I'm the fellow that started this thread. I didn't really think I would stir up such a hornet's nest. But, there have been a *LOT* of perceptive comments in here and it has given me much to think about and definitely some additional perspectives. Most of the comments to date have been civil and constructive and many are from people trying to search out their own path. I thank you all. I suspicion the thread will go and that is fine. Again, my personal thanks for participating.

My major interest in photography is scenics. I love the beauty of the world that is around us. So, I love to look at other people's work as well.

Too many of the pictures I see posted, here and more so on other sites, to my eye have been obviously extensively and excessively worked over in post processing. Colors are too vivid and often unbelievable, edge sharpness is far too exaggerated, contrast has obviously been "adjusted". Often pictures are simply too "cute".

To my eye such pictures are ugly. I guess I'd have to say that if you can tell a picture has been "enhanced" in post-processing then it was probably overdone.

I have nothing against the concept of post-processing and I do it myself, though I am far from a master of it. It can offer wonderful opportunities to improve a photograph, change it to monochrome, remove dust and blemishes, correct color balance, merge photos etc. etc.

But it is and should remain a means to an end, not the end itself.

Is this just me or do others share my view?

I have been to Ireland many times and loved it, but always visiting friends. However, my wife and I did a fabulous tour of Scotland two years ago with Rabbie's. It was very photo friendly; small groups, small Mercedes vans - about a dozen people. They also do Ireland and I would strongly recommend them if that is the sort of thing you are looking for.

Having learned photography in the olden days, we had to understand ISO, shutter speeds, apertures, depth of field. I still find it interesting in some shots to know the technical details - other pictures - no - just admire them for what they are. I do agree that intimate knowledge of what camera bag was used, what brand of memory card etc. is excessive. Technical details never hurt though and are easy to ignore for those who care not.

Methinks the white roses are in fact Gardenias.

Well, for time exposures you do indeed need a steady tripod. But I found that simply by raising the default ISO to 400 the great majority of my pictures are shot at faster than 1/1000th of a second and even at my advanced age and unsteady hands I get sharp pictures. And I defy anyone to detect the difference in picture quality shot with an ISO of 400 as opposed to an ISO of 100.

That simple change enabled me to leave my tripod behind on most outings and I have never looked back.

Go to Driggs Idaho, then to Grand Targhee Resort in Alta, Wyoming. Buy a lift ticket, and ride up to about 9000 feet at the top. Go to the trail up the remaining hill, next the visitor center there at the top, and climb the trail maybe 50 feet higher to the top of the ridge. Suddenly you will be looking at the Grand Tetons; it is a stunning view, about like the first time you look into the Grand Canyon. At at 9000 feet you are also about half way up the height of the Tetons so the perspective is different from the usual. You can stay at the resort as well, but I did not do that. But it might fit your plans for one day, and I think the lift ticket is included if you do. Anyhow, have fun!

You ask a very good question. I was in the photographic business, manufacturing and distribution though, not as a photographer, but it was my love of photography that got me into the business. None the less, after a few years I did get burned out and lost interest in photography. I took up several other hobbies.

But times changed - I got into a different business area away from photography. I had a snapshot camera I was using for vacation and family pictures. I became dissatisfied with the results and, long story short, ended up buying a Sony A6000 and my interest in photography has been renewed. (Which is why I am a denizen of this site.)

I do have advice: Determine an area of photography that you would NOT be doing professionally. Like if you would be doing food or product photography professionally, make shooting scenics your hobby. Take up macro-photography. Shoot only in black and white. Buy a long lens and do serious bird photography. Something like that - something totally different from what you do every day for a living. And preferably, with different equipment, and for sure different locations from your day job. To make this work, you MUST erect barriers between what you do every day for pay and what you do as a hobby.

I don't guarantee that this will work - it did for me later when a different hobby morphed into a business - but I think I can safely say it is the only chance you have of making it work.

Good luck!

Very good Bob. If you do go with Sony A6000 let me know and I will send you detailed instructions on how to use the focus magnifier, which only works with non-auto-focus lenses. Once you have it set up it is very simple and very effective.

Cheers

Bob

I'd suggest you consider a totally different tack - a Sony A6000 mirrorless camera. With inexpensive adapters, it allows you to use all your Nikon F lenses. It is light and very full featured. It includes a neat focus magnifier capability when used with manual (Nikon F) lenses. You can purchase a body for around US $500. Nikon lens adapters are about $15 on eBay. It offers 25 megapixels. To get a cheap try, purchase a lens adapter, then take a lens to Best Buy and ask them to let you put it on the camera.
And of course, do your homework on the internet. Cheers