Thanks for your comments, Heather. I assume by your observation that you would prefer "straight" post-processing topics as opposed to the creative composites and such?

My notice doc and the section's guidelines attempted to stress that all areas are welcome. Like msilvers, you have posted very few topics to UHH since joining. I hope you'll feel comfortable enough at some point to initiate conversations in PP or elsewhere. If a section isn't meeting your needs, and you have the time and interest, take it upon yourself to start a topic. I can't guarantee how much response you'll get, only that it'll be friendly

The short answer is YES. And I think, as with any moderator change, that your assuming this role (and thank you for that!) can alter the course of its development. Change is always an opportunity for growth.

The value in the specialty sections on UHH is the opportunity for more targeted and in depth conversations about the topics at hand. A post on the general section or the gallery section will garner a lot of brief responses- some helpful, some unhelpful, many redundant, and much gets lost inside the noise. Topics rise and fall quickly and are often gone in hours, never to be seen again, due to the traffic and broad range.

Specialty sections offer more opportunities for personal growth, though I don't think they pretend to be a substitute for more serious learning options like formal mentoring, classes in person or online, or even highly specialized online sites. I participate in other sites both more and less specialized than UHH, and I am also happy to take a class when there's something I want to get better at (I'm in one for artistic compositing now). But the specialty section is like a photography hangout, a coffee shop as one online friend described it. Customers can come by as often as they like, stay as long as they like, talk as much as they like. Some customers are more experienced than others, even though few are hanging out their shingles as experts. Those of us who know something have an opportunity to help those who are trying to learn that thing, and those of us who want to know something can often find someone who knows a bit more and can offer an idea.

IMHO there are way too many sections to be effective. There seem to be several sections whose purpose is to critique and hopefully help show how to improve an image. Tutorials locked at the top of a section could be referenced in a critique, rather than repeating the same thing over and over again.

There is a section for Birds in Flight, in Water. I post mostly perched bird photos. When I happen to get a bird in flight ( potluck on my part) or a bird in the water, I'm not going to post them separately from an eagle sitting in a tree. My shoot from yesterday would have been divided into two sections. A single Bird section might get more traffic. Again, with any tutorials on the subject locked at the top for easy reference.

There are a few people on UHH who write, sometimes long, but very detailed tutorials. To get the word out they have to post them over and over again.

I often look at the Train section by seldom have anything to add, so I don't get there often enough.

This may not make sense, or be possible, but if the number of sections were streamlined the moderators could share the work. Now for the crazy part, I hate to say it, one new section, that nobody can reply to. Each day or week or whatever each section moderator select one picture from their sections in the new section, with a link back to where it came from. It would be an uncluttered visual advertisement. Right now if, for example, Linda posts a link in the main discussion section recommending a visit to the PP section, it disappears into oblivion very shortly. One picture a day 'advertising' each section would have some staying power.

With the number of photos being posted in the main discussion section by long time members, maybe we should do away with the Photo Gallery.

I think it is lunch time. Bye, Bye

--

Hmm, methinks you missed the purpose of that topic. It was about exposure and the specifics of when to choose aperture over shutter speed and vice versa. Surely you've seen the multiple topics often posted to main discussion after a full moon in which the OP was disappointed with results? If anyone is curious, here's the topic:
https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-560994-1.html

As for my "whine," sadly your comment represents what we're seeing more and more of in this age of sound bites: the belief that one need not actually read a post prior to responding to it.

Yes, I prefer straight post processing topics, but I am not opposed to composites as some are very cleverly done and I appreciate that there is a place here for both and I admire those who do it well, so that is fine with me.

I am aware that I don't participate as much as I would like and will post when I feel confident enough to show my photography, but I can't help noticing that some posts get lots of replies as members seem to follow their buddies while other threads that really need a helping hand are avoided. That is human nature.

Yes, UHH members are friendly and I am happy to be here having stumbled acrossed it about 4 years ago. I suppose the main reason why we are mostly retired as we have a lot in common with the things we do and we are mostly patient at our age. As they say, birds of feathers flock together and so we feel comfortable here and have got to know each other although we haven't met. Long may it continue.

I do admire you for the amount of work you have put in on this site and it is appreciated. I may be silent, but fear not, I am here looking and learning.

H

There are a number of threads there that interest me and I do respond occasionally, but many seem to be about composites, special effects and pixel editing. Those are not things normally of great interest to me. I'm more interested in getting the best results from raw image exposures. I use primarily DXO PhotoLab Elite, DXO FilmPack 5 Elite, DXO Viewpoint, and the DXO NIK Collection. I also occasionally use ON1 2019 which in many respects is a fine program but not quite in the same league as DXO. It is getting much better with each new release though and has some important tools that DXO currently lacks. Both DXO and ON1 do most of their magic directly on raw files and I generally have little interest in jpg editing.

Sometimes I'll read an interesting thread without responding because I may not have anything new or useful to add, and sometimes I'm not familiar enough with the software used to add value. I did find your cloning challenge interesting and I'm playing with it. I think it would have been an easier challenge if you had uploaded a higher resolution version of the images though.