Brian

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.

I REALLY like this HD box and just added it to my B&H Wishlist: https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1148574-REG/wd_wdbdtb0080jsl_nesn_my_book_pro_8tb.html Even though it's a Thunderbolt Model, it also has a USB 3.0 port, and you can configure the software so that it becomes a Windows or Mac HD. It has RAID1. I like the fact that it comes with WD Caviar Black HDs and the drives are hot-swappable, which means you can pull them out without powering down the unit. You just have to tell the RAID software that you are doing this, unless it does it automatically. The thing with RAID1, is that you take the advertised capacity of the external unit and divide it in half. The "12 TB" capacity is if you were configuring it as a RAID0. Since you really want RAID1 for backups, that's two identical HDs, so two 6TB drives or two 3TB drives, or 4TB drives, etc. A 12TB external RAID device becomes a 6TB mirrored HD setup when using RAID 1.

RAID is expensive, no matter how you slice it, since you are purchasing multiple hard drives, buying hardware that is designed for RAID and the software to run it makes more sense. For the majority of folks, there are three common types: RAID Level 0 or RAID0: Multiple HDs act as one big Hard Drive. This is the fastest RAID of the bunch. Downside, no redundancy. If one HD fails, the whole RAID0 setup fails. RAID0 is great to be used as a cache drive when editing video, due to the performance of RAID0. RAID Level 1 or RAID1: Drive Mirroring. When a file or any bit of data is written / removed from one HD, it is instantaneously copied / deleted from the other HD. For the majority of folks, they usually go with this option as it's pretty simple to setup. The downside to this setup, if any bit of data is corrupted or deleted on one HD, that corruption is carried over to the 2nd HD immediately. So if you screwed up and deleted the wrong folder, you are SOL and are looking at extreme data recovery, which is expensive. Good news with RAID1 is if one HD fails, you have the other to retrieve your data from. That's the original intent of RAID1. RAID Level 5 or RAID5: This is the most common in servers with my commercial clients. There are others, like RAID6 and RAID10, but to keep things simple we will stick with RAID5. RAID5 is kinda like the combination of RAID0 and RAID1; which is three or more hard drives act in unison as one big HD. If one drive fails, the other two pick up the slack and keep going. If TWO hard drives fail in a RAID5, the RAID fails. When I setup RAID on a server, I typically will use two HDs on a RAID1 for the Operating System and Backup Software and a RAID5 for programs and database / data files. (A C: Drive and a D: Drive.) Most people in this forum won't ever go that route and will usually pick an external device that allows them to setup a RAID pretty easily. Let me get a few links....

Any lenses that have a "EF-S" are crop body lenses. Think of the "S" in the EF-S as the S in "Small," as in a crop sensor is smaller than a full frame. Any EF lenses, without the -S, are Full Frame Lenses. So what would I personally purchase if I were you? The Canon 100mm f/2.8L Macro Lens. I'm a big proponent of "Buy it Right...Buy it Once" mentality. I was in your shoes, and opted for a used Nikon 60mm f/2.8 Macro Lens. While the lens is fine, it really sits in my bag unused the majority of the time. I really should have bought the Nikon 105VR, (Nikon equivalent to the 100mm L Macro,) especially since I'm shooting with a Full Frame camera now. Why did I get the AF 60mm Macro? I was compensating for the Angle of View change that you get with the crop sensors, and I didn't have much money. $900 vs. $350 was a big deal at the time. But guess what? I have buyers remorse. I threw away $350 when it's said and done. Even if I sold the lens, I've still lost money. In your case, the cheapest option, the EF-S 60mm Macro is a lens really meant for Crop Bodies. You are better off purchasing a 100mm Macro in the long term. Even if you have to save up and wait a little.

Fortunately, two of the three Canon Macro Lenses that come to mind are all full frame and one is for Crop Sensors. "...that isn't too expensive" is a relative statement. So we will need to talk budget. In addition, with macro photography, you are stopping down, usually between f/8 and f/11 due to the shallow DoF. Serious Macro Shooters are usually at f/16 and f/22. As you get closer to your subject, don't think you will be at f/2.8 that much. The reason that I mention this, is that a proper lighting setup is just as important as the lens. For now, we will keep things simple. Here are your choices: Full Frame Macro Canon EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM Lens Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 (NON-L) Macro USM Lens Crop Body Macro Canon EF-S 60mm f/2.8 Macro USM Lens Since you are interested in a Full Frame Macro Lens, we will be talking about the Canon 100mm Macro Lens, both the "L" and "Non-L" versions. What's the difference other than the price? Build quality, weather-sealing, image stabilization and you really see the difference in the fine-details when you pixel-peep. Now, the "Non-L" 100mm Macro is no slouch, but when compared to the "L" (Fully Professional) version, there is a difference. As I type this, the Canon 100mm L Macro is on sale at $799.99 (normally $899) and the Canon NON-L retails for $599, which is it's normal price. DigitalRev put out an EXCELLENT Video demonstrating the difference between the two, and I HIGHLY RECOMMEND GIVING IT A VIEW and come back.

Interesting. I'm moving this thread so other's can chime in.

Ok, I'm off to photo a wedding. We will talk later.

I like Western Digital's HDs, but ONLY the Caviar Black Line. The Caviar Blue line works in a pinch. You should be able to find those install .dmg files on your Mac Desktop. Simply right-click them and select eject, or drag them to the trash. They are "Mounted" files. That's why they aren't going away. As far as the G-Drive, the one you linked to I personally own, but if you have a Thunderbolt Port, I'd get that version: http://www.bestbuy.com/site/g-drive-g-tech-4tb-external-thunderbolt-usb-3-0-hard-drive-silver/8789024.p?skuId=8789024