What Adobe is now doing with LrC, through its updates, is incredible. The prior addition with the new masking ability made my processing life so much easier as it allowed me to mask so much quicker. The most recent masking abilities include being able to do a lot with people, which I actually don't shoot often, but are just as incredible. You can mask only the whites of the eyes, the lips, etc. The new spotting correction tool is far improved from what the application offered before. The tool now uses AI correction and works much better and quicker than before. For those who asked does LrC include a mask, the answer is yes...there are independent masks for each layer. LrC is a good tool for any serious photogapher who wants to be able to process their images to the best they can be, but that is not the goal of all photographers.

Sometimes those F buttons don't work on a computer unless you have set them to do so but thanks for the tip.

Do you mean you cannot see the names at the top of the application that allow you to choose a module? As noted, use of D and G keys (L is lights out, the screen around the image will darken) will get you there but if the problem is based on the question I asked you might have accidentally changed the top of the application where the module names are listed. If this is the problem right click on any module name and a list will come up. Be sure that all modules are checked as per the screen shot. This would also be the way to remove any module that you do not use if you wanted to do that.

Thanks to all for your comments!

Mud, they roll around in it and play in it, also could be from drinking in a muddy water hole.

Taken with Nikon Z9 and Nikon D850, 500PF and either a Nikon 70-200 2.8 or 80-400. From various parks and preserves in Kenya. August-September 2022.

I mainly photograph wildlife these days. I use Nikon gear and have a D500 and a D850 that I was using with a prime lens, the Nikon 500PF, and the Nikon 200-500. When the Nikon Z9 came out I was not intending to buy it. During a shoot in Yellowstone this past spring I looked at some images on a friend's camera, a Canon mirrorless camera, and I was really impressed with the sharpness and detail in the image. I went ahead and bought the Z9. Why? Because the camera can capture a higher quality image, because it has stabilization, and mainly because it has auto-focus tracking abilities, which my dSLR does not have. The sensor and dynamic range on the camera is incredible, I can shoot an image at over 10,000 ISO and it still looks great (I do put it through Topaz DeNoise). I am blown away viewing my recent African wildlife images, the IQ of the image is incredible and I can tell by simply looking if the image was shot with the Z9 or the D850 (the 850 is my second and back-up camera). The technology on this camera simply rocks, no other way to say it. Paired with the Nikon 500PF it is a hard setup to beat. Having said all this, I am someone who is really picky about my wildlife images (all other types of images, too) so I set a high bar for myself. If someone is not really concerned about obtaining a high quality image than it might be a waste of money for them to buy a new mirrorless. So much of what we do in photography depends on our intent and our goals with our work.

I could not say that my Z9 provides a "suboptimial (sic)" experience. I'm not sure what you expect with this post since the quote you posted is referring to the "past." Todays' mirrorless cameras are top of the line in most cases and provide a very good experience for most photographers who use them. As with any equipment, sometimes the user is not up to the level that the equipment can provide and that could be the case with the new mirrorless cameras as they generally provide a lot of user options. My Z9 is extremely fast, has very accurate tracking focus most of the time, and I can take a shot at 10,000 ISO or even 14,400 ISO and turn out an acceptable image. If you don't want to buy a mirrorless no one really cares, it is personal choice and up to us to buy what works for us and what we like. Not sure why it would even be a debate as on one is forced to buy either type of camera.

The Blackbird had a nest nearby at the edge of the water. It took awhile for the pelican to get the message but finally it did take off.

Shots taken at a Utah bird/wildlife refuge at the end of May in between trips to Yellowstone. Nikon gear, Z9 and 500PF.

Silver Lake, Hwy. 88, CA - Recently I made three trips to Silver Lake to find a Merganser mom and chicks. It was only on the third trip where I got lucky. The drive up to the lake, at around 8,000 feet, takes me two hours each way so happy I finally got some shots of the Mergansers. She has been at the lake with chicks every year for the last several years that I know of. Got other shots each trip up. Gear was Nikon, Z9 as well as D850, and 500PF.

While I do use a strap, sometimes putting it around my neck to help support the camera, many wildlife photographers are sitting in a vehicle with two cameras on the seat and the straps would get tangled and make it difficult to jump out quickly.

Once my camera with long lens was on a small side table on an outdoor patio while I opened the door to go inside and when I shook my raincoat that was lying outside while I was gone a lizard jumped out and ran inside, causing me stop back and hit the table, and down rolled the camera/lens onto the ground. I carry camera insurance with zero deductible so did not have to pay the $1000 to fix them.

I recently sold a camera to a young man just starting out in photography and he put the camera on a shaky tripod in high wind and apparently did not use a strap. Lucky for him I had a second camera to sell! Sold both at a very low price.

I know someone who was crossing a stream and stumbled and the camera plopped into the water! I think it did have a strap on it...

Things happen and will continue to happen, with and without a camera strap, it's just how life goes. Additional insurance with zero deductible is very helpful.

Red River or Epson is what I normally use. Hahnemuhle paper is good. Moab is good. Lots of choice out there. It all depends on the "look" you want.

Hi. Shooting in RAW or JPEG is simply a personal choice based on the end result you desire. You have been letting your camera decide how to process your images and if that is working well for you than that is fine. If, however, you want to do more with your images, using all of the potential information available in the file, you would need to switch to shooting in RAW. If I were shooting family photos, a day in our life type of thing, I'd use JPEG. But when I'm shooting in the hopes of creating fine art type images I shoot in RAW. I happen to like processing and mainly shoot in RAW so I can control what processes happen with my image. When shooting in RAW I can change all of the parameters in the processing application to suit me without much thought given to if I am creating artefacts (original British spelling) in my image (although I did just manage to do that in the sky of an image!), an artefact is, in essence, digital pixels gone wrong. You can easily research the subject of artefacts in photographic images online. It's much easier to have artefacts in an 8-bit file, JPEG, as downsampling occurs to compress the file and there is data loss, than in a 16-bit RAW file, so a high image quality is more likely to be kept in a RAW file, which may not matter for online posting or a small print but will matter a lot more for a larger print. Also, if shooting RAW a photographer can process for his or her vision, whereas the camera simply uses an algorithm. Shoot a couple of RAW images plus JPEG images and play with the RAW files to see if you like what you can do versus what the camera can do. A caution on shooting both types of files, set up a defined way to manage them prior to downloading as it can get confusing if you don't.

I shoot both wildlife and street photography at times and many of these images are "at a moments notice." I think it depends on the subject one is shooting perhaps.