.... and I opened this thread thinking that with a title like that, the image would be darkly subterranean, with plenty of high contrast

Yes, I should have made clear, since my post followed yours, that I wasn't writing a response to what you said, David. More a general musing on a number of contributions to the thread as a whole.

Let me be upfront about this: I think the results of the 'oil-painting' preset are dreadful, truly dreadful.

But

1) I have seen worse 'paintings' on biscuit tins. That shouldn't be any kind of comfort, but in the ranks of awfulness I would not automatically relegate these to the bottom

2) some artists are very skilled at using photo-realism as their representational style. I don't think their work is widely criticised for trying to ape another medium.

3) some of us (I am one) occasionally use others' presets to achieve the 'look' wanted for a photograph. Think Silver Efex Pro, eg. The process is in principle no different from pressing the oil-painting button.

Do I detect in some of the comments in this thread a wish to police the boundaries of what is properly photographic?

I have bought one or two smallish things from Microglobe, without problems -- and indeed for at least one item (German) they were the only UK stockist I could find.

But it is always useful to know about trades that go wrong, simply because if they are numerous enough it rings alarm bells. There doesn't so far (yourself excepted) appear to be a problem amongst members on this forum, but your comments did send me to Trustpilot for a quick check. The comments on there are interesting. It is unusual to see quite such a large number of one-star reviews, and while online ratings have to be treated with a certain amount of healthy scepticism, it is clear that the business does stir up discontent over its after-sales performance.

... if you can't get a signature, get a pawprint.

Thanks both of you: very helpful.

Chris

Ah, you may have uncovered poor practice on my part. I only export my post-LR files if I need to make a jpeg for (eg) this website ... and since they are invariably lowish resolution for web use, I tend to ditch them after use.

What I think of as the 'real' files remain in 'My Pictures'. The Lightroom catalogue does back-up regularly, but to a separate folder of its own. I also have a further folder: Lightroom 3 Catalog Previews.lrdata.

I suspect this is a bit of a cat's cradle, but if I back up the RAW files, the LR back-up catalogue, and the LR Previews folder will I then have what I need to resurrect LR's content in the event of hard-drive failure?

a good subject for your tests. I like them, esp. no. 3. You have a steady hand at those shutter speeds!

I use Lightroom and I back up the file 'My Pictures' on the C drive to a 2TB hard disk (mapped as drive E). I today clicked on one of the DNG files within E, instructing it to open in Lightroom, which it obediently did. But it was the file in its RAWest state - ie without any Lightroom corrections applied subsequent to capture. That, of course, is infinitely better than nothing ... but what file/s should I additionally be backing up to ensure that in the event of actually needing to use my E drive to rescue my photographs, I don't have to process them all from scratch? I know the Lightroom changes are non-destructive, but they should be lurking somewhere(?).

Does that make sense? I can well believe I've misunderstood something rather fundamental about the way Lightroom works or about the back-up process.

I'd welcome advice.

Heartily agree with last post and that from Judderman. Paying hundreds if not thousands for a camera and lenses and then cutting corners by going for a cheaply built tripod is ensuring a weak link in the chain. A tripod that extends out to spindly legs is not going to be stable in wind or on a surface that can carry vibrations

The Gitzo models without centre column are excellent.