ChrisLumix

If you currently use Pages 4 on your 2011 Mac, whatever you do DON'T REPLACE IT WITH PAGES 5!!!!! Apparently it's missing a whole heap of stuff that was in 4. One day it will catch up I'm sure, but for now you can have both on your Mac, but continue to use 4 as it's a much more fully featured app. (This was true for Yosemite, so I hope it's still true for Sierra).

I understand what you're saying, but ... you can duplicate a JPEG as many times as you like and it won't deteriorate. You can even open and save it to a new name somewhere else, and as long as you've made no changes and save it at the same quality setting as it was last, again there will be virtually no loss. The "loss" comes each time you make changes and save it to a less than full quality setting, particularly one that's lower than the one it was last saved in. It's the same with audio - if you open an MP3 that was last saved as 256 kbps, then you save it again at 256 kbps, the compression that was done originally has already "thrown away" the information to get it down to that setting; it can't be thrown away again. Yes, over time - because the algorithm isn't ultra precise or perfect, you'll notice a gradual deterioration; on the other hand saving it at 128 kbps you'd notice an instant worsening as more information has to be discarded. Footnote: all formats become obsolete over time. At the moment, PDF is maybe the most likely to survive, but is the same true for PNG? Or TIFF or JPEG or PSD come to that? As for RAW, those vary from camera make to another, and even one model to another. I guess no digital format is sacrosanct. Even prints fade or get torn and creased, or lost...!

Technically that's true. However, if they are saved repeatedly at maximum quality, it will be a long time before any deterioration is noticed. Fuji will of course keep the RAWs, but he doesn't need to send them out - that would be like a wedding photographer parting with the negatives in the old film days (some did of course, but it cost the client extra). If shared correctly, and the links sent via email, all they have to do is click the link(s).

Here at Crucial, they seem to be approximately twice the cost of 8GB: http://uk.crucial.com/SearchDisplay?searchTerm=16GB+RAM+Apple&categoryId=&storeId=10153&catalogId=10153&langId=-1&pageSize=10&beginIndex=0&sType=SimpleSearch&searchFor=Keyword&resultCatEntryType=2&showResultsPage=true&searchSource=Q&pageView= The UDIMM and SODIMM types, that is; the RDIMM is about another £20 on top (not sure which is in your machine?)

I'd say go with the 2 x 16GB sticks as you can then upgrade further if you need to, without replacing the ones you're going to buy.

Nice one Colin

Also a very good point.

How long is a piece of string? It all depends on how big your individual pictures are, especially the PSDs which are likely to be quite large. I would think that 16GB should be more than adequate. However I was astonsihed to find on Amazon a 128GB stick for only £18: https://www.amazon.co.uk/MyMemory-128GB-USB-Flash-Drive/dp/B00LMWV06I/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_product_top?ie=UTF8 - that may be overkill of course, but at the price you can't really go wrong! (Just to do the maths: 16GB divided by 100 is 160MB. If you have 100 pictures and each one is less than 160MB, they would all still fit on a 16GB stick.)

OMG. I point out something that was good fun "in the old days" and you pour a cold water wet blanket all over it. I KNOW screensavers aren't relevant anymore, but once they were, and they were good fun, as anyone who remembers After Dark will testify. Which was the point of my post. I clearly wasn't saying that anyone should have a screensaver now. Jesus Christ. I know they're not relevant these days.

In the good old days of System 7 and OS 8, there was a company that wrote screensavers for Macs called After Dark. They have yet to be bettered. I think one of my favourite was Bill Gates on a scaffold "cleaning windows".

You go right ahead and 'think different' Meister. Oh, you already do... Tell you what, you make me seem positively Microsoft with only my iMac for company. On the other hand, I do have System 7, OS 8.5, OS 9, and OS X 10.6.8 running on it, plus OS X 10.9 and 10.10 on an external HD. Beat that. Go on, beat that, I say.

Shortlist I'm afraid: First 'proper' camera - Zorki 4 Russian Leica IIIb imitation, with 50mm Jupiter lens. Best 35mm camera - Minolta XD7 with Tamron 28-75mm 'standard' zoom (but also the manual Rokkor 58mm f1.4 lens ... just, wow). Digicam - Panasonic Lumix X100 (m4/3, f1.7 24-75mm), which I love because it's closest I've found to a film camera, both in use and results.

Great choice.

The 85mm Jupiter 9 Russian lens was one of (I think) 5 sold for use on the Zorki 4 and other similar Leica thread cameras. I eventually acquired the 35mm and 135mm to go with the standard 50mm, but it would interesting to see what I missed by not getting the 85mm. Of the 3 I owned, the 135mm was probably the best - pin sharp and great contrast too. You could do worse than trying for the full set of 5. I can't remember what FL the 5th one was, but no longer than 135mm. I think it was either 28mm or more likely it was around 105mm. FWIW I still have the Zorki 4 plus 50mm.

Ah, I thought you were trying to 'pull' the pictures from your wife's tablet (pulling from new to old); whereas 'pushing' from new to old would be different. Older machines often cannot deal adequately - or even at all - with the new, while newer machines can often deal better with the old (at least, that's the case with Macs).

That's most likely dust on the sensor. If you feel adventurous, you could Google "remove sensor dust from fixed lens camera" - apparently an adroitly applied vacuum cleaner often does the trick!

The other thing to bear in mind (though not in the case of your spanking new machine) is that "maximum RAM" as quoted by Apple is at best a half truth as time goes by. My own 2011 iMac 'officially' supports up to 16GB RAM but in fact will take 32GB. Crucial, and the free MacTracker app, are more reliable for information.

The moody Mr Peel, moodier than ever (Knebworth)...

ROFL. (Though the words "Samsung" "Galaxy" and "Android" also come to mind for some strange reason....)

This was a "mentors' charities meeting" in the Second Life virtual world (you have an avatar there, but the people you meet and speak with are real, though also at their computers at the time). One of the things you can do there is take 'snapshots'; you have no control over exposure (unless you post process the jpeg) but you can choose angle of view (from extreme wide angle, through normal, to extreme telephoto), point of capture (in this case overhead), and of course composition. This particular shot has been converted so many times it's degraded and I no longer have the original. You are quite at liberty to say "This isn't a proper photograph, so it can't qualify". That's fair enough. I'm just flying it in as something a bit different.

That just won't do. One of the Bonaparte twins will be calling round shortly to "discuss" this with you (but he won't screw your pelvis to the cake stand unless he takes a dislike to you). [Voice off: "DINSDALE..?"]

No, I meant that I probably got 0 votes! Anyway, tiebreakers are rare enough that I'll live with not knowing. Don't want to cause you extra admin.

Denis, I now have a vague idea of what the problem is, but no idea how to resolve it, sorry. Only one thought - can your wife transmit them from the tablet to your PC, or at least to an external drive?

How about a new thread for a tiebreaker? As it is I have no idea how the original voting went. You will probably say "You really don't want to, mate!" but hey...

Panasonic are having a right old time - bringing out radical new cameras while playing 'catch up' in other lines. There's a new LX10 which is presumably meant to compete directly with the Sony RX100 series (on size principally).