Jestertheclown

I don't know about other cameras but if, like me, you're using a Z7, you can, indeed, alter (update) the settings when using U123, I know this because I've just done it. "It's good to be . . . . . ...

Aside from the renaming, which seems a bit pointless anyway, I could easily do all of the above  but it won't alter the fact that, regardlesss of what you call these banks, it's still necessary to ...

I've tried for years to be able to make use of those functions. I have no trouble setting them up or changing them. My problem is that I can never remember what I've saved to them! "It's good to be ...

"So, let the program do its normal automatic processing to show the image," Quote from your opening post. No mention of personal presets etc. But you're not. You're seeing the raw adjusted to suit you.

I understand that but the issue that everyone seems to be having is that that's not what you asked them to do. If you, or anyone, is applying a preset/action/call it what you will, then you're not ...

You've set me thinking now! I've nearly missed the boat for this week; although I am going to London for the day on Sunday. I could manage a one-a-week! "It's good to be . . . . . . . . . Me!"

Can you tell it not to? If you're allowing a preset to be applied, when it need not be, then the complaints being levelled against you are valid. "It's good to be . . . . . . . . . Me!"

I've now completed two 365s (one was actually a 366!) and I completed a one-a-week project a few years ago. The one-a-week was obviously a lot easier with regard to getting each image in the given ...

I started a Photo 365 last new year so I was taking photographs of something throughout the entire year, poor weather included. I'm not doing that this year. Instead, for this winter, I've taken to ...

That wasn't a compliment or any kind of indication that you're right. More an indication that attempting any kind of a dialogue with you is clearly a waste of time. "It's good to be . . . . . . . . ...

If you say so . . . "It's good to be . . . . . . . . . Me!"

You've disagreed with just about every post in this and the previous thread.

Actually, they are. Unmodified raw files can't be displayed. "It's good to be . . . . . . . . . Me!"

Another vote for a D90. I still use mine as a walkabout. It was hugely well thought of in its time and even now, some fifteen years later, it can still hold its own. Also, it will autofocus with ...

I think the point being made here is that (and it's perhaps a matter of opinion) Capture One produces more pleasing finished images than does Photolab or maybe Lightroom etc. without having to ...

Are you sure . . . ? "It's good to be . . . . . . . . . Me!"

Alternatively; I've just bought an Olympus OM40, fully functioning, with a Zuiko 50mm. and a 'something' mm. to 200mm. zoom for less than you're considering spending. You probably won't find one ...

I'm not disputing that but you seem incapable of understanding my point. Raw files cannot be displayed in their untouched, original (hence 'raw') form. What's being displayed is created using a ...

The original raw remains unchanged but the point is that you aren't seeing it. Then you misunderstood it. You've just posted, above, that the raws remain unchanged and that a modified version of it ...

Correct. That's not modification then? Re-read what I wrote. Obviously but those formats, unlike raw, are designed to be displayed. "It's good to be . . . . . . . . . Me!"