands down. Second, you are ignoring the Elephant in the Room: The 45MP Sensor in that camera. My D850 produces 100MB Raw files, well like 98.xx Mb, but rounding up is easier) and that stupid 45.7 MP Sensor caused me to go out and buy a 12TB HD to store my files, which is getting fuller as the years go on. A 1TB HD is so that Photoshop works well and the Operating System remains happy. In no absolute way is a 1TB HD large enough for a camera such as yours. You need a larger HD, either internal or external. Looking back, I wish I bought a 18TB HD instead of the 12TB. Now I’m sure the next question is going to be, what HD do you recommend. The truth is, they are ALL CRAP now. Sandisk purchased Western Digital and G-Srive and quality control on my “Go-To” recommendations has gone down dramatically. Honestly? The next setup for storage that I will likely do is purchase a Synology NAS and get a few beefy HDs to go with it. But that’s a lot more money than a typical EHD setup. Which computer do you have? Is this a Desktop or a Laptop. Which Make/Model?

Last year I purchased a new PC per your specs. It is strictly used for photography and related software only. My 1TB is almost half used and I only keep 2-3 acrive photo sessions on my HD at a time. Then they get properly archived. I also run Glary. I feel it's happening because of the larger file size from my new camera (Canon R5). There is only 2 sizes to choose from, from what I can tell, RAW & CRAW besides Jpeg. Both the RAW seems to say 45 mb files in the menu. Is there a difference in size/quality and/or how can I ensure my HD won't fill up within a year?!

Honestly? It really sounds like you need a Synology NAS. Ever since Sandisk bought Western Digital, who owned G-Drive, quality has gone down. How much money do you want to spend, and do you want to go down this Rabbit Hole? Because right now, I've got nothin' to recommend, at least not with a traditional HD. Oh, I wouldn't recommend LaCie these days either. OWC isn't too bad, they are still decent. Oh, how much storage capacity do you require? It sound like you can be at RAID 1, or do you want to go higher with more redundancy?

Hi Brian. I had an issue with my SanDisk Professional G-RAID Mirror Array, and after having it replaced with another faulty one I am looking for something else more reliable. Any tips for storage in 2025 would be great. I have noticed a few of the LaCie and OWC brand out there. Thanks

Realistically, you want 250 watt seconds or better for photographing babies and newborns. You can always turn down the power of your light, but you can’t make it more powerful if you don’t buy “enough.” Here is a thought, how about renting an Profoto and give it a test drive? This way only a few hundred is at stake vs a few thousand.

Yes, I took his class years ago! I never could understand. It was like relearning everything again. And I did give up because I was overwhelmed. I could retake it; I don't want to waste his time. Sorry, you keep repeating yourself; that is how I learned. Unfortunately, I was never taught not to judge the LCD screen The Profoto monolight ($800) seems too low; it's only 100w. I'm not sure if that would be enough light for anything I do.

Do not judge colors based on the camera’s LCD!! Just stop. It is only for composition. Each LCD can have its own “personality,” meaning my D850 Screen will look different than yours. What’s really happened is you set the G-M back to 0.0. That has done more for you than you realize. That setting really messes with the WB across the board. As far as editing, this is a Damien Question; I also know he will ask when is the last time you have calibrated your screen and verified things against a set of physical prints. Have you taken his Raw Class?

Ok, I grabbed that newborn session from yesterday and halfway edited a photo. It looks excellent already compared to the back of the camera. I want to show you a before and after. I won't show you the back of the camera image because, of course, the cell phone doesn't show the colors correctly or as is. So the back of camera looked very dull, with no contrast, yellowish green in color, almost hazy..you get the jist, Just scary looking LOL! The unedited uploaded image ( shown ) was in 5500wb in ACR and it added 50 ! The second photo is the halfway edited version. I was surprised that it could add contrast and light without looking wonky. Is this the correct direction I'm headed in? I know you explained a lot, but I am that person who will not understand until I see it for myself, more hands-on. This is how my brain comprehends information lol The second edited photo is still a little too yellow-orange for my liking, and I hope I can fix it. I didn't use the grayscale to edit this photo for time's sake.

Sorry to break this to you... NOPE. The Neutral Setting affects the JPEG Preview / what you see on the LCD. It makes things more in-line with the Raw file seen in ACR / LR. This way you aren't tempted to say/think, "The image looks so much better on my camera!" What is happening, is that you have an intermittent problem with your light, and for the moment...it's behaving and working as it should. That being said, the problem will come back eventually and you will be back to square one, dealing with Hotspots & your other issues. Keep saving.

Yes , you are right ! In ACR , they are lower. Today I had a newborn used the new settings , and already I saw no hotspots nor too much brightness in baby’s face! This was after uploading into ACR by the way not LCD. There was no muddy look either. Now I haven’t started editing them yet,but I already noticed a softer better image. I feel it’s the neutral setting because I didn’t change the power of the light.

No. When using your lights, I want you to set your White Balance to 5600 K and leave that G-M Setting set to 0.0. If you want to choose the AWB1 or AWB2 when outdoors, that's fine since you are shooting in Raw and can change that value in ACR. Here is a little secret when it comes to Adobe's Products, like Camera Raw and Lightroom... It's an interpretation of the White Balance Value that the camera records. Yep! You read that correctly; 5600K on your camera does NOT equate to 5600K in ACR/LR. Got it? Those two things are completely different. Surprise!! This is what throws people off. Nikon's version of White Balance and how it comes up with that WB # in Kelvin, is different with Canon, Sony, Panasonic, etc. etc. comes up with. Then Adobe Camera Raw or LR takes its best "Educated Guess" on what the camera meant. Side-note: Even something like 18% Gray is perceived differently!! Nikon is more like 14% Gray, I think Canon is around 16%? Something like that. I have found that when I import my images into ACR or LR, that the Kelvin Value is 50K lower than it needs to be when shooting Nikon. So if your AWB is something like 5400K on your image when first imported into ACR, tweak it (add "50") to whatever the value is, e.g., 5450K, and it will give you a better starting point. All this 5600K does is gives you a baseline to start from; there is no magic or "carved in stone" setting. White Balance is an interpretation done by Adobe's software because the Camera Manufacturers are stubborn and won't give the recipe for the "Secret Sauce," and there lies the rub... So when you set your camera's WB to 5600K, instead of using AWB, it stays there and the camera doesn't argue or try to change anything. This way things SHOULD look the same when importing, but if your lights decide to increase/decrease power, that will change the color temp of the light coming out, or give you hot-spots. This is why we manually set 5600K in your camera; this way if your lights go stupid and lower power or produce hot-spots, your camera will ignore things as opposed to what would happen with the "Auto" White Balance and keep the WB value the same. This in turn, makes things easier for you to change in Post. See how frustrating low-quality lights are? So to answer your original question, it's your Strobes, followed by your camera being stupid. But mostly your Strobes causing you grief. Edit: You might find a "Happy Place" with a Kelvin WB Value with your lights within ACR. It could be something like 5750K or 5675K or whatever. It's time you fiddle around and learn your gear, regardless what I say or the manual says. Keep in mind, your $500 lights will keep doing what they are doing, so always shoot Raw and make note of where your WB Values are usually at their best, and adjust them in post. You might even find that setting your camera to 5600K, then adjusting the value in ACR's WB 5800K works better! Or 5900K, or 5250K...this is up to you to decide. While you are saving for your new lights, I want you to fiddle before your next gig. Photograph something stupid like a Vacuum Cleaner or a stuffed animal. Play around, it's Digital...you can afford to experiment. Yes, I know this is what you are doing, but keep at it. I know it's tedious and mind-numbingly unpredictable. That's what you get with $500 (and cheaper) lights.

OK, I must have misunderstood you. I thought you meant keeping it on Kelvin at 5600 camera. But you meant to keep it at AWB, Correct? Yes, I have been told the Flashpoint ad400 pro or Godox are bright lights.

Fine Tuned means you tweaked a semi-permanent setting in your camera. By moving it to the Red / Magenta, you told the camera to add red to everything. Adjust your WB in ACR. Don’t make the camera do it for you , it will drive you nuts. When is the last time you calibrated and verified your screen against a set of physical prints? Stupid $500 lights!! Bah!! I’ve heard this lots and lots of times with people who shoot with Alien Bees or similarly priced lights. You get Hotspots. Period. It’s the nature of the beast. It happens randomly and there is no controlling it. How do you fix it? By buying a better light. You aren’t the first person to hit this wall and the answer is Profoto or another Brand of light that is its equivalent. (Meaning a $2000-ish light.) Budget Friendly Lights, do help you get started, but sooner or later you will run into the issues you are having. Like I said, you’ve outgrown them and it’s time for an upgrade. It just sucks that it costs so much. Good news is, you can keep your Modifiers.

I will take a look at the link. I feel I get a lot of hot spots, so I think the newborns are too bright. I don't feel I get soft lighting with newborns or sitting babies. With the 64-inch plm, I will move it around a lot with newborn sessions! Mostly away to prevent hot spots. I double-diffused and even triple-diffused this light, so it is not bright. I also shot in a room without windows; it's pretty much dark except for the modeling lamp.

What does that mean? Fine-tuned? I've changed it to 0.0. I did talk to the lab once, and they mentioned they added a plus one or two of red, which is why I moved it . I have a newborn baby today and will shoot with the new settings.I hope all goes well. Mini Mac is calibrated almost to match prints, the only issue I have is brightness. I think it's been a few months since I calibrated. I may do that this evening

Just you wait until you get a Profoto Light. You will have "Portable Sunshine." That 86" PLM needs "Umph" to get the most out of it. Remember, all modifiers eat a little bit of light. Also, the "Inverse Square Law" comes into play. Each time you double the distance between your subject and light, you lose about a stop of light. If you change the flash power from one value to another, say 1/8th power to 1/4 power, you need to adjust your Aperture by one stop. Same thing if you go from full power to half power. I think it's a percentage of 77% of light loss or somewhere around there. So going from 1 foot away to 2 feet, you lose 77%-ish of light power. 2 Feet to 4 Feet, another 77%-ish. That's why Photographers usually keep their lights 4 Feet - 8 Feet away, it gives them the most wiggle-room and still have decent light. Think of being on a Giant Dart Board, with your subject is in the Bullseye. The Rings around the Bullseye define the section of where you put your light, or you can visualize placing you light on the ring itself. Regardless of WHERE you place the light, the Light Power and Aperture Value remains the same as long as the light remains the same distance from the subject as you don't move it further away or closer. Why does this matter? Because the further away your light is, the more contrast you will have. It's possible that you moved your light to a spot that isn't giving the results that you desire, so I would fiddle a bit, even go as far as to use a tape measure to figure things out. Use a Coffee Can or a Doll. Figure out where you want your light, what camera settings that you use, and mark things with Masking Tape and a Marker. Golden Rule of Flash Photography: Aperture Determines Light Power Used -- Shutter Speed Determines Ambient Light. Zack Arias gave us an excellent video on this subject. Please watch this enough times until it sticks: Zack Arias: Aperture/Flash Relationship

Found it!! If the White Balance has been Fine-Tuned, an Asterisk will appear next to the K. The G-M Setting on the right, SET IT TO 0.0!!! (You moved it to M0.5. which is more Magenta.) Nikon Cameras have enough issues with the Reds, don't make things worse. By changing this setting, it AFFECTS ALL OF THE WHITE BALANCE ACROSS THE BOARD, REGARDLESS IF IT'S AWB OR SHADE OR CLOUDY, OR EVEN A KELVIN VALUE THAT YOU MANUALLY SET. That M0.5 setting is screwing with EVERYTHING. You want 0.0. While you think you are making things better, unless your computer display is 100% dead on with your prints and you calibrate religiously, don't try to fine-tune your colors with the White Balance. How you see color is different than another person's eyeballs / brain. Don't ever judge color via your camera's LCD.

Ok I messed with the arrows again and I don’t know how or why but now it’s changed!

I followed the directions and it still does not change the astrik out? Once I hit ok after setting it to 5600 it’s still k and astrick. Picture below . For newborns, I use a 64 inch Paul c buff umbrella, white inside , white diffuser and black outside cover. I use this size for newborns and maternity . For sitting babies I use a 86 inch plm same set up and the 64inch . I may have to take the raw class again.