Brian

Yep. It's a good practice to have a unique catalog associated with a photo-session or category. Like a catalog for the "Smith-Jones Wedding" or a "Portraits" Catalog. Honestly, Catalogs are a real pain when it comes to LR. More so when you have lots and lots of photos in them. Oh, as Damien pointed out, LR runs REALLY FAST when it doesn't have any photos in it. LOL!!

Oh, one more thing. Large LR catalogs are slow by nature. So if you have tons and tons of photos in a single LR catalog, that will cause a performance hit. A catalog that has 30,000 photos in it will run a lot slower than one that only has 3000 photos in it.

Hopefully you have a 27" iMac. If you do, I'd purchase extra RAM to take it to at least 16GB, better yet, max it out to 32GB. RAM is fairly inexpensive now. Head to Crucial.com and download their scanning tool and run it. It should take you to a page with your options. You are looking for TWO 16GB kits. (Four 8 GB Sticks total.) When it comes to Macs, when a hard drive is about 75% full, performance takes a hit. So I'd start culling. You do not need 75 photos of your lunch from 4 years ago sitting on your HD. So Cull-Cull-Cull!! The third thing I would do is clear off your Mac Desktop. The more files and folders (aka Crap) you have on your desktop, the slower the thing runs. The reason is that the Mac OS treats ALL that crap as open files. Got 1000 Photos from the Smith-Jones Wedding and 500 photos from the Miller Family Session at the park? That's 1502 "open" files. 1500 photos plus two folders. A Mac Desktop isn't a dumping ground, though it's easy to become one. Most people have no idea of just how bad it is to keep stuff on the desktop. I would also purchase CleanMyMac from MacPaw.com. You usually can find a coupon code to offset some of the cost.

I agree. Use that profile that matches your prints and get that wedding done. Your old profile will be way better than the default Mac one.

You are gonna need to save up more than $500. I'd shoot for $1000-$1500. You could get a used Mac Mini, and upgrade to OSX Server ($20) and create a network server. Then you hook up your hard drives to the Mini and configure OSX Server. That's probably the most expensive option these days. Better yet, purchase a NAS model that has an Ethernet Port. It acts as a stand-alone device, similar to how the Mac Mini is setup. The problem with these models is you can purchase a NAS for about $300, but then you have to purchase high quality hard drives to put in the thing. You'll also have to get your Geek On to configure things, install hard drives, etc. This is where cost also becomes an issue. Third option is to purchase a really large External HD that has built-in RAID 1 capability, then share that drive out. Have 4 separate main folders: Business | Client | Misc. | Personal With RAID 1, one hard drive automatically copies things over to a 2nd drive, in real time. So if one Hard Drive fails, the other has the data. When you replace the failed drive, the RAID Software duplicates the HD. Here is a fairly inexpensive model: WD My Book Pro 12TB. Now if you are thinking, but it says 12TB...why are you saying 6TB? Because to get 12TB, you have two 6TB Drives configured as a RAID 0. RAID 0 is two Hard Drives acting in unison as one big HD. As soon as you switch to RAID 1, one HD is copying to the other, you only have 6TB to play with. The downside to that model is it needs to be hooked up to a powered-on computer and shared on the network. The third option is to purchase two 4TB or larger separate EHDs and copy one HD over to the other on a weekly or daily basis. A program like SuperDuper! for the Mac will clone hard drives for you. As for an external, I like G-Drives, such as this one: 4TB G-Drive with Thunderbolt and USB 3.0 You could go one step further and get the WD My Book RAID 1 unit and a 6TB G-Drive and use SuperDuper! to copy the WD unit to the 6TB G-Drive, then move the 6TB G-Drive to a off-site location. Data Management is expensive if you want to do it well. If all you want to spend is $500 max, then I'd just get the largest EHD that you can afford and only use that drive by sharing it with the Mac Laptop. Then use your current separate externals to copy folders weekly. You will need at least 3 existing HDs for each main folder. (or four if you want.) One existing HD has the "Client" Folder, the second has the "Personal" and the third contains the "Business & Misc." Folders. This way you aren't swapping out HDs and the main big 6TB or 8TB Drive has a backup.

The image that you see on the camera's LCD IS NOT THE RAW FILE. It's the JPEG Preview that is contained within the Raw file. I agree with the others, ditch the card.

You will need something independent, called a NAS. Since you are running Macs, this could be accomplished a few different ways. What does your budget look like?

If you choose 1 TB for the capacity, the price lowers to $978.99 http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1183450-REG I'm no fan of small SSD Drives. People are generally creatures of habit and dump / install / save everything on a C: Drive. They never do a custom install to install software on a D: Drive. Yes, having a SSD Main Drive is great, boot up times are quick, but a 128GB drive won't do you any good if it's full.

Nope, you are doing everything that I would.

No. Some Eizo Displays are $2000+. You asked for "Wow." Yes, that Dell is fine. Buy it.

Personally, I don't recommend laptops for photo editing. Ever. But people keep asking and I'm tired of repeating myself. If you check threads in the Windows Forum in Ask Brian, you should see a few threads.

I sense a Spyder5 Pro is in your future...

Or just use a EHD. WAY faster. Going from Mavericks to El Captian is easy. It's just when you try to go the other way, will you hit a brick wall. Just be sure to un-authorize your iTunes and PS, etc. on your old Mac when you are ready to pull the plug. Don't forget your Actions, Brushes, E-mails, etc.

Or you could just copy things manually, like I do. Or even use Time Machine. But putting Mavericks on your new iMac? Forget it, you are stuck with El Capitan. I will create a folder called "Transfer" Then create simple folder names in the "Transfer" folder. Like Docs, Music, Pics, etc. Something different than what they are called on my Mac. Bonus points if you put the Transfer Folder on a clean EHD. You could always network the two Macs together and copy things over that way. Up to you. No Mac Bashing Crystal. Windows is just as much of a Pain in the Ass as Macs are when it comes to migration.

I don't think so. Take a look at this: https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT204350

If there isn't a updated Lenovo driver available, and the monitor profile isn't sticking, you are kinda screwed because it's a laptop. More often than not, laptops are "orphaned" by the manufacturer. A laptop is really only supported for about 90 days, then it's replaced by another laptop model. Updated drivers...good luck. You MIGHT get one update or two, that are from 3 years ago. This is one of the main things that I hate about using laptops for photo-editing.

Body's Focusing system. How Autofocus Systems work is based on a "Phased" type of system. Printers also use this technology. To see what I'm talking about, put your hands together and spread your fingers apart. If you see gaps in between the fingers, it's in "focus" if you rotate your right hand one notch, your fingers will be "out of focus" or out of "phase" as each of your fingers on one hand to fill a gap. What I really think is happening is a combination of things. You really need another photographer to critique your technique, since both you and your wife are having similar issues. A fresh set of eyes could give you an "Ah-ha!" moment without trying to gear your way out of this problem. Also, you have a stupid Tamron lens, and you are too far away from your subject on a normal basis. You aren't giving your camera a chance. You need to get closer. Speaking of which, if you did rent a higher-end body, like a D750, you are going to have to get even closer to your subject than you normally would with a DX body. Why? Because of the Angle of View Change. Here is a quick and dirty example of what I'm talking about: Comparison Shots between a D700 and D7100 Those sample shots where taken with the same lens, the only difference is the body. FX takes getting used to. It's not something that you can casually pickup after shooting DX. You really can see the "Magnifying Affect" from the "Crop Factor" when it comes to DX. The angle of view is different, which changes the position on where you stand, which then affects your Depth of Field. You have to get closer to your subject with FX bodies. It's amazing on just how much you have to stop down with FX. The flexibility and wiggle-room that DX offers, isn't an option on FX...it's much less forgiving. When I'm at f/2.8 on DX, I'm more than likely around f/4 on FX. Maybe f/3.2. I'm a OEM snob. I don't think I will ever own a 3rd party lens. If I were, it would probably be along the lines of the Sigma ART series. I would never own a Tamron lens. Often you have to go through 4-5 copies to get a good one, and even then you could have issues. I can't tell you how many times I've known photographers who just question shot after shot after shot, on why things are sometimes in focus, but their majority of shots are "almost" in focus. They just seem off on a continuous basis. Tamron lenses are just junk, and I don't care how much they have improved. LOL!! You aren't going to change my opinion. Photography, as with most things...you get what you pay for. So I'm seriously recommending you "Get a Taste of Heaven." This way you will stop driving yourself nuts and start saving for better equipment. If you were to get a better body today and wanted to stick with DX, I'd just get a Nikon D500 when it comes out later this month. For the "average" person who wants to switch to FX, the D750 is a good place to start. As for the D810...fantastic camera, but 36MP is tough to deal with. It's so easy to blow the shot, because the resolution is so high. Your technique needs to be solid. Since you are having such trouble with focus, the D810 is not where you want to be. Plus, the $3200 price-tag isn't always an option for people, including myself. That's why my next camera body will be a used D3s in good shape, possibly a D4s if I keep saving.

Right. You have to get the graphics driver from Lenovo. Even though they use Intel's Chips, the driver is brand-specific. I'm sorry to say, profiles and calibration is kind of Damien's thing. I'm going to move this thread to the Land of Misfits for others to chime in.

I'm also not a fan of Tamron lenses. I realize you are probably stuck with it, so I'd rent a D750 and a Nikon 24-70 f/2.8 combo to see the difference between the Tamron & Nikon.

Yeah, read the fabulous manual. Let's go with that. You just figured out your problem. In order for your camera to lock focus, there needs to be enough contrast swing for it to lock on. So if you are 20 feet away, trying to focus on a eyeball, you are going to blow focus. Period. Likewise, when you get closer and your subject's eye (or whatever you are trying to lock onto,) focus will be much easier for the camera's AF sensors to lock on. In addition, lenses have a minimum focusing distance, which means how close your subject can be to the lens, but there is a MAXIMUM DISTANCE that never gets talked about. Right now, one of my most used lenses is the Nikon 17-55 f/2.8 DX. It's the "24-70" for crop bodies. If my subject is between 5-10 feet away, my images are "tack sharp." Between 10-15 feet, they are "sharp." 16-20 feet it's "meh, fix it in PS sharp." 20 feet or more, "don't bother clicking the button, or reach for the 70-200." So it sounds like you need to re-think your approach to certain situations. I wish you could simply point the camera at something, click the button, and it's in focus. LOL! It doesn't always work that way. For large groups, 3 to 4 rows deep, chances are, I'm going to be 15+ feet away, just to get everyone in the shot. So I will stop down to f/8, or possibly f/11. Then I will pick something on the front row, somewhere in the center. It could be a jacket or someone's face that has dark hair, something for the AF sensor to lock on. As you said, something that fills the AF point. A eyeball isn't going to do it. To top things off, you are dealing with the angle of view change that comes with crop sensors. So a 24-70 lens performs more like a 36-105 equivalent. It's really not "wide" on a crop sensor. That's why a 17-55 f/2.8 is better on a crop body. Since you are shooting with a 24-70 lens, you might want to rent a D750 and give it a spin. Bonus: High ISO will be at at your disposal, which will help with crappy lighting.

Wow...That's Eizo. That's $2000 just for the monitor. Or more. I'd get the Dell U2715H as well. Enjoy your purchase.

If you are going for more hardcore things like video games and such, or editing video, then I would add more stuff to look for on the list. Since it's just photos, the basic 4 points I usually refer to will be sufficient.

Either the Dell U2715H or Dell U2415H is fine.

Read the above comment. I don't type this stuff out for my health. Or look at the specs for the Dell XPS 8900 and find something similar. Bottom Line: You are looking for a low-end gaming machine. Whether it's a Desktop or Laptop.

The Dell Line of monitors has been refreshed, so I'm going to have to look at them. What hasn't changed on what to look for is: IPS-Based Display. Matte Coating or Matte Display. HDMI / DVI / DisplayPort for the port type. AVOID using the 15-pin D-SUB / VGA port. That port is meant for tube displays, not fancy flatscreens.