Brian

Phew!! Windows 8.1...have you thought about upgrading to Windows 10? Windows 8/8.1 is such a PITA to work with.

Yeah, that number really sucks. Even though it's IPS, it's not a high-quality IPS screen. You really want to be at 90% or higher. Well, Damien has worked on screens that were 70% and from what I remember he said, something like, "...as long as you don't really need your colors to be accurate, say you do Macro Flower Photography, and just edit globally, you could get away with it. As long as you take things with a grain of salt." (or something along those lines.) Of course, from my POV, I want at the very least 85% but you really-really-really want 90% or better. Yep. When it comes to Adobe's current products, if you want the best experience, you need dedicated graphics memory Not really. I do not like that 256GB main boot drive. At all. Way too small and you'll be in here within the next 6 months wondering why your PS is complaining about the scratch disk and why is your brand new laptop so slow. Bottom Line: At least 500GB, preferably 1TB for the main boot drive. In reality, all three that you linked to, I'd pass on for Photoshop work. They are so close, but just miss the mark, and for the money you have to fork out in OZ, it's just not worth it. God...I hate laptops. The good news is, if you wait 3 weeks, there should be another round of models to choose from. OK, I'm exaggerating...4 weeks. PS: Kudos to you for checking the fine print!! You just saved yourself a ton of money and hassle.

Yeah, the 32GB kit will give you 40GB, which is fine for most. I just have my iMac maxed out to 64GB because I shoot with a Nikon D850. Those 100MB Raw files really make my computer work bit harder. When I shoot with my other cameras, 40GB was more than enough. Hopefully stuff will get in stock. COVID19 has really screwed up the supply chain since everything is made in China.

I will warn you, once you start shooting with Pro-Grade L glass, it will be hard to purchase 3rd party lenses. I’m not a fan of Tamron Lenses or even Sigma really. But that’s a whole other topic. For your case, I’d say the Canon 24-105 f/4 L II Lens will be a good fit. I’ve seen whole Creative Live Classes on product/food photography shot with a Canon 24-105 L. Let me know what you think of your new lens. Edit: Yes, lighting will be very important and there is a BIG difference between a $2000 Prophoto Light and a $200 AlienBee. Give it a go with your speed light and 24-105 and let me know of the results. I have a sneaky suspicion that the lens will be the CHEAPEST part of this whole situation.

Yeah, just buy the 14-24. If that’s the look you are after, the 14-24 will be your next purchase. Remember, the D3 is from 2007...the D500 has the same focusing system as the D5, Big difference. In fact, if you ever shot with a D5 or even D4s, your D4 would drop out of favor. Have fun with your new 14-24.

So what focal range are you mostly at?

Oh, if you are looking for Dog Photos taken with the 14-24, just do a simple Google Image Search. You will see what I'm talking about with big noses and the distortion.

Another lens to use in the studio, for your close-up shots like you posted, is the Nikon 105VR f/2.8 Macro Lens. That said, the "look" you are going to get with a 14-24 when you get up-and-close it going to throw you for a bit. 14mm is still 14mm. Big noses and all that still applies. That said, yes a 14-24 is in your future for the shots you are talking about. Oh, just for my curiosity, what body will you be shooting with when you sell your D3?

That is NOT a silly question at all and I'm SO GLAD YOU ASKED!!! Here is the thing with Nikon, just like Apple, NIKON CONTROLS AND SETS THE PRICES. So Seller A and Seller B should have the same prices between them, give or take a few dollars. Seller A might have the lens for $1999.99 and Seller B will have it for 1995.00, or something like that. In either case the lens should be about the same IF the reseller is a Genuine Nikon Authorized Dealer. So how do they offer a lens that's a few hundred less, but still is brand new? Hmmm... The answer is the cheaper lens is what is known as "Grey Market." Or "Gray Market." In either case, the cheaper lens does not go through the normal Customs Routes, they just "appear" in the country. So without import fees / Tariff fees and the like being applied, the lenses are at a lower price point and provide a lot more profit margin to the store. Here is the thing with Grey Market items, at least as far as Nikon is concerned: No Warranty whatsoever. Well, you have to return the lens to it's original country that it was produced in to get it repaired. The funny part is, NIKON REFUSES TO TOUCH *ANY* GREY MARKET ITEM!!! So if it breaks, essentially you have a $1800 paperweight. Even if you ship your lens to Japan or China or wherever it was made, Nikon won't accept it for repair. Combine this info with the reseller not being up-front and honest, turns on ALL my warning bells inside my brain. In fact, I would shop somewhere else. Whatever you do, never-ever-ever buy a Grey-Market item that you can't afford to lose. If you were in the middle of nowhere, had an assignment that needed _____________ piece of equpiment to get the Gig done, then I'd might consider purchasing a Grey Market item; for example it was around $150 or less, I'd chalk it up to the cost of doing business. For something like a $2000 lens you plan on keeping for a long time? Forget it. It's too bad you are up in Canada. Everything is so expensive up there. But do check around, the prices should be the same from website to website if the reseller is honest and on the "up-and-up." If they pull this shady crap or try to push you to the Grey Market item, it's just more profit for them and in the end you will get screwed if something goes wrong. Aren't you glad you asked?

You really need VR / IS at the longer focal lengths. Honestly, with my 24-70 f/2.8G, it's fine when I shoot with my D4s and it doesn't have VR. The only reason that the 24-70 f/2.8 E lens has VR, is due to one thing: The Nikon D850. With the higher MP cameras, you really need to keep your shutter up or your images become soft, and not due to aperture or focus issues, it's just the little bit of hand-shake / vibration. When I shot with my original 24-70 with my D850, I could not go below 1/250th hand-held. 1/60th was out of the question. Even 1/125th was kinda iffy. In reality, in both my personal experience and what I've read online, with the D850, your Shutter Speed needed to be 4 over the focal length to make sure things were sharp and camera shake is kept to a minimum. With the newer 24-70 f/2.8E, that is no longer an issue, due to VR. It's like Nikon made that lens with the D850 in mind. Recently, I've taken a photo hand-held at 1/10th of a second: The particulars: SS - 1/10th | f/11 | ISO 100 @ 32mm. Handheld with Nikon D850 and 24-70 f/2.8 E Lens. Nikon Circular Polarizer II was also used. Oh, this photo looks better on my computer and IG. For some strange reason, the screenshot that I used is kinda blurry. (Which is fine by me.) Without VR, that shot would have required a Tripod. Well, I do have a similar photo taken with my camera on a tripod and it is a bit clearer, especially the foliage, but I think you get what I mean. The Nikon 24-70 f/2.8E is awesome on a D850 and the VR is a much needed addition for shooting with a D850. For my Wedding work, my trusty D4s and 24-70 f/2.8G is still a great combo. I really only use the 24-70 VR lens with my D850. Bottom Line: If you are shooting with a camera that's 24MP or less, you really don't "NEED" VR, except for a lens like the 70-200, or anything in that focal range or above. Honestly, I'm more worried about controlling and working with the distortion along the sides with the 14-24 that VR never enters my mind. Remember, people think they "Need" VR. The manufacturer's marketing departments are happy to oblige. VR lenses cost more. Makes them more money.

Here is a quick-and-dirty shot of my 14-24 next to my 70-200: The 14-24 is a "Stubby" little lens.

What lenses do you have now? How small is small? Meaning, how far away from the subject will you be? Are you using strobes to help with exposure? The two lenses that come to mind are the Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II USM Lens and the Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II USM Lens. In either case, MAKE SURE YOU GET THE VERSION 2 / VERSION II TYPE. ESPECIALLY WITH THE 24-70!! Never-ever-ever buy the version I of the Canon 24-70. The Canon 24-70 Version I is complete crap. I know lots of Photographers in real-life and on-line who can't trust their Canon 24-70 Version I lens. That said, Canon did fix all the issues with the 24-70 when they released the Version II. So the two lenses that I linked to is where I would start. Distortion will be an issue, so you will need to shoot a little "Loose" to kill the sides. If you are really in a tight space, a Tilt-Shift Lens might be in order. But again, it really depends on your situation. Need more info.

OK, so the 14-24 f/2.8. Here is the bottom line with the lens vs the 16-35 f/4: 14-24 f/2.8G Heavier. Way More expensive. Can't use screw-in filters. Amazing at 14mm - 24 mm. It's really awesome between 14mm-20mm and is sharp as a prime in that focal range. In fact, I'm hardly at 24mm with this lens. Still holds up, image quality-wise, even after all these years and works very well with my D850, and my D850 really shows the flaws in lenses. That 46MP sensor is hungry for only the very-best glass. The "Coffee Can" Lid can be a bit annoying. You will know what I mean when you get your hands on this lens. The only regret you will have with the 14-24 is the amount of money that you fork out in the beginning. That said, a lot of things are on sale now and the current price is $1346, which is around $400 in savings. So in my opinion, this lens is a MUST BUY. 16-35 f/4G Lighter Cheaper You can use screw-in filters Image Quality...complete utter shit at 16mm and 35mm. The Pincushion Distortion is quite noticeable and can't be corrected that well in post either. Especially shooting at 16mm. So for your dog photos, I have a feeling you are going to be somewhat close and shooting wide...the 16-35 f/4 will just piss you off. The lens is "Fine" between 18mm - 30mm, it's just crap at the 16mm & 35mm ends. You couldn't pay me to use this lens, and I'm a Nikon OEM Lens Snob. People that do buy this lens, often end-up purchasing the 14-24mm. So just save yourself the $1000, just buy the 14-24 and be done with it. Alternative... If you are on a tight budget and since you will be shooting Dogs, chances are you will be at f/5.6 - f/8 most of the time. In which case I highly recommend the Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 18-35mm f/3.5-4.5G ED Lens. It's a much better alternative that the 16-35. It's a very sharp lens, and the cost is around $800, which isn't too shabby. So back to using the lens. It takes getting used to. You really need to pay attention to the distortion when shooting at 14mm or 16mm. You will need to think things through before clicking the button. Now don't get me wrong, it's not terrible...it's just the 14-24 is a lens that you need to learn how to use, it's not a lens you can casually pick up. Just like a Fender Telecaster Guitar, you really need to work with it to produce the best sound... ...and when you do, it's magic. Just like working with the 14-24.

I have a love affair with my 14-24 f/2.8G. LOL!! Here are my thoughts: This lens is like a Fender Telecaster, if that makes any sense to you. A 24-70 is like a Fender Stratocaster and the 70-200 is like a Les Paul. Well, in my mind that's how you tell the personalities of each of those lenses. Just like working with a Telecaster, notice how I said "working with..." that's what you do with the 14-24...you work with the lens. The reason is when you get to 14mm, the distortion is quite noticeable. Just moving an inch or two in whatever direction will change the overall look of the photo, especially along the sides. For example: Or stand a few feet from your subject and get something like this: Or go really wide for photos like these: See how straight the Arches are further back? At 14mm, you will have to work with the Distortion. Same lens, different shot:

All the parts come from China. From Cameras to Computers and things beyond. When they shut down, there is a ripple-effect, unfortunately. Honestly, head to Crucial.com download and run their scanning tool. (It's harmless.) It should take you to a page with your options. If you need help, post a screenshot of the results and I can tell you what to buy. But you are looking for a 16GB kit at the very least. Or, what I would do...is purchase a 32GB kit. This will take your RAM from 8GB to 40GB! Which is a very nice thing to have, if you own a high megapixel camera. (24MP or above.)

COVID-19 has messed up a lot of stuff in the supply chains. You could contact Crucial and see if they have another part number that cross references the one I linked to. Or just download and run the scanning tool and see what type of results that it gives you. You are looking for a 16GB kit. (Two 8GB Sticks.) The most important thing is not only compatibility, but to get the RAM Sticks Matching Spec-wise.

Since I just made my main forums viewable to all, you still need to be logged in to post, I want to clarify my thought process on why get a single 1TB HD instead of a combo configuration. After all, by having two hard drives, gives you more storage, right? Well yes and no.... The reason is, people are creatures of habit. The majority of us out there are used to dumping everything on a "C Drive." The whole clicking "next-next-next-ok-apply-next-next-finish" way of thinking in engraved in our heads. You don't have to think and unfortunately, Hard Drives usually become dumping grounds. Unless you mentally THINK each and every time to store stuff on the "D Drive," more than likely it will end up on C, usually the desktop in a folder somewhere. I've seen this very issue hundreds of times...people forget about the second hard drive, especially if it's internal. Why? The 'ol "Out of Sight-Out of Mind" thing. When people see an external hard drive, it forces them to think about it and they will easily store things on a EHD. When it comes to an internal drive, people will forget about having a second drive and then the main drive gets filled with crap, which results in a panicked post here or on FB Ask Damien with a computer that isn't working correctly. So that's why I like having a 1TB Main HD. It's big enough for the OS, Main Programs & Updates...along with the PS Scratch Disk, and gives you a little room to work with current projects. If you choose a 500GB model, you will have to put all sessions and files on the "D Drive / aka the Data Drive" to house your files. Make sense? It's just so easy to dump everything on the "C Drive."

Yep! There are two differences I would make. One is to get a 1TB single drive instead of a dual configuration. You can always add another internal HD at a later time, for less money. Second, if you are just using Photoshop, you don't "need" the "Super" Version of the Video Card. Unless you are a heavy gamer as well. Here are my changes:

This is where Damien and my opinion differs. Personally, I work off my external hard drive. That being said, I have a very fast and stable 12GB Thunderbolt 3 G-Drive. If all I had was a USB 2.0 Drive, I wouldn't be working off my external. In your case, with a stupidly small internal hard drive, I would be working off an external drive. You want your internal hard drive to be as clean as possible. For the best results, you need to be using a Thunderbolt 2 or Thunderbolt 3 drive, depending on what TB port you have on your laptop. If you create an Alias from a folder that is on your external drive, put it on the Mac Desktop, if you save whatever files to your Alias folder, it automatically puts in in the folder that the Alias in linked to. In reality, when it comes to an Alias, it's almost like you are working with the original folder, with the exception for when it comes to moving the source folder somewhere else. When you save out of Photoshop, just like my example above, you click Desktop in the left column and choose the appropriate Alias. Just like you did when things were physically on your desktop. So it's just like working with your stuff on the desktop, except that it should be on your external HD. Make sense?

No. Just as long as they are together in the same folder. If you ever were to move the Raw file to a different folder, just be sure to move both the Raw file and XMP file together. Right - Click and select "Sort By" Play around with the choices. You might want to select "Filename" at the top. How did it happen? You have a Laptop, with a stupid Trackpad. I'm sure something went screwy along the way and it changed how you view files. The problem is harmless, really. Just have to change things back.

Quick question, has your Mac's performance increased at all since you moved all the crap off the desktop? It won't be "earth-shattering," but is should work a little "better."

Here is the cool part with Aliases on the Desktop, you can move the folder and the Alias will update automatically!! Just as long as they are on the same Mac. (Duh!) As long as you move stuff via the Finder, the MacOS is smart enough to keep track where the folders that the Aliases point to reside. So if you do have to shuffle things around, just make sure your EHDs each have unique names. The can be as simple as EHD1, EHD2, etc. or G-Drive 12TB, G-Drive 4TB, etc.

I figured as much. There is a reason that Costco's stuff is cheap. While they sell good stuff, you have to read the fine-print as often they carry the "Basic" models. Just keep an eye on it at B&H. I can not stress enough just how quickly Windows Laptop Models change. By the time July rolls around, this "Brand New Model" will be scheduled for replacement. That said, COVID19 might have changed things a bit. So who knows?

Here is what I think you should have done for the “Backlight Look.” Only one light was needed, well two if you just have Speedlights, and two large reflectors. Here is one Reflector Panel, a 35" X 70".

At first glance, your light power is not correct for either light. Meaning the light from behind is too powerful, which is what is messing with the hair. What is supposed to be your "Key Light," aka "Main Light" isn't powerful enough. Your lighting ratios are off, the angle that your back-light is wrong and you should not have bounced your main light; a Modifier should have been used at the very least, i.e. Softbox, for the Main Light. Or if you did want a true "BackLight Photo," you would have needed Two Large Reflectors, one on each side at about a 40º-45º Angle, pointed at your subject. Before I start rambling, I need more info. First, were ALL the flashes set to Manual, or were you using TTL Metering? Second, what Speed Lights are we talking about, and do you own any Modifiers? (Softboxes, Umbrellas, etc.) Do you only own Speedlights or do you have lights like Alien Bees or something similar? How large is your studio space?