Brian

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

These are the HDs that I'm talking about. In this photo are the 1st five EHDs that died at my customer's site. Two more about another month later.

First, I'd eject all those installer .dmg programs or reboot. Second, is the 3TB WD MB the one not showing up? If so, WD uses the world's crappiest USB ports and there is a good chance that your HD is fine, it just won't show up. So what I'd do is take your WD 3TB HD to a Mom & Pop Computer repair place and see if they can remove the HD and put it in a new case. The other thing is that the low-cost WD MyBooks typically use "Green" drives, which just plain suck. The difference between a working WD Green HD and a dead one is just a few weeks/months. Seriously, a local Best Buy Rep told me they had a 80%+ failure / return rate. So before we start panicking, let's see if the transplant works and I would be saving up for a 4TB G-Drive. I would not trust a 3TB WD MyBook...at all. That said, It's not completely WD & Seagate's fault. Back when 3TB HDs were coming on the scene, there was epic floods in Tailand, which is where A LOT of consumer electronics are made, from Hard Drives, to cameras and lenses to manufacturers who make components for our electronics. Anyway, the floods directly effected WD and Seagate, for a time Seagate would be producing WD drives and vice-versa. It was a complete mess and A LOT OF 3TB HDs (internal and external) had high failure rates. Fortunately, things have gotten MUCH better and there is little problems with 4TB and larger HDs. Now, that's not to say that there aren't any bad HDs out there, but current HDs aren't dropping like flies as the WD MyBook 3TB HDs did. In fact, I have a customer who used to use them to backup data files on a server. Out of 10 3TB WD MyBook dives, seven of them either died or had the same exact problem that you are experiencing. The 8th HD was flakey and would work intermittently. So there you have it. Hopefully we can get the files off of it.

What was the solution? I was going to tell you to make sure "Maximize Compatibility Box" is checked when saving in PS and to hit the spacebar to toggle quick view in the finder.

First, what is your budget? Second, what type of subjects do you normally photograph? Third, what body & lens do you have now?

It could work, and I'm all about recycling stuff and not spending more than you have to, but I've just come across too many clients of mine who are running out of HD space lately. Almost all of them state that they "Just have the OS and Backup Software...maybe a program or two..." and are routinely getting messages that they are low on HD space. So in my humble opinion, I wouldn't go any less than 500GB for a Main C:\ Drive. Even if it's just the OS. Since you have a 240GB SSD drive and it works, I'd get one of these enclosures and convert it to a EHD. No sense throwing it away.

The one thing that sticks out is the 240GB SSD. I'd get this instead: Samsung 850 PRO - 512GB - 2.5-Inch SATA III Internal SSD (MZ-7KE512BW) https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00LF10KTO/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_uRs7xbCF9YMYS 240GB is microscopic by today's standards. Even if it's just for the OS. Keep in mind, after formatting you won't have 240GB to play with. Combine that with Windows Updates, it's better to get a HD that's close to 500GB for the OS. You also sound like me, holding onto computers until they die or on a 7-8 year cycle. I also like Asus Motherboards. I'd look for one that can go up to 64GB, but 32GB is perfect for today. Graphics Cards are more important as far as Adobe is concerned, so make sure your power supply has enough wattage to support it and everything else in your computer.

Yeah, those images are REALLY EDITED. I agree with Kim, I'd use a large softbox on your main / key light and possibly a strip softbox on your fill light. Probably a 1 stop difference, maybe a 1.5 stop difference. Either way, you are going to have to fiddle.

10.6.xx = Mac OS X Snow Leopard 10.7.xx = Mac OS X Lion 10.8.xx = Mac OS X Mountain Lion 10.9.xx = Mac OS X Mavericks 10.10.xx = Mac OS X Yosemite 10.11.xx = Mac OS X El Capitan 10.12.xx = macOS Sierra So you are running Mountain Lion currently. How do you find out? Head to the Apple Menu in the upper left corner and select, "About this Mac." Holy Sh*tballz, you can install Mavericks. You are the first person in a long time that has this ability. OSX Mavericks was the last Mac OS that had the LEAST amount of problems with PS!!! If you can upgrade to Mavericks...DO IT!!! iTunes 12.5.xx will work fine on OS X Mavericks. PS CS6 and PS CC will work fine on Mavericks. See a theme here? Now, I'm not saying that Mavericks worked for 100% of the people out there, but for the majority that I've come across, including myself who is still on Mavericks...seem to have better results than those on Yosemite or El Capitan. As far as speed, I highly recommend CleanMyMac from MacPaw.com. You can download it and do a free scan to see how much space will be freed up, but in order for it to delete things, you have to pony up the cash. You should be able to find a coupon code if you look for it online. I use this program at least once a week and it's the best $40 that I've spend in software for my routine maintenance. Why is free space important? Because the fuller your HD is, the slower a Mac runs. Performance take a hit around the 75% full mark, and progressively gets worse the more crap you put on it. Once you hit around 95% full, you are in very dangerous territory, as in your Mac HD could corrupt itself, especially if you hit 99% full. So it sounds like it's time to "Cull-Cull-Cull!!!" and delete files / images that you don't need or will never see the light of day. Pay attention to your downloads folder. You'd be surprised on how much crap is in there. Keep in mind, you do not need 75 photos of your lunch from 4 years ago, or to keep a whole photo-session where only 40 images made the cut. Be ruthless. You want at least 1/3rd free space on your internal Mac HD. So on a 1TB drive, you want no more than 700GB of space taken up, preferrablly no more than 650GB. If you have a Mac Laptop with a small HD (250GB, 120GB, etc.) You will need to be even MORE RUTHLESS when culling / deleting stuff. >> In addition, the fastest way to increase performance on a Mac is to clear off the desktop. You don't need fancy programs or "RAM Optimizer" Software, just clean off your Macintosh Desktop. << The reason is, files on the Mac Desktop are treated as OPEN WINDOWS, as least as far as the OS is concerned. Have 400 photos of the Smith Family Photo Session at the park in a folder on your Mac Desktop? That's 400 "Open Windows." Even if you put stuff inside folders, it doesn't matter. Have 3000 images of the Miller-Jones Wedding? That's 3000 open windows, plus all the other crap. Got it? The only thing that should be on your desktop is the Macintosh HD icons, and Alias files, which is Mac-Speak for a short cut. MacPaw wrote up a decent set of instructions on what to do before upgrading to the latest OS. For you, follow these instructions, and when you get to the bottom part, install Mavericks instead of macOS Sierra.

It is also possible that some sort of Windows update came through or some other update with PS, and that's the reason for your issues. So yes, run a cleaner program and see what it does for you. Good Luck!

Right. After you verify that everything is "Shipshape and Bristol Fashion," feel free to delete the originals on the internal HD. That being said, there are no take-backsies with this, so be 110% sure that what you are deleting is perfect on the EHD. Undeleting files on a Mac can be a real pain in the arse.