Creating great photographs used to require an understanding of light and of composition. Mastering the functions of your camera was essential. For nature photography putting yourself in the right place at the right time, along with a measure of good luck, was also required. Sometimes the results were good, often they were marginal, and occasionally they were great. Great patience was required.

Now we have cameras that will automatically focus on the eye of an animal - even a bird in flight. Taking a 20-shot-per-second series of photos of a bird in flight allows the "photographer" to select the best of dozens of photos - perfect timing, the ability to keep the bird in focus, or good luck is not required. I see snippets taken from what is essentially a video or posts of a sequence of multiple photos of a bird landing or a bird taking flight and I think to myself: "If I wanted a video I would have gone to YouTube".

The last few days we have seen folks singing the praises of sky replacement. Maybe "bird replacement" or "model replacement" will be next (certainly done in the advertising world). But should such dramatically altered photos be posted here without disclaimer? This is a long way from dodging and burning.

Some Hoggers love to splice in a sunset or sunrise into a photo where none previously existed. This is frequently not acknowledged - I always look closely at the light and shadows in the rest of the photo and when I see light and/or shadow that are impossible given the angle of the setting/rising sun I cannot decide whether to laugh or be angry.

Call me a Luddite if you will. Maybe I am slightly envious of the final results of such deceptive skills. But I try to resist the lure (well... I admit that the eye-focus thing gives me a little GAS...)

"I seriously doubt that anyone’s eyes would be able to discern any difference in actual photos taken at f/5.6 through f/11, probably even at f/16 ...what does it matter?" epd1947 there is a VAST difference in the visual aesthetic between f/5.6 and f/16 or even f/11 for that matter with the AF-S 200-500mm f/5.6E ED VR. Trust me, I have clients who demand subject isolation... Absolutely no excuses acceptable.

Since you don't shoot commercially for a living maybe you're naive here... And that's understandable since you claim to have managed a retail photo equipment entity for a decade and a half... Straight from your Apr 4, 2021 post "...I managed their (Cameta Camera) used equipment division for about 17 years..."

Please realize that commercial photography is likely one of the more competitive "Crafts" which one might choose to engage in i.e. practice... Commercial Photography is decidedly unique and not really closely related to equipment retail.

There is no way in hell I would shoot a league soccer match at f/16 UNLESS it was doing a team's "group shots" either on risers or half the team kneeling in the first row...

Below is an example of the stellar isolation possible at f/5.6 with the epic AF-S 200-500mm f/5.6 Nikkor.
This same capture would be a trash throwaway at f/16 with all the chaos of fans, cars and trucks cluttering the background area clearly visible...

Maybe do yourself a favor (and others here on UHH) by mastering commercial photography and bring that gift to the forums... Way too many sales persons and far too few actual commercial shooters here on UHH in my humble estimation... btw, you might try pitching your inferences on f/5.6 vs f/16 in the Sport Photographers forum epd1947 and see how much credibility it garners...

Yes I hold that there is a major difference between f/5.6 vs f/16... and so do my clients.
Wishing you all the best in your pursuit of commercial photography epd1947...
.

First, 'The Rant' -
I use Google Photos mainly BC it's a great storage tool, where you can scroll up/down to a 'year' that you want to check out, and there they are! - There is a 'Share' Button, BUT, - There is NO Provision to R.Click,& 'Copy' a photo to share on email, or use for anything! - (when I try, they want the recipient to have a 'Google Acct.' in order to Share, and Good Luck using it for any other reason!) -
I hope that a fellow Hogger will help make a fool of me, and explain the workaround!

Second, - Do any of you have suggestions as to a Simple, 'Picasa' type Photo Editor for simple things,
- such as Cropping, Straightening, Lightening, Darkening, Highlights, Shadows?
Picasa was the perfect tool for everyday photos and snapshots, even tho I have Lightroom, (4), and Photoshop Elements 2021, Picasa was so easy, simple, and had the basic adjustments for 95% of photos I'd like to share, Not to mention that you could 'Share' directly to E-Mail with it as well! - - (OK, I 'mentioned' it!)
( LR 4 is all I could deal with when I first got it, & now I can't Upgrade to 6 w/o a Subscription to Adobe)

So any help from anyone out there in Hogger Land, would be MUCH appreciated! - Thanks, Pat

Educate me, please! I was just reading some information on the Tamron 90mm f/2.8 Macro lens that I am thinking of buying, in which someone stated that on a DX camera, the effective field of view with a FX lens, would be ~ a 135mm equivalent, but the crop factor would also affect the f/stop, raising it to f/4.2.

Not saying this isn't true, but it is the first time I have heard that, and it doesn't seem correct to me. Despite the narrower field of view, the distance from the front element of the lens to the sensor doesn't change, and the light has no further to travel than before, so the f/stop should remain the same. (?)

Next, and I admit this is something I have never given much thought to, but lenses with internal focus do not change their physical length, therefore light has no further to travel from the lens' front element to the sensor, which I understand is the reason for non-internal focus macro F/2.8 lenses to have an actual rating of ~ f/4 at 1:1 distances, when their lens barrels are extended "waaay out yonder".

That's the reason my 70-300mm non-IF zoom is placarded at F4.5-5.6, and my 70-200 I F zoom is a fixed F/4 throughout their zoom ranges. So, providing my understanding is correct, there should need to be no "adjustment" of the f/stop at close focus distances for Internal Focus lenses. Or?

CAMETA CAMERA was a great source, sorry they are gone now.

B&H, ROBERT'S (in Indiana), SAMMY'S in LA. top three sources for equipment.

ALWAYS buy the US version/never Grey Market.
ALWAYS pay the Nikon price, it is worth it in the long run.

go to the NIKON WEB PAGE and they offer good deals on REFURBISHED (by NIKON) equipment that comes with a warranty from NIKON. Lenses, bodies, flashes. You save a little, they often have incentive sales, and it is direct from NIKON so there is no problem with repairs or warranty service. (I got a 28-200 from their reconditioned listing-needed a 'vacation' lens. TACK SHARP/WORKS PERFECTLY/WARRANTY...saved about $200 from list.)

For anyone who doesn’t already know, avoid camera “deals” on Etsy the same way you would with 42nd St. - the site has more obvious scams than the unclaimed fortune emails I receive routinely from Africa. It’s so bad (It makes Craigslist look like the BBB), that I can’t believe it’s still in business. Here are some examples (and each “seller” has only 1 item, nothing but an email address, and 0 sales, references, reviews or even an address).

Canon EF 300 mm f2.8L IS (in perfect condition complete with case) $800
Canon RP with EF 24-240 & EF 50 for $350
And best of all, Canon 5D MkIV with “complete photography package” which includes a 24-105L and a 16-35L for $889.99 (!)

How do they get away with continuing to post these obvious scams (or stolen/fake merchandise) and stay in business? I’ve come to expect scams on a daily basis, but these are so blatant, it got my attention.

Sharing information regarding equipment others have taken to Hawaii, no matter what the original post said, offers a spectrum of experience and what works/doesn't work which could impact and influence the original poster to change their plan(s).

The more first hand information the better, no matter if what is suggested follows the exact question guideline or not.

He has never been to Hawaii, and the question actually 'speculates' on his plan to take the equipment he listed. He could be wrong....or misdirected as to what might be needed or be the most practical on the trip.