Brian

Recovering photos on a iPhone is almost impossible. Apple has created a work-around with a "Recently Deleted" Album as a way to cut support calls down from panicked customers. So check your "Albums" in your Photos App. Look for recently deleted. It's a long shot.

I think that's just a default iPhone thing. The restore puts back your data and old Apps on your new phone. Now I'm sure you are asking why it didn't leave your new photos alone? "Just because..."

Short answer: Probably not. Those files that you took before the restore are probably gone forever. Unless you had your phone synced with the iCloud. For that, you would have had to key in the login / password info when you first got your phone, AND had enough room on Apple's Servers AND had the photos set to automatically backup to the iCloud. Many people never purchase the extra capacity, so they are stuck at the 5GB free account level, and new photos never get backed up because the free iCloud account is full. There are programs that view the images in the MobileSync Folder, so there MIGHT be a razor thin chance you can get stuff back, but I'm 99.999999999999999999999999999999999999999% sure you won't be able to. That said, you might want to try this program. It seems that they have a free version, but in my experience, if you want to have the full features, or the ability to recover data, you have to pony up the $$$ and purchase it.

@mistyprochaska: I'm truly sorry. I was a bit of a Major Ass earlier today. I really shouldn't answer questions on my phone. Especially when battling a Server that was being stubborn which was causing me to be very grumpy. So let's start over! I never did answer your question about your 2011 Mac properly. I'm running a 2009 iMac myself, and it works fine. I also am still using a D300s with the same lenses. So it's still around the 2010-era for me. I do have 16GB of RAM installed, which has helped. So if you have a camera like me that's a bit dated, you should be able to keep running your Mac until it dies. It does sound like you are doing everything "correctly," CleanMyMac, Onyx, etc. The only thing I can assume is you have a full mac desktop, along with a LR catalog that has way too many photos...those things KILL performance. As I've said earlier, adding RAM from Crucial is a good thing and you should be able to take it up to 16GB of RAM. So if you are like me, using the same camera from a few years ago, you can keep going. That said, if you do upgrade to something that has 24MP or larger, then that might cause issues. For example, if you upgrade from a Nikon D90 to a D810. Your Mac will not like that change. Neither will your externals. Now, here is the fun part. You'll get mixed answers in this dept. The rule of thumb that I've come up with is if your 2011 iMac has a built-in DVD SuperDrive, you can go up to 16GB. If it doesn't have a DVD Drive and it's one of the "newer" styles (from 2012-present) you can go up to 32GB, ONLY IF you have the 27" model. The 21.5" models go up to 16GB, even though Crucial themselves might state otherwise. This info I've come across from Apple's literature over the years. This Western Digital MyBook Pro comes with "Caviar Black" Hard Drives. I've owned these hard drives for YEARS. The run fast, run cool, and are extremely reliable. They are the ONLY internal HD I will recommend or install into my own equipment. In fact, I've made my own externals (Like my Time Machine HD) that contains a WD Caviar Black 1TB drive. Bought it in 2009. Works fine in 2016. Unlike a lot of the "off-the-shelf" EHDs, these hard drives are kinda like the "Canon 5D Mark III" of the world. They aren't the low-end "Green" Drives which tend to drop like flies when you need them. Often, you will find the lower-end "Eco-Friendly" or "Green" Drives in many externals. You will have to seek out the "Pro-Grade" or "High-Grade" Hard Drives. The reason is the "Green/Eco-Friendly" HDs are cheap to produce, combine them with a crappy external case, and you can sell a EHD with a very high profit-margin. People eat those drives up. "$79 for a 2TB EHD!! Great!! I have 6 sessions that I need to download!!!" Uh-huh. Que the panicked photographer six months from now who can't get to their photos. Let's talk about RAID...again. Thanks for reading over the other thread. For the majority of the people on this website, RAID 1 is fine. You have the benefit of instant real-time duplication of your files from one to the other. That's the nice part about RAID 1. The downside to it, is if your file is somehow corrupted on Drive A that corrupted file is automatically corrupted on Drive B. So in reality, think of RAID 1 as your typical external that you are used to, with the added benefit of having things automatically duplicated in real time. That small chance of something going horribly wrong in between your duplication session is non-existent. For example, having a EHD fail on a Monday before your weekly duplication on a Thursday. With RAID 1, stuff is copied in real-time. How does this work with Cloud Backup? In a word: Speed. Once you replace the failed HD, the working HD in a RAID 1 automatically copies stuff over. That said, this depends on the RAID Device and the software. Sometimes you have to tell it to start the rebuild. Other times it does things on its own. You'll have to read the manual on this one, I'm afraid. Now I'm sure you are wondering why I said speed. After all, people have fast internet connections these days. Why not simply download the file in a few seconds? I would say that's true. You have to remember that RAID has been around for a long time. The Cloud didn't really start until 2011. So you have older-based technology, which is proven. Keep in mind that Cloud Backups tend to vary on how long they keep things on their servers. Some will delete files monthly, others will delete files if you delete them locally on your HD. So it's one of those things, read the fine print. Not all Cloud Storage Vendors treat data the same and I'd hate for you to get a nasty surprise. As for that WD External RAID, it looks really interesting. I like the fact that it has WD Caviar Black Drives and they are hot swap hard drive caddies. What that means is you can pull the HD while the thing is powered on, replace the failed HD and have it rebuild the RAID. Most of the Servers that I build use this technology. It's awesome. I think you also had a question about Drobo. Drobo is Drobo. It was one of the first NAS (Network Attached Storage) systems geared towards the average user. Their devices are extremely easy to setup. I haven't looked at their models recently, the reason is it's a software-based RAID, and "Their Version of RAID," rather than an industry standard system. That's why you can mix and match different hard drives in a Drobo. A 1TB Drive and a couple of 2TB drives with a few 500GB HDs can be installed in a Drobo and it creates a "RAID." Traditionally, you had to have ALL of the HDs in a RAID be the same, or have the same capacity across the board. No mix-and-matching. So for that feature, you are paying a premium. That said, you end up paying the same amount in the end if you went with multiple high-quality HDs that were the same type/capacity/model number for stability. In addition, Drobos used to have proprietary power supplies, so if it died out of warranty, you would have to pony up the $$$ to get access to your data. There was a big situation years ago that Scott Kelby went through that really caused an uproar. I'm not sure if Drobo changed things or not. For me, it wouldn't be a big deal. If a Drobo used a standard 3-prong computer cord, it still would have a proprietary power supply in the damn thing. Just like some computers. So, hopefully I answered your questions. Any more, send 'em my way. I'd be happy to help.

"So is there an advantage in going with the WD RAID you posted and using it as RAID1, vs. having two seperate hard drives and replicating the data on one to the other regularly?" Advantage is things get copied from one HD to another in real time, rather than weekly or monthly, etc. "What about Crashplan or something similar? Is that overkill?" No. Having a off-site backup is part of a thorough backup plan. What happens in case of Earthquakes, Fire or Floods? Sometimes floods aren't caused by rivers and streams, they are caused by a failed sump-pump or broken pipe in the ceiling.

It depends on you personally if you want a RAID 1 or not. RAID 0 is great if you edit video and need a spot for cache files. Otherwise, go RAID 1 or RAID 5. The G-Drive is just like you are doing things now. The one I linked to contains a higher-end HD. The WD RAID is also a good choice and having things automatically duplicated gives peace of mind if something goes wrong. I can't make this decision for you. It's a personal thing. The RAID drive will also show up as one HD, not two. Personally, I think the next EHD will be a RAID unit of some sort. The G-Drive will eventually become my Time Machine Drive.

I'd export the whole catalog and start fresh. A catalog that large is extremely dangerous, and WILL kill performance. Onyx doesn't do a whole lot in terms of performance. What it does is nice, but it's not extraordinary. If you haven't upgraded to 16GB RAM by now, you should. That will give you a performance boost. Especially if you are at 4GB. CleanMyMac does more than Onyx, but it really keeps the crap in cache files in check. For performance these three things are what you are after: 1. Clean Desktop 2. 16GB RAM or More 3. HD that has at least 25% free or more. Those three things will give you performance. CleanMyMac helps with #3. The problem is, it's not your file organization. It's the LR catalog. They way you are doing things is great if you used Adobe Bridge. But that's a whole other topic. You might want to get into the habit of creating catalogs based on theme or job. For example, the "Smith-Jones" wedding gets its own catalog. The Fall Mini 2016 Sessions get their own catalog, the Spring Mommy & Me sessions get their own catalog etc. Store the catalog with either the Raw files or edited .psd files. Kill the JPEGs. You can always recreate JPEGs from the edited .psd files. JPEGS do nothing but eat space after exporting / uploading a job. Whatever you do, don't go above 10,000 in a single catalog.

142,093 photos. In a single catalog? ::: FACEPALM ::: You have been given bad advice. Those people that said that its ok to have that many in a LR catalog should find the closest tree and apologize to it for stealing the oxygen it produces. Just because you can do something, doesn't mean you should. 10,000 photos, fine. One hundred forty-two thousand? Yeah...LR will come to a screeching halt.

I'd kill those exported JPEGs first. ROES links aren't going to slow things down that much, it's all the other crap. RAID1 is "Automatic Drive Mirroring." Meaning things get written to HD A and then are automatically duplicated to HD B. That's why the "12TB" drive becomes a 6TB drive. You have two 6TB Drives in that unit. I think that WD has Caviar Black Drives, which is what I recommend. As far as overkill? When it comes to backups, there is never overkill. I had a customer who needed to replace his worn out tapes for his server. Those tapes were expensive. So instead of replacing the whole set, he tried to save money and only purchase a couple. Which never made it into rotation. Guess what happened? His server crashed one day. His previous night's backup didn't restore properly, due to a crappy worn-out tape, so we had to go to a full backup that was two years old to get him running. So instead of spending $1000 on a new set of tapes, he now has to hire someone to input 50,000+ records of transactions and other data. So if you are shooting professionally, you owe it to yourself and your clients to have your sh*t together. Lawyers aren't cheap. Oh, creating a separate catalog for each gig helps keep LR nice and speedy. It's when you have 50,000 photos on one catalog do things slow down to a crawl. Like HDs, LR isn't a dumping ground. Drobo is overpriced just like everyone else.

All HDs will wear out eventually. There is mechanical and electronic parts contained within them. Hard drives are the number one thing that I replace in computers. Followed by power supplies. Keep in mind, you get what you pay for. If you are buying the low-end economy or "Green" HDs on a consistent basis, then your failure rate will be higher than a higher end HD. I personally would never recommend a EHD from a big-box store, especially ones that are meant for important things, like client photos. Personally, I like G-Drives. I own this one: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1013785-REG

All RAID does for you is give you the peace of mind that if one HD fails, there is another one that allows access to your files. A RAID is nothing more than separate hard drives that are acting in unison for a common purpose. >> With the exception of RAID 0. If one of those HD fails in a RAID 0, the whole thing goes ka-plooey. << You need RAID 1 or RAID 5 for the redundancy that I'm taking about. (For the technical crowd, yes...I know there are other levels of RAID, but I'm keeping things simple for the majority.) With your main drive and 896 GB free, you are fine there. Using Onyx isn't going to fix your problems. Onyx is more of a icing on the cake. It is possible that your internal HD has bad sectors or your OS is corrupted in some way. For a performance boost, clear off your Mac Desktop. Seriously. The more crap you have on the desktop, the slower a Mac runs. Got 1300 photos of the "Smith-Jones" wedding? The Mac OS treats them as 1300 open files. You do not need any fancy software to speed up a Mac. Just clean off the desktop. Seriously. That said, a software program that I do recommend and use weekly is CleanMyMac from MacPaw.com. It helps keep things like cache files and other crap that gets installed in check. As far as the RAID HDs, they usually aren't your typical HDs you get for $79 from the local box store. They tend to be a little higher end, but it could go either way. Chances are, you'll have a better chance of getting higher quality drives if you spend more. The ones I link to, I would purchase myself.

Arranged to borrow a D700 from a friend for my gigs. I will just follow my own advice and get what I want: A Nikon D3s. It's the most logical step up from a D300s. Since the D3 & D300 were released at the same time, just like the D5 & D500, both sets of bodies are "cousins." A used D3s in good shape will remind you of your D300 and you can use your current lenses with it. As soon as you jump up to 24MP or more, high quality lenses become almost mandatory. With a D3s, it's still 12.1MP and has a sensor that can go up to ISO 6400 or more, without a lot of pain. Hopefully when the D5 hits the shelves, the price of the D3s will lower. But I wouldn't hold your breath. The fully pro bodies hold their value. So I expect to pay around $2000 in the coming months. For your situation, be on the lookout for a D3s in good shape. The shutter is rated for around 300,000 clicks. So if you can find one that has less than say, 50,000-70,000 clicks, then it still has life left in it.

How full is your internal Mac HD? If it's almost completely full, that is a major problem. Macs get cranky when your HD is about 75% full and you will notice a performance hit. They get weird and start corrupting themselves about the 95% mark. When you hit 99% full, you are asking and begging your Mac to give you problems. Hard Drives are NOT dumping grounds. You can't expect to fill them up. You seriously need to do some major culling. Be ruthless. You do not need 75 Raw Image files of your Lunch from 4 years ago. Yes, internal HDs go bad, just like externals. It will run you between $250-$300 to have Apple do it, which they should. I would cull like crazy and free up as much space as you can, then run a Time Machine Backup without any external drives hooked up, except for the TM drive. Now, there is the old cliché, Garbage In - Garbage Out. Which means that if your data is somehow corrupted and gets backed up, when you go to restore said corrupted data, you'll go into a complete circle. So I'm hoping the data files are intact, and it's just your programs that need to be re-installed. Now for RAID. That stands for Redundant Array of Independant Disks. Some people refer to the I as "inexpensive," which was the original meaning. Anyway, the keyword in the term RAID is Redundant. Which means if something fails, there is another component waiting to pick up the slack of the failed component or just take over immediately. With RAID 1 or RAID 5, if a single HD fails, the others will pick up the slack and keep going until you replace the failed drive. They have the benefit of redundancy, but still aren't to be treated as dumping grounds. So I would start killing files...like now. You want 25% free. So on a 1tb drive, no more than 750GB taking up space. This also includes Externals. The reason is the Mac OS treats an external drive the same as the internal drive. Remember, this is a OS that is based on UNIX (pronounced You-Nix) and not Windows. HDs are "Mounted" and all treated the same. After you do that, then we will talk on what to buy.

I do. I really want the Nikon D3s. But that body is still over $2000. I just forked out $$$ for a new 24-70. I have Weddings coming up and my D300s is being stupid. So I might have to make a business decision and suck it up. The D3s isn't going anywhere.

There is also KEH.com. You could get a used D700 for $879. Yes, it's not the latest and greatest and you won't go to ISO 5 Million or whatever, but you could make it work with what you have. Plus things like cards and batteries and battery grip from your D300 work on the D700. Think about it. KEH offers a 6 month warranty. I might "settle" and go this route myself. https://www.keh.com/shop/nikon-d700-12-1-megapixel-digital-slr-camera-body-only.html

Found this article for you. Give it a read: http://www.macrumors.com/guide/4k-5k-displays-buyers-guide-mac/ I would go with this one: http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00PC9HFO8/ref=twister_B014R6J7VU?tag=macrumors-20&_encoding=UTF8&psc=1

"Meh." Changing sides is costly. I would pick up a Canon and really tinker / play with it. I personally can not stand Canon's Menu system. Instead of things spelled out, you have little symbols. That said, there are lots of happy Canon owners. Realistically, the D500 is a good choice for you right now. You really need to purchase better lenses if you want to switch over to full frame. If you were going to do anything, you really are looking at a 5D Mark III. Why? Because you are used to a focusing system that works. Imagine only having ONE RELIABLE AF POINT. Canon likes to cut corners and make the center AF point the only cross-type. It is unacceptable for Canon to do this...people pay good money to have crappy focus systems. As a Nikon user, you are spoiled with picking a AF point, and have it actually focus correctly. Even on the low-end models. With Canon, you are spending $2500 on a camera body plus a lens to have this feature. So let's say you get a 5D Mark III and a 24-105 f/4 L, that's $3099....call it $3100. If you went with a D500, that's only $1999. The bottom line is this, you are going to be spending close to $4000 when it's all said and done to replace your kit. I would get a D500, and replace that 70-300 lens and 24-120 with something better. FX is your long term goal. It's taken me 5+ years to acquire the lenses to switch to FX. Now that I have the lenses, I can't afford the FX body that I want, the D3s. LOL!! Maybe next year. I feel your pain...

Unfortunately, the 13" MacBooks are really underpowered for editing photos or editing things like video. Those models are glorified iPads. Great for general computing, etc.

I'd definitely get at least a 512GB HD at a Minimum. Get the 1TB if you can swing it. CPU doesn't really matter that much and you are locked into 16GB, since the RAM is soldered to the motherboard with no expansion slots. So for that model you linked to, upgrade the HD and get AppleCare.

Of course, you'll need stands and modifiers.

For a comparison, here is a E640: https://www.paulcbuff.com/e640.php

Lighting, I usually recommend the Paul C Buff Einstein 640 instead of an Alien Bee to start with. The lights that I drool over are Profoto Lights. They run about $2100...each. Since you have a larger budget and like high-end stuff, if I had $4200 laying around, I'd buy this kit: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1049889-REG

Only one AF 135mm f/2.0D. This lens is an old, but excellent, and one that is in dire-need of an update. No, nothing on the horizon. You have the only 135mm lens that's available and can purchase new.

We, if you are into primes, then a 24mm 1.4 is a good lens. That said, you are shooting sports, and 24mm isn't used a whole lot. Well, for area / environmental shots to put things in context. Most of the time, you are too busy zooming in. A prime, is a prime. You zoom with your feet. At 24mm, you'd take a few shots and then switch over to your 70-200. Don't get so caught up with f/1.4. You have a friggin' D4. Set the thing to 12800 ISO and use a 24-70. Oh, I don't think you are going to use a 24mm f/1.4 as much with newborns, due to the distortion that you get with wide angle. Don't think you have to fill the frame constantly, because when you go to print, stuff is going to get chopped off if you don't leave enough wiggle-room on the sides. I really think you should consider the 24-70, but that's your call.

Gym Lighting is one of the WORST kinds of light you can shoot in. There are really only two solutions, crank the ISO to compensate, or off camera strobes to illuminate the space. Since it's a volunteer kind of thing, I'm not sure how they would feel if you brought a four AB 1600 (or four Einstein 640) strobes with 60" umbrellas. (complete with sandbags and stands.) So unless you have an assistant to help keep an eye on things, you are cranking that ISO, probably above 6400 to help get your shutter speed up. Lenses, you actually have most of the lenses I was going to recommend. What I think you need to add is: Nikon AF-S 85mm f/1.4G ($1496.95) Nikon AF-S 105 VR Macro ($796.95) Nikon AF-S 24-70 f/2.8G ($1696.95) Currently, those lenses are on sale, so if you are going to purchase one, do it before April 1st. I think the lens only rebates end April 2nd, but I'm not 100% sure. Traditionally, Nikon always does this every year as a way to boost sales before they end their fiscal year. The total for those three lenses is $3990.85. So call it $4000. That still leaves you with $2500 to purchase lighting or to take a class. Most newborn workshops will run you around $1800-ish. Sometimes more, sometimes less. Plus the cost of possible hotel, rental car and airfare if they aren't local. Which lens first? Well, as far as primes, I'd get the 85mm f/1.4G if you do plan on shooting newborns. The 105VR Macro Lens is great for close-ups and baby toes, stuff like that. So those two should be on your short-list. You already have the 35mm f/1.4G and 58mm f/1.4G, both lenses are excellent choices. The 24-70 f/2.8G is the 70-200's counter part. I just purchased one myself, in preparation to switch to FX. If you really want wider, there is the legendary 14-24mm f/2.8G and the awesome 16-35mm f/4. Both have their strengths and weaknesses. The 14-24mm...it's so good that Canon users rent it and use the adapter to mount on their canon bodies. The downside is, it doesn't take filters and it's a big lens. At 14mm, you really need to be close to the action in order to fill the frame. Plus, you really need to take time to learn how to shoot with that lens. It's not one you can just mount and immediately run-and-gun with, expecting the best results. The 16-35mm f/4. It's the 14-24 counter-part. It's smaller, and takes filters (circular polarizer, ND filters, etc.) I've read that this lens ends up being used more than the 14-24, due to convenience, the downside is...f/4. You lose a stop of light. For me personally, I plan on getting a 14-24 eventually, since I tend to shoot really wide on a lot of occasions. Plus I'd like to get into Astrophotography. That said, the 16-35 is on my short list. Who knows, I might get that one over the 14-24. You could also go with a 24mm f/1.4G, or even a 20mm. But if it were me, the 85/105 combo or the 85 1.4 and 24-70 would be the next choices, unless you get all three. Oh, there is a newer 24-70, the AF-S 24-70 f/2.8G VR. It's a little more expensive and larger than the standard 24-70. I've received mixed reviews on the newer lens. So say it's sharper overall, others, not-so-much. Some say if you like getting close to your subject for portraits, as I do, then it's not as sharp as the older 24-70. Then you'll have the Photography rockSTARS who will rave about the lens, but of course they are Nikon Ambassadors, who have to tow the company line. Since I've shot with the original 24-70 on occasion for about 6+ years, I know the lens and what it can and can't do. That's why I bought one. (Plus, $1700 was a easier pill to swallow. :D)