Nice sunset!

I started using Lightroom Classic a little less than a year ago, after they made substantial improvements to the masking capabilities. Before that I was using PS Elements. I'm very happy with LrC and am delighted to see even more improvements in the masking capabilities again this year.

I actually like Adobe's subscription plan for their total package, and it represents a good value for me at about $10 per month. In addition to the Adobe subscription, I spent more than that on two other photo editing programs in the last year, and they are being updated again as well. However, I'll probably only update one of those this year since Adobe continues to improve.

Improvements to Adobe products is actually a result of the presence and capabilities of other editing tools. Those other tools tend to lead the pack in certain areas and force Adobe to improve to remain competetive.

Now that Adobe has good masking tools in LrC, I would like to see some improvements in the noise and sharpening capabilities.

Cheating has become the norm. UWAs used for realtor photos are an obvious example where the pics are used to deliberately misrepresent reality.

With your abnormal method, the user must always choose both target and source (two steps). The normal method requires choosing only the target if the software makes a good choice (one step). If the software's choice is poor, the user chooses (a second step); which is the same effort as the abnormal method (two steps).

The"normal" way makes sense to me. Select the area needing repair. Observe the initial repair to the area. Move the source of repair area (if needed) while watching the affect to the area needing repair. Simple and straightforward.

I tried several of the free videos ON1 provides, but never got very productive with the program. After watching a few LrC videos I was off and running.

Been there a few times, but never looked for such a spot. With all the foliage and the bridge running basically east-west, it sounds like quite a challenge.

I currently use ON1, Adobe LrC, and DxO PureRAW. I've learned to use LrC and DxO to perform standard tasks fairly well. I've never felt as comfortable with ON1 and am unlikely to update it from v2022.5 for a variety of reasons. But the choice of tools to use is very personal and all can produce very good results. Highly recommend trial versions to help make a choice.

Was Synchrony, now Comenity, I believe.

I'm not sure the bank behind PayBoo matters too much. PayBoo has used different banks over the years. And since PayBoo seems to be exclusive to B&H, I wonder if the relationship between B&H and PayBoo might be far closer than that between PayBoo and the bank.

B+H really needs a different incentive program. I let my PAYBOO expire when they changed service providers awhile back. Didn't renew due to PAYBOO's business practices. As a result, my B+H purchases have dropped even though they have always treated me well.

There are rumors of an R replacement, but I don't recall any specifics or price.

RP, R, R7, and R10 can all be considered good values for the price depending on what is valuable to the individual. If you want the latest in autofocus capability, the R7 and R10 would offer the best value. If you want the lowest system weight or longest reach, the R10, and R7 would offer the best value. Best value in image quality might be the FF capabilities of the R or RP (though the R7 appears to have great IQ as well). The list could go on and on.

Since no specifics of the next FF are known, it's value to any particular user is unknown.

What was your reason(s) for choosing the R7 over the FF models initially?

I use mine a good bit on the RP. It's quite versatile and stayed on the camera for most of a recent vacation. For hiking, I prefer a bit smaller lens if the hike is long or strenuous since it's a little front heavy on the RP and bounces around some when hiking.