Jimmy T Loc: Virginia

Ouch!!!
You have outed me, sigh.
First of all, I thought that I could purchase perfection by buying "perfect NikSonCan equipment".
Boy was I wrong. So I started buying $$$ PP AI programs to identify and correct my most obvious technique shortcomings.
Then come the relentless $$$$ updates to my PP AI programs, then the Youtube videos by, Ken Rockwell, Ask David Bergman, Michael The Maven, etc . . . . will it NEVER end?!
I sure hope not, I'm enjoying the ride, and I hope that all of my UHH friends are too!
I wake up every day looking forward to taking or "making" that once-in-a-lifetime shot.
This may turn out to be a great philosophical thread. If not I will look forward to the AI version, huge grin.
Best Wishes To All,
JimmyT Sends

PS: I used the same techniques for golf.
All which brings to mind what A. Einstein said . . . .

kymarto Loc: Portland OR and Milan Italy

It's software which brings out their potential, showing what they ARE. We're not talking about artistic nanipulation, but optimization. Not a single film that you watch, or still photograph in a magazine does not go through such software processing.

Toment Loc: FL, IL

Shooting in RAW requires PP.
besides, it’s fun!

NCMtnMan Loc: N. Fork New River, Ashe Co., NC

Well, tell your friend that not everyone has a $6,000 camera and $12,000 lens. Also, many of us who don't also don't shoot subjects that sit perfectly still with perfect lighting and no breeze to cause movement. Us older folks hands aren't as steady as they used to be and tripods aren't always an available option.

kymarto Loc: Portland OR and Milan Italy

If you look at earlier film images closely you will see that none are as sharp as modern digital images. Not sharp at all, except those done on large format.

TRAVLR38 Loc: CENTRAL PA

Architect opened an interesting thread on the uses or non-uses of AI plug-ins. But there is one use that none of the respondents mentioned. In fact, I have never seen this use discussed on these pages.
That is the ability to avoid the $6K cameras and the $12K lenses in favor of less expensive, more portable cameras.
Don't get me wrong. I have a very good camera an Olympus E-M1ii and a pro 12-100 lens. this combination must be handled with care, it is so sharp. But I generally use this set up (or primes for indoors) for sports.
But for most everything else, I use a bridge camera--either a Panasonic FZ1000 or ZS100. Both of these are versatile and provide good results. They are much more portable than the Oly, and I waste no time changing lenses. The ZS100 is always with me or in my car. I can't imagine carrying the Oly and a bagful of lenses all of the places I go with my Panasonics. The sharpness may not equal the Oly, but with a touch of AI, they come close.
For the most part I use Topaz AI Clear, which is part of the Topaz Studio plug-in. I find it much faster than Denoise AI or Sharpen AI. It both removes noise at three levels AND sharpens at the same time.
If I have to crop to a small portion of the image, I use On1 Resize rather than Gigapixel, as it is faster and gives more choices for size. The results from these products give quite acceptable results in terms of noise and definition.
By the way, I think the current mania for sharpness is overdone. You can examine an image at 100 or 200 percent looking for noise or lack of sharpness, but if you print the image at a reasonable size, such as 16 x 12 inches, you will never notice the "faults." A wise person once told me that if you can's see it from two feet, it doesn't exist. What is more important to me is the overall impact of the image.

dpullum Loc: Tampa Florida

From the post: "SOOC should be just fine from your $6K cameras and $12,000K lenses."

In contrast to the ideal camera and lenses suggested in the post, my DSLR is a Sony A-65 and the lenses mostly classic Minolta era auto-focus. My favorite camera tho is a Panasonic pocket 1"sensor TZ100 with contained lenses. Modifying filters and extra add-on lenses attache by screw on adapter. The 20mp results are reasonably good.

Reasonably good can be by magic be elevated to remarkable a by Topazian AI created photo world. I have Paintshop-Pro 2022 Ultra which for practical reality rivals Photoshop. PaintShop Pro provides all the basic tools needed and works well with a warehouse of Plugin add-ons. My Topaz AI collection includes the big three De-noise, Sharpen, and Megapixel. In September the three will be combined into super edit plugin or standalone or Topaz Studio tool magic "Topaz Photo AI" including auto pilot.

"Topaz Photo AI is coming in September [15] 2022, and owners of the IQ Bundle get to try it first! It's our newest AI-powered app and acts like an "autopilot" for image quality. Topaz Photo AI combines the features of DeNoise AI, Sharpen AI, and Gigapixel AI into one effortless app to help you achieve the best image quality in record time. Once you own the Image Quality Bundle, you can download Topaz Photo AI from your account."
https://www.topazlabs.com/image-quality-bundle

We live in a new era where a low quality photo can be examined by AI and AI will say I get the idea and if taken with a $6000 camera and an excellent lens it would look like this... prestO-changeO deed done!!

ggttc Loc: TN

First of all, post-processing is part of the photographic process. Please name a great photographer who didn't use post-processing. "SOOC" is like "I only shoot manual" ... as if you get a special merit badge.

For static subjects, you could not sharpen and it will work, but if you're shooting a plane moving at 200 mph and trying to maintain prop blur at 1/180 intuitive sharpening is a great tool

ggttc Loc: TN

Post-processing is part of the photographic process. I think you'll find few top-flight photographers who don't use it.
Secondly, "SOOC" photographers act as if they should get a merit badge for only using half the tools.

Granted, you could by pass sharpening on a static subject, but if you're trying to shoot a plane at 300mph at 1/190 to get prop blur, intuitive sharpening is a great tool

Jimmy T Loc: Virginia

pecohen Loc: Central Maine

Back in the early days of photography, photographers did their own post-processing but then color films came out making PP more difficult and expensive. So photographers turned to using photo labs for their PP. With the loss of control over PP, photographers could only control results by taking extreme care and through their skill in shooting and they would take great pride in doing it right.

But then came digital cameras and computers and in a sense we have returned to the freedom of the early days of photography. Anyone can decide to PP their own photos and today the skill and care is increasingly important in the PP phase of photo making. Moreover, modern cameras have made the shooting part less demanding of skill and care, though of course it still matters.

joer Loc: Colorado/Illinois

If you are interested in elitism, this is the lace.

pithydoug Loc: Catskill Mountains, NY

Me too and a dose of reality vs broad swipe generalizations.

tomc601 Loc: Gilbert, AZ

I have a good camera (D800) albeit long in the tooth now. The last lens I purchased was a Nikon 28-300, used, about 5 years ago. Before that was in 2001. Some of my lenses are brand name, others not. I'm closer to 80 than 70. I've been photographing since 1963 when I shot my first wedding. I've never been happy with SOOC images. When I was shooting film I was always a bit disappointed in the sharpness of my images even though I got the best the camera, lens, film could do at the time. Then, we had to settle for what we got. When digital came I jumped in with both feet (mind you, I was an executive of a major film company by then) and I was amazed at what Unsharp Mask could do. Like most of us, I cranked that sucker up so high it made your eyes bleed. So, I see nothing wrong with using whatever tool available to you to bring your images to what you perceived when you shot it. I don't crank up USM any more, in fact I don't even use it. I have a sharpening technique that I've developed using several tools that give my images the look I want. Because that's what we're talking about, isn't it? Not what your equipment can give you but what you can give to your viewer.

gtilford Loc: Woodstock, Ontario, Canada

Well in my case, I do not use the new $6K cameras or lenses and due to medical issue I have actually found that taking a step back to older cameras at the 12 to 15 megapixel range has actually helped my photography because unlike when I was younger I have various shakes and shutters that the high megapixel cameras tend to exaggerate in the photos. Yes I use the Topaz products along with Faststone Image Viewer to save some of my once in a year or two photo captures where I can see some noise or maybe I nailed a shot but in pixel peeping I see a bit more noise than I would like because I have shot at a higher shutter speed to help some of my ticks and jiggles