KHA

This useful thread shouldn't be hiding away on the Introductions forum! Glad I stumbled on it! Very cool, what you do, and pretty pictures on your site. I think it's wonderful when someone identifies and satisfies a need in the world with their funky niche interest -- one of their reasons for being here, perhaps! I always wonder how to identify things growing on trees (other plants, mostly), because photography has really helped me to start noticing there is frequently foliage enthusiastically growing on trees that isn't part of the tree itself, sometimes dominating the entire trunk. I need to start doing some serious research because I took photos recently of what might be diseased, insect-damaged, and moldy logs and trunks, so I might have to become an expert in tree disease diagnosis in order to add metadata. Looks like your site could come in handy for some of the growths, so thanks!

Are you sure portfolio page visibility is still on in your dashboard?

Thanks very much, NYCat and Marianne. Very helpful. Heads-up -- some of the search terms I found were for Luna Park, so I'm going to try to post more shots I have. Maybe you two could keep that in mind for a shoot in case the searcher's still seeking . . .

Seriously, stop with the drama. How old are you?

So I have two people all over me, calling me all sorts of derogatory names, over a simple comment about making an extra set of backup files, and somehow I'm the one who's starting the argument. Hmmm. To quote Spacecadet, I call a spade a spade. And I smell a drama mama! So the comment stands. Remind me not to try to help you again. Later, and best of luck with whatever workflow you choose!

Okay, I have kept very light-hearted about this whole discussion, but when people outright make up lies about me is when I start to get pissed. I have NOT propagated any false information. I have stated a workflow precaution I take because I like to have a backup in case technology fails. That's it. And FYI, this forum is absolutely chock full of people propagating false information that has to be corrected all the time. It's the nature of open discussion. People have theories, people make guesses, people interpret things differently from others, people misremember things, etc. So I'll be sure to look out for yours and Spacecadet's comments on all the other threads with opinions that differ from yours calling people mad, irrational, crackpots, inciting "danger", etc.

Thank you!!! For being, I think, the first person on this forum to ever have my back, Paulette!

Oh, stop with the drama. People can read my thought process and make their own decisions. You don't need to baby them.

Well, you've read it here first, folks. Worrying about anything MGM is not aware of is irrational. Got some great shots! Although my telephoto really does have a problem with focus when fully extended, so I end up not being able to use tons of what would otherwise be really good bird shots.

Can people chill out with terms like "irrational" and "mad" just because somebody does something you don't do? Different strokes for different folks, MGM. Basing my actions on my lifelong experience of never encountering bug-free software is nothing BUT rational. It's no conspiracy theory — it's just basic scientific method. I always want to keep a clean sample. Not hurting you in any way, is it? Got some birds appearing in front of me I need to photograph. Bye!

It also doesn't protect from tooth decay, hurricanes, and car accidents. Any other irrelevant things it DOESN'T do that no one here claimed it COULD do we can bring into the discussion? Please don't tell me what works for me. Again, anyone who disagrees with my reasoning is free not to emulate it. FYI, a file cannot be read without a program interacting with it.

Everybody, just for clarification, I understand that EDITS are not made to the RAW. What I meant was, I did not believe edits could be made (even if they are only expressed in LR) without the software INTERACTING with the file in some way. How would it have any ability to make decisions if it had no idea what was in the file? It must have some way of reading the file, which means there is an interaction there. MGM, despite saying I was being irrational, seemed to prove my point when he said LR was capable of changing RAW metadata. Hence, it can interact with the file. And anytime there's an interaction, there's a danger of an unintended reaction. I've never in my life encountered bug-free software. I just prefer to quarantine my originals completely. No one else is obligated to do this if it doesn't work for them.

I know that's what they say, but I'm just not that trusting of technology. I guess it's because logically I can't conceive of how edits can be made without the software program interacting with the file it's editing in some way. And I want its virtual hands off my originals! It really doesn't take that much extra time in my workflow. The issue might arise when I get a new camera that creates really huge files that I have to duplicate. But then I'll just have to get a commensurately large hard drive.

Great thanks, I'll do that when I get on my computer, since the dashboard doesn't display properly on my phone. I only skimmed the Alamy instructions for the Image Manager very briefly and watched the instructional video when I joined, so I probably need to give their instructions a good thorough read to find out how to do everything like this. I also tried to make PDFs of those zoom pages with the little zoomed image on them, but evidently nothing got created and the files won't open. I'm assuming it's an issue with my computer that I'm going to work on.

I remember reading a discussion somewhere within the past year, I think, about how some software update couldn't recognize Adobe DNGs, and people were complaining there were files they couldn't open, or were missing with the update, or something. I can't remember what software it was. It might've even been a Mac operating system update. Or maybe it was a Nik program? Maybe you could do a web search and see if you can find a discussion like that. But I've always kept the original files directly from the camera untouched anyway, and made copies, and then had Lightroom work from those copies. I was told it was overkill, but I'm always paranoid about touching originals of anything. You never know what software screwups can happen, even if LR is supposedly non-destructive. I'd rather use the hard drive space and have virgin originals I can always go back to if need be. Maybe you could do that as a safeguard against any cons you might not find out about until it's too late.