Brian

Yeah, that computer that they are trying to give you is really meant to be in a business office, like a computer used to check you in for your appointment. Oh well.

Umm...yeah. Time for a new desktop. I can totally see where your are coming from. In reality, you need to replace both your desktop and laptop. One of the biggest things that I see, is that you do not have a central place for all your files. You are uploading and bouncing back-and-forth, and I'm wondering how you keep everything straight. LOL! Man, talk about WORK. I almost want to recommend using something called a NAS, which stands for Networked Attached Storage; meaning it's kinda like a External HD that resides on your network and not attached to your computer. You would attach it to your Router or Ethernet Switch and both computers would access it via a network shared folder. It sounds more complicated than it actually is. In a nutshell, it's like having your own "Private Cloud." Now comes the answer for the "What do I buy?!?!?? question. Since you are showing images to clients to your "Sales Session," (I know it's called In-Person Sales these days, but back in the day...it was just know as "Sales," but I'm digressing and showing my age. ?) I think you will be better off getting a better laptop at this point. Time is money, and if you can sell more product due to a better screen then you can re-coupe your losses with buying the laptop first, and then tackle the replacement of the main editing machine. Of course, you may not have a large budget, and in that case I still would purchase a laptop but also purchase a 24" - 27" screen that is calibrated and stays in one place for your clients to view their images. When it comes to a laptop, I prefer Intel Chips. I realize that AMD is usually cheaper, but when it comes to laptops, I prefer Intel. Second, you have integrated video on your desktop computer, the dead give-away is "7.19 usable." A part of the RAM is being reserved for the video card. You do not want that in either your future desktop or laptop computer. I'm also pretty sure that your laptop screen is not IPS based, and that is making your photos that you show your clients NOT look their very best. Hopefully your prints match to one of your computers, but since your clients are looking at that laptop, that screen NEEDS to match your prints or is pretty damn close. Now for the dose of reality...your requirements are not of a $500 or less laptop. A budget of $1000 - $1500 is more likely. So before I start linking stuff, WHAT is your budget?

Copying and pasting the files and then uploading them to your printing company has no loss of quality. It’s when you open and re-edit and re-save the JPEG is where you can lose quality.

Or buying something called a NAS. I will write more later.

A desktop computer will last longer. Most of today’s laptops that I see, only last 3-4 years for the $1000 ones, and your $500 (or less) Laptop will last 18-24 months. In addition, desktops aren’t as concerned about power and lasting a long time while powered on battery, so their components will run faster. Of course everyone wants that stupid portability and be able to edit photos while sitting next to the pool, in the kitchen or in the car on their way to vacation...hell, all in the same day! In my humble opinion I like a desktop over a laptop for photo editing. I’ve only caved-in because I got tired of arguing.

You could also add a 1 or 2 TB Hard Drive for your Data in that system. I like Western Digital Caviar Black Drives. The 1TB drives are about $80.

Well, the XPS that B&H had is not in stock. I went to Dell's Website and configured a XPS tower that is similar in specs to my iMac. I'm up to about $2000. LMAO. Yeah...Macs are SO expensive... Anyway, I chose the Dell XPS tower that starts at $1049, and configured with the following options: 8th Generation Intel® Core™ i7-8700 6-Core Processor (12M Cache, up to 4.6 GHz) Windows 10 Pro 16GB 2666MHz, DDR4 RAM 1TB M.2 PCIe x4 SSD NVIDIA® GeForce® GTX 1080 with 8GB GDDR5X Graphics Memory Tray Load BDRE Drive (Reads and Writes to Blu-Ray disks) 802.11ac + Bluetooth 4.2, Dual Band 2.4&5 GHz, 1x1 Thunderbolt 3 PCIe Network and IO Card Cost: $1979.99 Link to main XPS line: https://www.dell.com/en-us/shop/cty/xps-8930-desktop/spd/xps-8930-desktop Of course, you don't have to go crazy like me. You could get one of the lower-end XPS computers. I tend to go a little overboard for a few reasons. One...I'm a Nerd. Two...I'm a guy...and three, I buy my hardware with a 7-8 year lifespan in mind. I could buy a $800 computer every 2-3 years or buy a big expensive one and be done with it. Either way, it's about the same amount of money without the hassle of swapping computers every few years. PS: Yes, there is a big speed difference between Thunderbolt 3 and USB 3.0 Drives. I can import 32GB of Raw Files in about 4-5 min via a XQD card. That's why I added it. You can get a 12TB G-Drive Thunderbolt 3 External Hard Drive to go with your Dell. It's only money, right?

Well, if they are going to replace it with something newer, see if you can get the new PC with Windows 10 Pro and call it good. You are already knee-deep into it at this point, and are ready to throw it out the window, so what do you have to lose? The whole networking Windows 10 and Windows 7 thing is also pretty straightforward, you just have to figure out WHERE Microsoft put stuff to configure things. Yes, it does help if both computers have the "Windows Pro" versions when it comes to networking, though it's not a 100% requirement for a simple Workgroup environment. The other challenge is the skill-set that is required. I network Windows 10 and Windows 7 computers all the time. Mostly in Domain environments, but you aren't going to need that for simple shared folders and printers in a Workgroup. Yes, a Dell XPS would be a PC that I would start with. Let me find that link to the current model.

Alright. Who is trying to sell you this computer? Dell or a local shop? For this type of computer, it's much better suited for an office application, like a check-in desk at your Doctor's Office. It is not an editing machine or at least the one you are after. Before you buy anything, we need to figure out what your budget is. There are multiple components that determine speed, and the truth is, you get what you pay for. If you have a low-quality (slow) motherboard that creates a bottleneck, then it makes no difference if you have 32GB of RAM and a 7200RPM HD. As far as PC CC, I use the LR / PS that stays on my computer and who "Phone's Home" to the Adobe Mothership. At this point in the game, it's much better to get a computer with Windows 10 than one with Windows 7. Windows 7 is at the end-of-life and will no longer be updated on Jan 7, 2020. So with us approaching 2019, I'd say you are going to have to get Windows 10 sooner or later. Might as well jump in now. If you want Photoshop and Lightroom to load quickly, you will need a SSD drive and a fast motherboard to accomplish this. I just got a new fancy iMac, yes I can hear Damien cringing all the way over on the other side of the planet, but if I click on the PS icon on the deskbar, it loads in about 3-4 seconds. Of course, I'm not opening any files, just Photoshop. Let me see what happens when I load a file from my EHD... OK, still took about 3 seconds. Of course I have a fast 7200 RPM EHD connected via Thunderbolt 3 with an upgraded fancy 27" 2017 iMac. I'm off to get dinner. Be back soon. Let me know how much you want to spend, because at this point, I think you are wasting money.

You are talking about two different things. Coping / Moving Raw files back and forth is fine. Saving and opening your .PSD files is fine. Saving jpegs, reopening Jpegs, re-editing and then saving them, THAT can cause loss of quality. Honestly, you should trash your jpegs if you shoot Raw. Leave the .psd master files alone and save / export them as needed. Do the following: Import your .cr2 (Raw) files to your laptop to a "Current Project / Client Name" folder. If you have more than one card, create a sub-folder for each card. CF1, CF2, SD1, etc. Save the .psd files in a new sub-folder under the current project folder. I usually call mine "Edits" or "PSD files." Create a another folder called JPEG. Under that folder, create a sub-folder called "To Client" or "To Facebook," "To Instagram," whatever. This is where you store your JPEG files. Finish your project, deliver the images to the client, then delete the JPEG folder. Move the Current Project Folder that contains the .cr2 files / .psd files to your EHD. Keep in mind that it's better to copy and paste rather than cut and paste. If something were to go wrong during transfer, you could always cancel / start-over when copying. If you "cut" and paste and something bad were to happen, you could lose files. Yes, I have personally experienced this. Not fun. I never "Cut" anymore when moving something important, I always copy then paste. The neat part is, once you create your master .psd files, you can use Image Processor to open each .psd file, have it run a resizing action for FB / IG, etc. and then have it automatically save them into each JPEG sub-folder. I'm sure Damien has a better way, but this is how I do it.

Yes. It depends on how fast the EHD is, how full it is AND the interface that the EHD is using. If you have a full EHD, that's only 5400RPM and is using a USB 2.0 port...you are going to be waiting for things to load. That said, it looks like your laptop has a few USB 3.0 ports. It might be easier and cheaper to get a larger EHD, that's faster. You will need an external hard drive that's at least a 7200RPM model with USB 3.0, OR an external SSD with a USB 3.0 interface. Of course, SSD will be the fastest, but at a higher price-point per megabyte. The next question that I will get asked at this point is what EHD do I recommend. The truth is, they all suck. I like Western Digital's stuff over Seagate, but both are pretty equal these days quality-wise. I personally own G-Drives and they work really well, but tend to be expensive. This Sandisk SSD 1TB drive caught my eye, but it's only 1TB. Here is a USB 3.0 4TB G-Drive, that will need to be re-partitioned as a GPT disk and formatted as NTFS drive for use with a Windows computer. (It comes Mac formatted.)

I don't like the Dell Inspiron line. Either Desktops or Laptops. I'd go with the ASUS ROG laptop that you linked to. I also usually recommend the Dell Displays, as they seem to be easy to calibrate. I also like the Matte Screen and it's an IPS display. So that Dell TD5f1 is the one I'd go with. BenQ monitors can be a bit of a PITA.

Current Min Specs: Intel i7 or i9 16GB RAM / 32GB Preferred 500GB Main HD / 1TB Hard Drive Preferred A Dedicated Video Card with its own video memory. 4GB is fine, one that contains 8GB is better. Windows 10 / Windows 10 Pro Preferred The problem is going to be price. As Tariffs hit on devices being imported from China, and those costs are being transferred to consumers. I usually recommend the Dell XPS Desktop line, as they are pretty easy to get, but that $800 price point will be an issue. It might have to expand to $1000 or so. Here is a Dell XPS 8930 for $939.99. We would need to upgrade the RAM, but 8GB could get you started. You would also need a DisplayPort cable, which connects your monitor to the newer display ports on the back of the computer. Unfortunately, Monoprice is out of stock on the 6 foot cables, but should have them at the end of October. We could also go from DisplayPort to DVI-D, but before we get ahead of ourselves, we should pick the computer first, then get the correct cable. Either way we do not want to use a Traditional 15-pin VGA D-Sub connector / cable.

Free? No. I can recommend one, though. It’s called Gemini from MacPaw. Same company that makes Clean My Mac. It’s $13.96 for a single Mac License. https://macpaw.com/gemini So for the cost of an average Pizza, you can get a program that you are looking for.

The radioactive ones are lenses from like the 1950’s / 1960’s and even up to the middle 1970’s. If this was a modern lens, it’s shouldn't be an issue. There is a list floating around of Radioactive Lenses. One of the original Nikon 35mm f/1.4 lenses, the AIS version, way before AF-D and AF-S contained Thorium Elements, but that seems to be the one of the few. Kodak has a bunch of radioactive lenses. If it’s the AF “D” version, made from 1993 to present, you are fine. Like I said, look at the lens’ ID plate.

Yes. It needs to Autofocus using an internal motor. If it's 100% manual focusing, do not buy it. I swiped this screenshot from Ken Rockwell's site. The lens you should buy will have this ID Plate.

What year? That lens has been around for awhile. You want the "current" version. If the guy mentioned it was radioactive, then it probably was. Even though I don't recommend KR, here is some info on that lens: https://kenrockwell.com/nikon/200mm-micro.htm

That lens I just linked to, the AF Micro-Nikkor 200mm f/4D IF-ED was produced from 1993 to present is not radioactive. It's the much older versions that have those radioactive lens elements.

If I had to make an educated guess on the Macro Lens that Nikon will replace / update, it's the AF 200mm f/4 D Macro Lens. Of course this is just a rumor. NikonRumors.com will be the source of info for this possible rumored lens replacement. Oh here is a YouTube Video with a review of this lens.

1. Good choice. Keep in mind a 24-70 could also serve as a landscape lens. 2. Nikon is rumored to be coming out with a new macro with a focal length beyond 105. Probably 150-200. I would hold off for just a bit more. 3. A D500 with its angle of view change will help with reach. So will a D850 put in crop mode. So maybe me recommending a D850 isn’t off the table. Basically with a D850, you have two cameras built into one. See if your D750 has a DX Mode you might already have that reach without spending a dime. Granted, the edges of the sensor get turned off so you will have less MP, but even if we cut that in half, 12MP is completely do-able Dig through you manual and try a few test shots it’s digital, you can afford to experiment. 4. Realistic Expectations when it comes to noise. It’s more about nailing your exposure than anything. Photographing someone in crappy light isn’t going to make them look good, even if you have $10,000 in camera gear; crappy light is crappy light. If you make your camera struggle, you will see it in the photos. Also, the more pixels you cram into the same physical area on the sensor, the less likely the pixels can soak up light, which helps produce noise. Keep in mind there is a thing called sensor grain and that “noise” you might be seeing isn’t truly noise.

It's under the shooting menu, or camera icon. Look for "Long exposure NR" and "High ISO NR" or something along those lines. Both are set to OFF on my camera. I want to control noise reduction. G.A.S. or N.A.S. is a slippery slope. Honestly, for the current Lord of the Darkness is the Nikon D5, though a D850 isn't bad. Wanna spend $6500?

That light in that photo is really crappy. You aren't giving your camera a chance. That's typical. I should show you noise from my D200. Images "Fell Apart" at ISO 640. 800 was terrible and 1600 was unbearable with that camera. If you are looking for "clean" images at 4000 or 6400, like you would at 200 or 400, that's not the case. ISO 4000 is still 4000. This gives me an idea of a project. I see many people complain about noisy photos, they have no idea just how good modern equipment is. As for the photo, I don't see much noise. I see a soft photo and I'm not sure that is from noise reduction by you or the camera. I turn my camera's High ISO Automatic Noise Reduction to off, or set it really high, to apply like at 256000. (Which I'm never at.) I want to control my noise reduction, not have my camera guess on what is good for the photo.

I don’t like the 16-35. It has weird distortion at 16mm and 35 that cant fully be corrected in post. It’s crap at both ends, in my humble opinion. What is has going for it is you can mount filters and it’s cheaper than the 14-24. Honestly, I’d get a 18-35 FX lens over a 16-35. It’s sharper and is very economical. The main thing that people regret is paying such a high price tag of the 14-24, they never regret buying the lens itself. People have regretted buying the 16-35 and kick themselves for not buying a 14-24. Make sense? So I would get a 14-24, hands down and if the budget is tight, id get a 18-35, which is a surprisingly sharp little lens.

A used 14-24 in good / excellent shape should cost you around $1300. Give or take. Like $1250 - $1300. The lens sells around $1900 new.

IS II. Yes, it makes a difference. Get at least the IS II VERSION. I have a Motto, “Buy it Right - Buy it Once.” Canon just released the newest version, the IS III. If you are going to spend that amount of money, get the latest and greatest. Though the IS II is still a fine lens. Either way, make sure you get the IS II or IS III. With proper technique, it is possible to go down to 1/30th hand held and get decent images. The IS III is a newer stabilization system, and will serve you well with low-light sports photography I have a love affair with my 70-200 f/2.8 lens. Her name is Bertha. I plan on having that Lens for another 10 or so years. https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1414599-REG The one thing I will warn you about 70-200 f/2.8 lenses, is that they are around 3lbs / 1.63 kilograms all by themselves. Pro-Grade f/2.8 Glass are usually heavy, though worth every penny.