Not straight up, but almost straight toward you.

I reinstalled the NIK software after updating to PS2017. https://www.google.com/nikcollection/ After the NIK installation the NIK plugins were there in PS at File>automate>NIK collective selection tool and Filter>nik collection.

I've had Lightroom since before it was Lightroom. I originally used the software that Adobe bought to use as a basis for their development of Lightroom and received LR1 free since I had owned the original software. I've updated to every new version so I have had the advantage of using it as it has improved and changed over the years. As with Photoshop, I am still discovering things LR will do that I didn't know about. I guess my advantage was that I was also just starting to get serious about photography when LR came out. It takes a while to learn although its RAW converter is the same as Bridge if you are taking Raw files into Photoshop. I know there are things Photoshop will do that LR will not, but there is plenty of online instruction available to help you learn the basics and gradually move on from there.

The Library setup can be confusing if you don't do it right. For example you must always be sure that the LR catalog file (*.lrcat) info and your LR photo files are coordinated (for lack of a better word). I had the hard drive on which my LR photos were stored crash. I had backups. I had to make sure that when I re-created my LR photo files I put them on a hard drive with the same name as the one that had crashed so LR catalog could find them. If you run into a problem there is plenty of help online via whatever search method you use.

I use the Adobe subscription to LRCC and PhotoshopCC. I believe I have recently read that Adobe is going to soon stop supporting PS6. I know there are things LRCC and PhotoshopCC will do that the non-CC versions will not do. Guess it is all a matter of choice and money although I believe the subscription price works out to about the same or less than updating was before the subscription method started. if they raise the CC costs I'll have to decide what to do then.

I have apologized to Lighthouse via PM. There are a lot of good people and photographers on UHH who are willing to share their knowledge, but somehow I got off onto the wrong track when, as a new member, I came across this thread. Fortunate is the person who has not stumbled upon it. It was at the top of the Main Photography Discussion again the other day and I wonder how many people looked at it, wonder at all the caustic remarks and just move on. It should be totally deleted.

Everyone avoids saying such things as "Shut Up" but the underlying tone and innuendo of conflict is still there. WR enjoys egging everyone on and many seem to enjoy responding to his psychological inadequacies. I don't know the answer to his problem. His intent to destroy the PC&A Section is obvious. He knows how to be nasty in a nice way. He criticizes without offering any positive suggestions. When pushed to offer positives he falls back on what people have written that doesn't matter such as his repeated, "I never said he was my friend" in this thread. Somewhere on these pages he wrote, "I don't need approval and I don't seek help, not because I have stopped learning but because I can always find out how to do something without having to bother anybody else." But here he is, continually bothering many others.

Can I be banned for telling someone to SHUT UP rather than writing S&*@ U!? IT doesn't matter. I'm gone to the land of peace and tranquility and all messages from UHH go into my SPAM folder.

@Lighthouse - Every time the bickering stops and members start posting some reasonable ideas on this thread you and winterrose get into it again and we all have to wait for a pause or work around the two of you. Perhaps you have been unjustly accused on prior pages of this wreck of a thread. I don't care. This time you were the one who restarted the confrontation. Why don't you just SHUT UP.

So now you can send me a nastygram if that will make you feel better. And I hope winterrose does not feel he has to reinforce what I wrote here by sending another confrontational reply.

I don't think that is what I said or, at least, not what I meant. Maybe I did not state it correctly. Not question before he presses the button, but as part of posting the photograph. These are just suggestions for consideration and I'm not writing the rules.

Actually, I agree with your comments on the discord. All the bickering that interrupts worthwhile comments from the majority who post here is not necessary. I don't need it. I'm about ready to become an ex member of UHH. There are forums where all this does not go on. Unfortunately, as with you, this was one of the first threads I happened to really look at after becoming a member of UHH. I'm not innocent in regard to adding to the bickering. In this thread I have been guilty through ignorance and guilty because some have posted totally uncalled for remarks that I just couldn't keep myself from replying to.

Is there any way to do that? Does that include being able to see exif data for a photo? I know, from one of your posts that exif info can tell if a photo has been altered by some software

It took me a couple of dozen pages to figure that out but now I know. Just for you!

How do you limit that? For some, photographs are like photos for a news story and shouldn't be altered at all. For others photographs are an expression of art and their photos may be highly altered. I think both are valid.

I agree with you. Mr. Smith's photos are beyond my comfort zone so far as my being able to offer any kind of beneficial critique. He should be teaching me. I'm glad he posts them. I've read that the best way to improve our photos is through critiques from other people and the second best way to improve our photos is to look at really good photos. There are plenty of people on UHH whose photos are more than really good.

Okay. We both have valid points. The viewer may not need to know in advance. My point is that the artist/photographer does need to answer certain questions. With the artist before he paints. With the photographer before the photo is snapped and not afterwards. If the photographer can’t answer the questions as to what theme he had in mind, about lighting, shadows, why he used a wide angle or telephoto lens, but just snapped a photo of a tree, etc. then why is he submitting the photo for a critique? I guess, in the end I think serious critiques call for serious photographs. And I think asking some of these questions might separate those who really want a critique from those who should be posting their photo in the Photo Gallery or some other section of UHH.

You might look through some of those other sections to see what they are about and what their “rules” are. I know figuring the differences between some of them was confusing to me. From the Home page click on All Sections. the Photo Critique Section, which is what we are talking about is at the bottom. Also look at Photo Gallery and Photo Analysis sections.

Isn't a critique about how to improve the picture?

I think it is called intuition and comes after viewing many pages of what has been posted in that section. Don't worry. As far as I am concerned you are the Tin Man.

Sorry it's my W/R side coming through again. I was just trying to be funny. Welcome to UHH. I'm relatively new myself. And this thread is one of the WOW! ones when it comes to controversy.

I disagree. The photographer should know what his or her intent was and be able to state it without an explanation of how the photo does what he intended or an excuse as to why it doesn't. "What do you want the observer to feel when looking at your photograph" Then the critique can give an opinion of whether or not the intent was satisfied by the photo. Just my opinion.

Minnie, I’m not meaning to sound brutal so I hope you don’t take my comment that way, but you need to stop making the self-deprecating remarks in the intro to so many of your posts. I’ve looked at many of your photos, they are good, and you don’t need to apologize or make excuses for them.

Heron Admiring Sunbeams: What were you trying to portray in the photo beyond it being simply a photo of a heron in gold fog? Was it was serenity... peacefulness? That's what draws me into it so I like those ideas if that was your intent. It may affect you or others in a different way.

Technically, there is no detail in the shadows of the vegetation islands in the lake or the shadow side of the heron. This might have been a good photo for HDR so those details could be brought out while still maintaining the overall affect you wanted. Also, if you look closely you can see that there is a kind of red blurry area in the deep shadows of those same bushes – perhaps from some adjustment made in Lightroom. You probably know that the gold tone of the fog can be changed by increasing or decreasing saturation but I think that part looks good as is. I think I might have cloned out the five small black objects sticking out of the water, but that's my opinion. Contrast needs to be increased. When I tried it in Photoshop I went from 0 to 35 and that brought out more detail in the photo without lessening the affect of the fog.

Cropping – personal preferences I think. Perhaps some crop which might make the heron more apparent, but that might not be possible or preferable with this photo. What I would really like to have seen is to have all of that tall tree on the left edge in the photo along with its reflection and then make a tall but narrow crop all the way down that left edge showing that tree, its reflection in the water and including the heron, but not including the island with the long stick poking out of it. If your posted photo is a crop maybe the original has all of that tree in it.

Overall, a good photo with lots of possibilities.