Brian

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)

I'd say JPEG level 4 is causing more harm than good. You really want to be higher. "10" is fine, of course you could go a little lower if you wanted to for web usage.

Another thought. How about a 200-400 f/4 or investing in a 1.4 Teleconverter to get some extra reach with the sports stuff? I've also heard of very good things with the new 300mm f/4 lens. Now that I think of it, you are at a crossroads. The gear that you'll choose depends on what path you truly want to follow. If you want to be a newborn and baby photographer, I have a few recommendations. Of course, there are TONS of Cutesyname Photography Businesses who shoot babies and newborns. Not so many that shoot little-league games who have a D4 at their disposal. Something to think about.

If you aren't using your 135, you probably won't use the 200mm f/2.0. Do you realize on just how LARGE the 200mm f/2.0 is? It's just under 6.5 pounds all by itself and the lens is 4.9 inches wide by about 8 inches long. That's roughly the size of a large 100-pack of blank DVDs. (The large cylinder of blank DVDs, I'm sure you have seen what I'm talking about.) What does your lens setup look like now? You have a 70-200 f/2.8 now. How committed are you to shooting sports? How committed are you to shooting newborns? Because with newborn photography, if you want to stand out, it needs an investment of time and resources; t's not something you can casually pick up. Believe me, I see A LOT of "Newborn Photographers" that really shouldn't be. Also an investment in lighting should be considered. Don't give me that BS in "specializing" in natural light. LOL! As between the D4 and D5...here is the thing, what are you missing from your D4? I'd kill to have one. I'm still shooting with a D300s and making things work. What doesn't the D4 do that you think it should? Do you know every square inch of that D4 and what ALL the settings and menu choices do? I'm asking from the viewpoint of why throw away $6500? Of course, you could sell the D4 and get a D5, but if all you do is click the button and not utilize any of the flagship features that make a D4 a D4 or D4s or D5... why bother? You aren't going to suddenly get better just by having a D5. I'll give you an example of what I'm talking about. Say I purchase a brand-new shiny guitar. I went as far as picking the wood from the tree and all of the features. In fact, there was enough wood for another guitar that Eric Clapton ended up buying. Our two guitars are identical, except for the one digit difference between the two guitars' serial numbers. Who do you think will sound better onstage? Me or him? Of course, I do agree with you in purchasing the best equipment that one can afford. But you already have top-of-the-line-stuff. If it were me, I'd take the $6500 you are going to spend and put it towards education or even a trip to help change your perspective. Or maybe get a set of nice Profoto Lights and Modifiers in preparation for newborns. Heck, rent a nice studio for a year. You'd be surprised in just how much a PITA it is to shoot at home, especially if you don't have a large room to work with (with high-ceilings.) So let's talk lenses. What do you have now?

At this point, you could send your lens in to have it cleaned / serviced. It's possible that some bits of the shattered filter got inside the lens, or more realistically, the AF mechanisms might be a little off. But from the images that we've been shown, there isn't a reason to be worried. Perhaps you are looking for problems now since the accident?

I'm really not seeing noise. Prime lenses tend to perform better the zoom lenses. The original Canon 24-70 f/2.8L is notorious for being soft, but your lens doesn't seem to be that bad. Honestly, you reaction is pretty much the same from others who went from a prime to a zoom. Not all lenses are created equal. Some lenses perform better than others when it comes to skin. This all boils down to learning your gear.

Since I shoot Nikon, I use Nikon's free viewer program, ViewNX. I can cull pretty quickly, and then import directly into ACR. Of course, Adove's Bridge pretty much does the same thing. If you shoot Canon, just use Bridge.

Well, get the CC first, then get back to me.