.
Brother
Barbarian, all your photos are great. Do you use a certain camera above others,
I use the best I can justify spending money on. Hence, I like Pentax because the image quality is much better than that of other makes, for the cost. I use a Pentax K-3 when I want the best results:
It's versatile, powerfull, and has shake reduction built into the camera. That is a huge issue for me, because I use a lot of ancient Pentax lenses, many of which are better than any modern zoom. However, many of these photos were done on a cell phone, a Samsung Galaxy S7. It works very well. For most people, it might do all they want.
If you don't want to do sports or thing requiring quick timing and precise framing, the Pentax K-01 is still available:
It's still available new on Amazon, and for the image quality, the price is unbeatable. Downside is that it focuses more slowly than my DSLRs, and there's no viewer; you get the image on the display on back, and that's it. Most of my Washington state pics were on this camera, with a pretty good short to medium telephoto zoom lens attached. I wanted to travel light, so this was my choice.
Amazon will sell you one of these with two zoom lenses covering most everything most people would want, for about $600. Can't beat that deal, if you just want good pictures. You might want to invest in a shade that attaches on the camera for use in strong sunlight. Maybe $12.00.
The other approach I like is Mrs. Barbarian's:
Olympus OM-D. Four-Thirds mirrorless, very tiny, but with very, very, good image quality. You can get the M10 version on Amazon, wit the pictured lens (most useful focal lengths) for about $400. It won't disappoint you. Try to get your hands on one and see how it works for you.
and you also mention the quality of your computer.
Actually, the software on it. Like Bill, I use GIMP. It's free, and while there's a learning curve, once you get the hang of it, you won't miss photoshop. I do pretty much all my final processing on GIMP. There is the issue of raw images. When possible you want to shoot raw images, because that format preserves all the data the sensor gets, so you can adjust without losing quality later. You need a raw converter for those, and I use a freeware program called "Raw Therapee."
Much of my work uses HDR to bring the dynamic range where I want it. No overexposed areas, no blocked shadows. Luminence is a freeware HDR program that works well for me. If you do that, you always want to denoise the image. Neat Image has a free unlimited trial version that works great. I went and paid for the full version, just because I've used it for years and felt guilty. And if you like panoramic shots, Microsoft ICE is free and works very well.
Big monitor helps, but is not necessary.
Can you give an amature a way to get started?
Unless you want to do things like sports, wildlife, or insects, the K-01 or the OM-D would be very good. I think I'd lean toward the Olympus, for the size, the quicker focus and shutter, and the built-in viewfinder. Mrs. B says there's nothing she dislikes about it, but if you have big hands, the controls might be a bit difficult.
Near everything you post appears to be professional and I wonder if it is your eye,
or do you take a million different pictures and then filter out the bad ones?
Scores or hundreds of images, and you only see the good ones. Yes. But it's worth cultivating an eye for images. The rule of thirds is a big issue. Think of a tic-tac-toe frame. The most interesting parts of the picture should be at a point where the line intersects. Curves and diagonals leading into or out of the frame are good. Use foliage to frame shots and give depth.
Lots of things you can learn online about composition, and they all matter. But the best shots often break the rules.
Have fun. And fiddle with processing, so you get your own style.