Brian

It has to do more with your video card being able to support a larger display (or multiple displays) than with the OS. Most of the time, people don't load the monitor drivers and use the Microsoft Generic one that is built in with Windows. For your Mac Laptop, you need to have the correct cable to hook up to it, plus have enough horsepower to drive a second monitor. Windows XP is no longer supported at all. So it doesn't surprise me that you aren't finding any mention of it. Believe it or not, Windows 7's days are numbered! It's being put out to pasture now, slowly. On Jan 14, 2020, Windows 7 will be taken behind the proverbial barn and shot dead!! LOL!! Here is a monitor that I recommend, especially since you have older devices: https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/829236-REG/Dell_469_1137_U2412M_UltraSharp_24_LED.html

I had one more thought. Did you ever turn off focusing via the Shutter Button when you switched to BBF? The reason that I ask, is if you BBF and recompose, if the shutter button is still set to engage the focusing system, you'll get weird results. I know, dumb question, but I have to ask.

There's your problem!! Especially your 4GB of RAM. You really need 8GB or more these days. Plus, you don't want to go above 75% full on a Mac HD, internal or External. Once you cross 75%, performance takes a hit and if you cross 95% full, you are in danger of HD corruption. Now here is the kicker, you probably can't increase the RAM since it's a Mac Laptop. So even though you are going to format it, the laptop will be slightly better, but will not be earth-shattering fast when it's all-said-and-done. It's not Windows. That trick works with Windows, not a Unix-based OS like the Mac OS. Surprise! In addition, the first thing anyone should do that is having performance issues, is to clean off the Mac Desktop first. The more shit files and folders you have on the desktop, the slower a Mac runs. Got 1000 photos from the Smith-Jones Wedding? 250 photos from the Spencer Family Portrait session on the Mac Desktop? The Mac OS treats those as 1250 open "files," which kills performance. OK, back to your problem. If your Mac Laptop came with Mavericks, or you upgraded from OS Lion to Mavericks, you then can re-download the Mavericks OS from the App Store. If you can get the OS Master File, then you can create a bootable thumbdrive with a free program called DiskMaker X. You will need a clean / new / dedicated 8GB Thumbdrive for a Mac OS. If your Mac came with El Capitan, or Yosemite, I'm sorry...you are S.O.L. Mavericks won't install on a newer laptop. Well, it might, but I can't guarantee that you won't have problems. Honestly, the more I think about it, the more I feel that you need a new Mac. Can I interest you in a 27" iMac?

OK, first off... Back-Button Focus is not the end-all-and-be-all that it's made to be. It's an easy blog post. It's not a "Secret Technique" that will take you to the "Next Level." I know, I know..."It worked so well for me?!! It's what solved my problem!! I'm such and #amazeballz photographer now and my clients #lovelovelove my photos!!!! Ummm, yeah. I say it's a technique like any other; it works for some and not for others. BBF is relative. So as a test, turn focusing with the shutter button and see if your focus improves. I also need to know what focusing mode that you were using. Second, calibrating your lenses usually works, but it's really hit or miss. If you really want your lenses / body to be calibrated, it's better for Canon to do it. I'd set everything back to "zero" or default for the short term. Let's get away will all the "stuff" I'm sure you have picked up along the away. From what I can tell, your camera / lenses are front focusing on all four sample photos. It's on the belly and seems to be along the ridges / forheead, even the floor in front of the kid. Third, the original Canon 24-70 has all sorts of focusing issues. It's usually crap wide open or zoomed in at 70mm. I know several photographers in real life that can not trust their Canon 24-70 on a gig. The have a hate-relationship with that lens. I also know of a camera store in NJ that used to make people take home a Canon 24-70 for a weekend before buying it. Why? Because they got tired of the returns for soft-focusing or front-focusing. The solution? Buy a Canon 24-70 f/2.8 L Version II lens. That lens is the "fixed" 24-70. Now before people start *GASP* -ing, if you got a good copy of the original Canon 24-70 f/2.8L, you'll love the lens. I've seen incredible photos come out of good copies. But that camera store I was talking about? 4 out of 5 lenses had focus issues. It's that bad. It just sucks that you have to fork out around $2000 for the "fix." Fourth, not all focus points are treated the same. The strongest focus points are what's known as "Cross-Type," which means they take phasing info from two axis (X and Y) to determine focus. "Huh?" Phasing Is how a camera focuses. For an easy demonstration, put one hand over the other with your fingers spread. Line up all the fingers so that the gaps between the fingers are consistent. That's in focus or "in-phase." Now take one of your hands and turn it slightly counter-clockwise. The fingers in one of the hand occupy the space/gaps between the fingers of the other hand. That's out of "Phase" or out of focus. Understand? Within the 5D Mark III, there are certain focus points that are better than others. As I've stated above, they are "Cross Type." As a bonus, there are some that are known as a "Double Cross-Type." These are the most accurate focus points in the camera. The standard cross-type focus points are good, and the regular focus points are ok, especially if there is enough contrast-swing. So we have a Good-Better-Best scenario. I swiped this image from the internet so you can see what I'm talking about: The Focus points that are blue with the X are the strongest out of all of them. The orange ones are the standard cross type, which work pretty well, and the ones in white are the "Meh" focus points. Which one do you seem to pick the most when you have your issues? Oh, one more thing, the camera needs enough contrast swing in order to determine focus. So if you put the AF point on the eye and are like 20 feet away, the focus point is picking up a pink-blob and not the dark area of the eye-lids. Your human eye is way better than any camera sensor. So your brain knows what it wants and tells your eyes to focus. That maternity shot, even though you put it on her face, her Caucasian skin and blonde hair made the camera confused. The blue dress and her hand had a much better contrast swing. It took me a few blown photos to get it through my thick skull that putting the AF point on the eye may not lead to in-focus photos. The solution? Pick another area and stop down and have your subject further away from the background. f/4 is way more forgiving than f/2.8. Heck, f/3.2 is more forgiving. Finally, I shoot Nikon. There are 3 different modes that you can set on my camera, one is *I* pick the AF point and the camera doesn't argue, the other is I pick the point and if the camera thinks it has a better one, it will override me, and finally...the third mode is the camera picks the AF point, with no input from me. I call this the dummy focus mode. So let's get back to basics, figure out how your camera is setup or change things back to the defaults. Oh, you want either One Shot AF for steady subjects and AI Servo for moving subjects.

IPS Sceens are tough to find on laptops. You really need to go hunting for one. But those two Alienware Laptops look good spec / screen-wise.

LED is what illuminates the screen, vs a CFL (Floresent Bulb). LEDs consume A LOT less power and have been Main Stream since around 2009. IPS (In Plane Switching) vs a TN (Twisted Neumatic) is what you are looking for. You want a LED and IPS.

There must be a really large batch of cheap 128GB SSD drives that manufacturers are using these days. Here is the thing, a full SSD Drive isn't going to do you any good, no matter how fast it is. So if you go the 512GB route, you are fine, but it will be a good idea to factor in a USB 3.0 4TB EHD. The models with the 128GB SSD drive, that's not a lot of room, but is workable...barely. The main thing is you will need to be ANAL on what gets installed on the 128GB SSD drive and watch it like a hawk. You can't just blindly go, "nextnextnext...ok..ok...apply...nextnext...finish" when installing stuff. So which one? Both are "Meh," with me leaning towards the model that has the 512 SSD Drive. That being said, there is no mention of an IPS-based display, in either of those hardware listings. If you are editing photos, and are either charging good money for professional services, OR you want consistent contrast and colors across your display, it is very important for the screen to be IPS-based in some form. That's why I recommended the ASUS ROG laptops, besides the obvious hardware specs, they have IPS screens and they are gorgeous. Of course, you could purchase an external IPS Monitor and go that route, but at that point I'm from the camp of, "Why not just buy a desktop then?"

Yes and no. I still would have a 1TB 7200 RPM HD in addition to a SSD Drive. A 512GB SSD drive is fine. That's MUCH better than 128GB. The OS and programs go on the SSD, and things like your data files, Photoshop Scratch Disks, etc. go on the 1TB HD.

The only thing that sticks out like a red flag is the 128GB SSD Drive. You will need to do a "Custom" install on all software to tell it to install on the D: drive. Don't forget, you don't have 128GB to play with, after formatting it's smaller and then there is Windows, all the Windows updates and then the stupid bloatware that comes with the computer. So you might have about 100GB to play with out of the box. Of course, you could put PS on that and maybe a few other programs, but NO sessions or data files, those go on the D: drive. Other than the 128GB SSD drive, it looks decent.

I particularly do not like the "Kung-Pow!!" Flashes. Others, like Christina, swear by them. Have you seen the LumoPro LP-180? LumoPro LP180 Official Strobist Flash https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00E0L75FI/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_L01iybTD9STJ2

Also, only Firefox and Safari are color managed browsers. Chrome, I.E. and Microsoft Edge aren't. So colors could look weird if you aren't using FF or Safari.

DO NOT get the Dell with the 32GB SSD drive. (The one on Adorama.) I know SSD Drives are fast and it has a 2TB HD, but 32GB is ridiculously small by today's standards. That drive will be for the OS only and you'll need to do custom installs on every piece of software that you install. Nothing can go on that SSD drive except Windows and I'm even concerned about Windows updates having enough room. I'd get the Dell for $1349 that you linked to on Dell's website. Oh, just in case if anyone is wondering, I recommend a 500GB SSD drive at a MINIMUM, preferably a 1TB SSD drive for the OS and programs, with a 4TB 7200 RPM traditional HD for files and scratch disks / cache files.

You really should upgrade to 10.9.5. That's the last version of Mavericks. When you upgrade to El Capitan, Sierra, etc., that's where you have the problems. I would plug in the drive that won't mount into your computer using a different USB port first. Have it be the only EHD and see what happens. You could also try plugging the HD into another Mac to see if it will mount, but since it's a 3TB WD My Book, your chances of it being a bad EHD are extremely high. Here are 5 bad WD My Book EHDs from a customer of mine: 3TB Hard Drives have very high failure rates, especially ones from Seagate and Western Digital. The reason is that when they first came on the scene, Thailand experienced MAJOR FLOODS which affected all sorts of manufacturing, from cameras to hard drives to computer components, etc. For a time Seagate was making Western Digital Drives and vice-versa as the manufacturing plants we being repaired/rebuilt. 4TB and larger Hard Drives are fine, it's just the 3TB drives that have a history of high failure rates. That being said, the HD itself could be fine, and you simply have a bad USB port. You could try taking the HD in to a Mom & Pop computer store and see if they can transplant the HD into a new external case. Hopefully this will work, otherwise you are SOL and are looking to send your EHD out for data recovery, which isn't cheap. I'd budget around $1500 for that type of service.

It should be fine. Honestly, this is a personal thing. If the monitor looks good to your eyes and doesn't cause eye-fatigue at a lower resolution, then you should be good. From a hardware standpoint, it won't damage anything.

Nope. Never heard of them. A friend of mine used Gillware. They are a honest company. They were unable to recover my friend's data due to the HD heads coming into contact with the platers and there was nothing but aluminum dust. (Almost like sanded drywall compound dust,) inside the HD. 3 kids worth of baby photos, 10 years of important milestones...gone forever. Hopefully it will turn out better for you. Keep in mind that extreme data recovery usually invokes a clean room, people in special suits and the transplant of the HD platters from one HD case to another. It's not cheap. It takes a special skill set and equipment/knowledge to do it correctly. Gillware didn't charge her and felt really bad for her. They are an honest company. That's why I recommend them. Keep in mind, the various vendors that I recommend here in AB 2.0, I would use myself and I'm not endorsed by anyone.

Support.Dell.Com I'd try hooking the Display up to the computer and see if that helps. Pushing the power button with a upward motion might help. So instead of directly pushing forward, see if it will toggle up or towards the left.

I recommend these guys: https://www.gillware.com/ Budget: $1500. Data recovery isn't cheap. Also, the worst thing to do is to keep messing with the EHD. The more you dork around with it, the less of a chance you have in getting stuff back.

Two choices: 1. Return the Display and get one that is 1920x1080 resolution something that's IPS based and isn't 4K 2. Buy a new laptop/computer. If you choose to stick with the 4K Display, you'll need a model that has a separate & dedicated Graphics Procesor with its own Video Memory. 2GB Video RAM is good, 4GB is better. The problem with laptops is you really can't upgrade then after the fact. When you want to increase the horsepower, you need to purchase a current model.

If you do go the Sigma route, make sure you get the Sigma USB Dock that lets you update the firmware for the lenses. Personally, I am a OEM snob, though the Sigma ART line looks interesting. I would seriously lean towards a Canon 24-105L, at least for the possible re-sale value, if it ever got to that point. I don't care what you might think, you are not going to get anywhere close to what you paid for a Tamron lens. That £800 Tamron...maybe £300-£400 you get on the resale market. Maybe even less.

I'm thinking your Thunderbolt EHD went to sleep. Can you access it outside of Bridge?

Another lens to consider, would be a Canon EF-S 17-55 f/2.8. It's the "24-70" for crop bodies. The downside is that it is a crop body lens only. For full frame cameras, the 24-70 f/2.8 version II or 24-105 f/4L is a better choice. It all depends on when you switch to full frame. If it's a few years away, the 17-55 is fairly inexpensive and will give you what you are looking for. New: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/425812-USA Used: https://www.keh.com/shop/canon-ef-s-17-55-f-2-8-is-usm-standard-zoom-lens.html

A 35mm on a crop body acts more like a 50mm on a full frame body, so you would be looking at a lens in the 20-24mm range to get "wider." Must have lens? I would have to say a 70-200 f/2.8L IS II but that's not what you are asking for, LOL. However, that lens would have to be my #1 recommendation for any photographer, crop or full-frame body. To replace your 18-135, I'd recommend a 24-105 f/4 L. For something wider, perhaps a Canon 20mm f/2.8 or even a Sigma 24 1.4 ART lens? That will give you a "35mm look" on a crop body. You are right, the wider you go the more distortion you will have to deal with. The trick is to play to the lens' strengths and avoid it's weaknesses. You don't mount a 35mm lens and walk up to a subject a take their portrait 2-3 feet away from them. That's just silly and will produce unflattering portraits. Traditionally, the 85-135 focal range is meant for portraits due to compression. Most will buy a Canon 85 1.8 and will be disappointed due to the severe chronic aberration that lens produces. (The purple fringes on things like trees against a bright sky.) A better lens would be the EF 100 f/2.0 lens. (Non-Macro). It has better compression and doesn't suffer from the CA like the 85 1.8 does. 1/3 of a stop difference isn't THAT big of a deal, the extra focal length makes up for it. Here is the lens I'm talking about: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/12058-USA

Tweet!!! (Blowing my proverbial whistle, everyone out of the pool!!!) Stop!!! Yes, there is a way without upgrading to view Raw files on a older OS. It will cost you $5 do do it. This is the program that I use: https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/raw-right-away/id963507809?mt=12

Your question does make sense and unfortunately, I have no idea. Apple blames Adobe for various issues and Adobe blames Apple. Of course, the end-users are stuck in the middle. What I think is happening, is Adobe hasn't completely figured out Apple's graphics drivers and that's the source of the issue. Combine that with the ultra-high resolution of a Retina Display and we have the end result you are taking about. Using the current version of PS CC will probably yield the best hopes of a resolution, along with using MacOS Sierra. I know, "Duh! That's just a Hyperbole statement, but it's the only thing that I have to give you. I will move this thread to the Land of Misfits. Maybe someone else can help out.

The above comments were from a thread in the Windows Forum, but they apply here. If you are consistently backing up one EHD to another (cloning,) then a RAID1 setup makes a lot of sense, since data is automatically cloned from one HD to the other. That said, you don't pull a drive out and take it off site. With a RAID setup, the Hard Drives act in unison, so they should be treated as ONE drive, even though psychically there are multiple drives. The primary downside to RAID1 is if data is deleted / corrupted on one HD, it's GONE/Corrupted on the other drive. If one hard drive fails, as soon as you replace it, the working drive copies the data back. So yes, if you have the budget...I'd recommend a RAID1 unit.