Brian

I use CPQ.com. Now some info on them, a little color goes a long way. Don’t oversaturate your colors or go “Nuclear” with them. I’d order a round of test prints from them, just to make sure if you don’t need to modify your editing style. I also use Zno.com for my Wife’s Photo Albums of photos taken from our trips each year. CGPro for my Canvases. Keep in mind, my “D55 Setting” works for me and my Mac’s screen. Your experience might be different, so get a few test prints from at least 3-5 vendors and marry the best one that matches the closest. You may not obtain 100%, but 95% or more is what you are after.

I’ve been at D55 for the labs I use with my Mac. Target is 80-82 on the average. It matches my prints. I also keep the Display at 2 Ticks from the left to match the brightness of my prints. Any higher and I get dark prints.

Again, your camera's LCD lies. The image you see on the Camera's LCD is the JPEG PREVIEW THAT IS EMBEDDED WITHIN THE RAW FILE AND NOT THE RAW FILE ITSELF!!! This is why I'm recommending you change the Picture Control on your Camera to NEUTRAL. This way the image you see on the LCD will look more like the Raw file does in ACR. The other thing I want you to do is adjust your LCD's Brightness to -1 or -2. Even though you are NOT supposed to judge exposure via the LCD brightness, for the very reason you are having an issue; it's a hard habit to break, people often look at the LCD and think their photo is properly exposed. Often, it is not. You need to pay attention to your Histogram(s) to properly judge exposure. Why? Because again, the whole JPEG Preview thing. It's not the Raw image on the Camera LCD. You could set the camera to something stupid like +5 or whatever and the image on the LCD will be nice and bright. But it does not affect the Raw file, that stuff is ignored by Adobe's Software. You could set the LCD to +100 and shoot everything to 1/4000th of a second at f/22 at ISO 64. (I'm being silly here, never do this. ) The point is, the image on the LCD will look properly exposed because the display is so bright, but be completely dark when imported into ACR. This is the same exact reason why people's prints come out too dark, it's because their computer's display is too bright! It's all the same BS. Here is how you set the brightness for the LCD. I have mine at -1. You might want to try -2.

Well, if the camera never moves and your lights stay the same, then you could fiddle with the WB settings. But the WB will still be off when importing into ACR, no matter what you do. Why? Adobe’s Camera Raw and the Nikon D850 interpretation of White Balance is different. ACR/Lightroom takes an educated guess of what the file says. Since WB is covered in the Raw Class, that’s all I will say on the matter.

I will bet you that you have all sorts of crap on your Desktop, right? If so, the more stuff you have on your desktop, the slower it runs. Give this Article a read. Speaking of speed/performance, the more crap you have on ANY HD, Internal or External, the slower it runs. When it comes to a Macintosh Computer, you never want to go more than 75%-80% Full on any hard drive. If you do, performance takes a hit. If your HD is more than 95% full, then you are in dangerous territory of things completely crashing. So before we really begin, can you fill out this form and post the results here in this thread? Details about your Computer's Health

Honestly? I've got nothing. I'd un-install everything PS Related, reboot...then run Glary to help with left-overs and do a fresh install of your Apps. Sometimes Nuking things and installing fresh is the only thing you can do.

Stop trying to screw around with fine-tuning your WB. Leave it alone. Unless you are in a studio, with VERY GOOD AND CONSISTENT LIGHTS, THAT DO NOT MOVE, and I'm NOT talking about Alien Bees, you really shouldn't mess with that WB Fine-Tune. Keep this in mind as well: The LCD LIES. Do not judge anything else other than composition when looking at your camera's LCD. In fact, I would even set the camera to "Neutral" in Picture Control and set the brightness of the Display to -1, this way it will look closer to the Raw File that you import into ACR.

Nikon is and was first an "Optics" Company. Basically, Nikon is slapping their logo on other company's stuff. LOL!! The things I recommended will work fine, regardless of brand. Tidbit: A long time ago, Nikon and Canon were partners. Nikon made the lenses and Canon made the camera bodies. I think this was just after WWII ended. So the whole Nikon vs. Canon thing is just Marketing BS. Kinda like the Beatles and The Rolling Stones. The media set out to make them "enemies," but the truth is, they were all really good friends.

You can also Un-install all versions of PS and then re-install. I’d just back up plug-ins, Actions, Brushes, etc. I wouldn’t worry about breaking things, it’s just one of those Generic Warnings. Just be sure to have your login info handy for the Adobe Mothership Program.

Yeah, to get the Group Policy Editor, you need to upgrade to Windows 10 Pro. I’d call Adobe on this one and see if they have any suggestions.

Each camera sensor has its own personality. The D750 sensor will produce different colors than a D850. I totally get what you mean though, the contrasty that you are talking about is the result of all those MP. It’s way more detail than a D750 so things don’t blend together. As Damien suggested, I use the Adobe Color Profiles A LOT. The only thing I can suggest is using Auto WB #1 or try AWB #2 and taking Damien’s Classes, especially the Raw Class. Otherwise, you are looking at a new camera body and since Mirrorless is all the rage, I don’t think Nikon will be releasing any new DSLRs soon. One more thing, lens choice also affects colors. I have found that Tamron Lenses tend to add Red and Sigma tends to add a bit of Yellow. Nikon OEM Glass tends to stay neutral.

No. The “fragrance” is what kills it. You need one of these instead: Nikon Complete Lens Cleaner Kit https://www.amazon.com/dp/B000EF3YQI/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_glt_i_ES7S2W56KFBTAG3Q4PWE I highly recommend buying this: https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/546023-REG

Now before we go any further, is your Mac setup correctly? As in, do you see your External Drives and such on the Mac Desktop when they are mounted? If not, follow these instructions: Open the Finder. The easiest way is to click the Smiley Face on your DockBar: Then head to the Finder Menu (Next to the Apple Menu) and select Preferences: Once there put check-marks next to these items and change the bottom to "Macintosh HD" if you want: Finally, Click the Red Circle in the Upper Left Corner to save the new changes and close the Preferences box. Now when you insert an External HD or Camera Memory Card into a Card Reader, they will appear on the Mac Desktop. For example:

Really old photo of my 2009 iMac. (I have a 27" 2017 now and bigger drives and bigger keyboard, but the setup is the same.) EHD on the left is for my photos, documents and other important stuff, this is my "Normal Data Files," which are current photos and such. Basically everything you are worried about on your Mac HD and want to clone, this is the files that I'm talking about. Everything that is important is stored on the left EHD is what I call my "Main Data Drive." Anything important does not live on the Internal Macintosh HD. Why? Because I have a stupid Nikon D850 which creates massive 100MB Raw Files, so I hardly put anything on my internal drive. I also use the Thunderbolt 3 Port, which is VERY FAST, so in reality, I feel like I'm working off my internal drive. I wouldn't be doing this with a typical USB drive, too slow. EHD on the right is for Time Machine only, which backs up my internal Macintosh HD. This is just to save me hassle. Honestly? If my internal HD were to go ka-plooey, I could do a fresh install with a Thumbdrive that I created and be operational within a day. I just don't feel like dorking around with my computer, so I let TM back up my internal drive. You are over-thinking this, it's not complicated. The program that will clone a Hard Drive or certain folders for you is called SuperDuper! It runs about $28 and is totally worth it. They just released an update (Version 3.5) and it's now fully compatible with Big Sur and even Monterey.

$260 is $260! But I am dead serious about the 8GB Video Card AND buying a 27” iMac. Do not let them talk you into a 24” M1 Mac. With the M1 series, everything is built into one chip. No upgrading ANYTHING after the fact. (HD Space, RAM, Video Card Choice, CPU, it’s all built into a single chip. Want more? Buy a new computer.)

It sounds like you are using one HD for your TM Backups, in addition to normal data files. Correct? If this is the case, this is very bad. You want to use Time Machine to backup the internal HD automatically, as Apple has perfected this and it makes recovering the internal HD fairly easy to recover. The Time Machine Drive needs to be all by itself with only TM files. You use a second HD to backup your images and such. This makes cloning that drive to the third HD much easier. For the Utilities Software, I’ve never used them. As for the differences, the HD manufacturers regard 1GB or 1TB as a 1000MB or 1000GB, etc. The operating systems like Windows and even the MacOS see 1024 as a GB/TB, etc. So not only do you lose a little storage capacity with the Partition/ Format, you also are dealing with companies having different viewpoints on capacity. In reality, a 4TB drive is actually 3.8TB of usable space. Now for which HD… TM Drive: At least double the capacity of the internal HD or even slightly larger. For example, if you have a 1TB internal Macintosh HD, you would want at least a 2TB TM Drive, or you could use something like a 4TB Drive. Main Data External HD: This is the one you want to spend your money on. You want big and beefy and durable. I like G-Drives and usually recommend them. My Main External is a 12TB Drive. I’d recommend at least 8-10TB or larger if the budget allows. Finally, the third HD. This one backs up the main EHD. This one you can clone and the software that does this sort of thing for you needs to be updated to work with any macOS Big Sur or current. It works on Catalina. So until it’s updated, you are cloning things by hand.

I'd upgrade the computer and deal with your camera. Seriously. Time is money.

Fortunately, Apple's prices haven't changed that much. They are just offering less with their default configurations. (Just like everything else...like you "almost" get a Gallon of Ice Cream these days, or two packs-less in a box of ______, etc.) Yes, COVID-19 and all the BS that is happening is driving up prices. It's insane. A Windows Computer that's "Good for Photo Editing..." costs you just as much as a fancy iMac! I've never seen it this bad, it's just the worse time to be in the Market for a new computer. Also, when it comes to Macs, it's always better to order it on their website and have it shipped to a Apple Store if you have one nearby. Not only does it give you free shipping, you won't have a $3600 computer sitting at your door screaming "STEAL ME!!!"

Yeah, that controls the Wireless Card. It would be best if you hooked up your computer via a hard-wire Ethernet Cable and to disable the Wireless software (Killer Control Center) from starting Automatically. But if you are using WiFi to connect to the Internet, you are kinda stuck with it. Man, I hate WiFi. It depends on the License that you purchased. Some info here. If you only purchased the one-computer option, it won't install on a 2nd device. You need the more expensive Webroot that does 5 Devices. From what I can see, is the Western Digital Software that thinks it's "helping" you...I'd un-install that. WD Software has never been useful, and I've dealt with it since the early 1990's. As far as the Chrome, maybe try un-installing it, reboot and then re-install? Each Browser Tab you have open takes a chunk of RAM. But it sounds like you only have one open? Or is there more?

Here is your answer: "NVIDIA 2GB graphics card..." Today's Modern Photoshop CC relies on the Graphics Processor and Dedicated Video RAM as a performance boost. The guy from Adobe is right, 2GB isn't going to cut it. At all. How do you upgrade it? Buy a new iMac. Hopefully, this is a 27" iMac. If it's a 21.5" Model, take it to a repair shop that specializes in Macs. Because when it comes to the 21.5" iMacs, there is no access panel to get to the RAM slots on the back side of the Motherboard. In fact, you have to take apart the entire 21.5" iMac and then remove the Motherboard. Actually, I recommend at least 8GB. I'd return the RAM and buy a new 27" iMac. 7 Years is a good run. Also, you might have one of those Fusion HDs installed in your iMac, and they aren't known for their performance. In case you are wondering, start with the most expensive 27" iMac and upgrade a few things: Leave it at the Standard Glass Upgrade the CPU to the i9 version Leave it at 8GB (more on this later...) Upgrade the Video to the middle one, Radeon Pro 5700 with 8GB of Video RAM. Upgrade the internal HD to 1TB SSD Storage I'd upgrade the Keyboard to the one that has the built in Numeric Keypad. It's totally worth the extra $30. When finished, it should look like this: The Cost should be $3229 before Shipping, Tax and AppleCare. Price is US-Dollars. The reason why we are leaving it at 8GB, is I don't want you to pay Apple's over-priced RAM. You will buy a Crucial 64GB kit to take your RAM from 8GB to 72GB for about $350-ish. You'd spend over $1000 for the same damn thing (the 64GB RAM option) AND have LESS RAM AT THE END. (72GB vs 64GB.) So why pay more and get less? Oh, why start with the most expensive iMac? Because it will save you money. Let me explain... Apple is and always been a "Go Big or Go Home" Company. You are penalized for spending less. If you chose a lower-priced iMac, you will end up paying MORE FOR THE UPGRADE OPTIONS. Apple will charge you $100 more for the same damn HD upgrade if you went with a lower-priced iMac. So when it's all-said-and-done, you only save about $100 with going with a lower-end / wallet-friendly iMac. It's not worth it. At over the $2000-$3000 price-point, a $100 is nothing. I'd rather have you get the best hardware options so that your next iMac lasts 7-8 years. Otherwise you will be in the Market sooner rather than later. When I configure my Macs, I have a 7-8 year lifespan in mind Which leads me back to my advice above: It's time for a new iMac. I know, it sucks having to fork out the money. It's just not worth it. You might get another 6-12 months of usage after increasing the RAM, but honestly...it's time.

Oh, one more thing! I saw that there is a Nikon Shooter in your bunch. If they have a Crop-Body, they really should consider buying this lens: Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 35mm f/1.8G Lens Now, since that lens has a "DX" stamped on the side of it, that lens is meant for Crop Body / Nikon DX Bodies ONLY! So if they have a Full Frame / FX body, they are better with a 50mm f/1.8 Lens of some kind. That said, the 35mm 1.8 DX lens should be in every Nikon Crop-Shooter's bag...it's that good AND it's only $196 new.

Yeah, your 18-55 "Kit Zooms" are really crappy. You just have no idea of how bad they are until you shoot with L-Glass. 35mm 1.8 Lenses or even a 28mm 1.8 Lens will work. Not only will you get better results, it will make them think about composition and they will have the wider apertures to play with in low-light. Can't do that with a Kit Lens. Plus, you are right, you have a bunch of 12 year olds. Those Rebels need to be "Throw-Aways" if they are broken.

That kit is two 16GB sticks. The NZ link will bring your Mac to 40GB, not 72GB. Which is fine unless you have a high MP camera, 45MP or higher. Then you really want 64GB or more. But that RAM you linked to should also work.

I hate wasting money on this shit. $1400 (or whatever) is still $1400. I’d hate for you to blow that money, only to turn around and have to purchase more because it’s under-powered. My Advice: Keep Saving. Shoot Less and Photograph More. Having 5 or so photographs that are AWESOME is much better than dealing with 50 crappy or “meh” photos.

I know exactly what you are going after. You see, I was one of those kids…back in 1986. In reality, any rebel body 6MP or more is fine. I’ve bought stuff used from KEH.com and B&H Used Store. What you really should be looking at is the lens choices that the students will be using. I started with a Minolta X-370 and a 50mm f/1.7 Lens. (Yes, Minolta liked to be different, it was a 1.7 and not a 1.8 lens.) I’d recommend getting 35mm 1.8 or f/2.0 lenses, with the crop-factor that puts the FF equivalent to 56mm with Canon Crop Bodies. (Focal Lenght x 1.6). If any students are shooting with a Nikon Crop Body, I HIGHLY RECOMMEND the Nikon 35mm f/1.8G DX Lens Same thinking, different manufacture Also, having a flash for those low-light situations is also something that students need to learn. Oh, another thing that needs to be taught, is controlling DoF between f1.8-f/22, which makes a 50mm 1.8 Prime essential. (And I’m a Zoom Guy.) In todays world, kids can produce great photos in low-light with their phones, so it’s tough to purchase all the equipment that is needed to compete, especially if you are using old Rebels from a few years ago. As far as publishing, I’ve had things in yearbooks with a 50mm 1.8 lens, so it’s quite possible. It’s also really easy to be able to zoom and not think; if they only have access to kit zooms of the 18-55 Variable Aperture Class, since they are used to your L Glass, their results will be mixed. More-so than before. So to answer your question, any Rebel or Nikon D3000 (and above is fine.) I would recommend models that have a decent amount of Focus Points though. That might help things in the AF dept.