I don't have a 28-400 but it looks like it's a good fit for your preferences. Being a Z lens it should be good to excellent. A wide angle zoom would cover anything not covered by the 28-400.

This isn't a phone shot - honest!
.

(Download)

Do we as individuals want to take our own photos or do we want instead to generate images by feeding instructions into an AI image generator? AI is not going to provide a substitute for hunting down photo ops, getting busy with our own cameras and making our own images. However, commercial photography is probably going to be another matter.

More interesting than a bright sunny day shot and more original. The framing catches both edges of the bright area of sand and that is probably the most balanced option. The left side also speaks of open space, which is appropriate for a beach.

It's OK. You're among friends. You won't be judged (much) .

For flowers that look like sculptures, B&W is perfect. We can catch up with the colour versions whenever....

The only time that will get complicated is if we try to be too idealistic about it. Going down that road would involve us excluding anything that didn't fit into a universally agreed upon idealised notion of what a real photograph is. We should be looking to do as little excluding as possible. Put another way, we should be leaning towards being as accommodating as possible, without going so far that the concept of photography becomes meaningless.

It's probably easier and simpler if we start by defining what a photograph is not, which in this case would specifically be images generated from scratch by AI software or computer graphics software. That would mean using the medium of origin as one of the defining factors (but not the only one). In the spirit of keeping things simple, where photographs are concerned we could define the medium of origin as "photographic equipment", which, from a photographer's point of view means cameras, including cameras built into non-camera devices such as phones.

The definition of "photograph" could then realistically include composites (which may or may not include AI generated elements). Photography has a long history of including composites of various types.

Just because a photo has been given some post processing, that needn't mean that we have to stop referring to it as a photo. All photos (digital and analog) have to be given some kind of processing, whether it's in camera or in a computer or a dark room, so the idea that any post processing is a no-no is not realistic.

We would still have to allow for the possibility of photographs being extensively modified. It should be up to the individual to decide whether they felt the need
for disclosure in such matters. The alternative would be to exclude extensively modified photos and then we are left with the problem of where to draw the line.
Those who felt the need for disclosure could refer to such images as "modified photos" which would cover all possibilities.

If someone had the intention of producing a creatively edited image from a photo, the chances are they wouldn't want to refer to it as a photo anyway, so getting precious about such definitions would seem to be futile and trivial.

What's the definition of a photograph? To answer that there are two possibilities - we can be idealistic or we can be realistic. Perhaps to be clear we should specify that we're looking for a working definition. In that context, being realistic would seem to be the better choice. That involves being flexible and accommodating and making sensible assessments. Some people aren't very good at any of those things and they prefer the rigid exclusiveness of idealism. The down side is that being rigid and exclusive is the option that's least likely to produce a working, real world definition.

The possibility of deception will be with us no matter what definitions we choose. For those who feel the need for disclosure there's no problem because there's nothing stopping them. For those who have the intention to deceive, they don't care what the agreed definitions are.

Advancing in photography includes developing our understanding of imagery. Photography is just one small part of the subject of imagery, but understanding other forms of imagery can help us to understand the imagery that relates directly to photography. In fact there is much to be gained from exploring and trying to understand other forms of imagery, so there is much to be said for a photography forum making an effort to accommodate those types of imagery that have characteristics in common with photography. All that's needed is clear guidelines for including other types of imagery. Doing so doesn't mean that the forum will lose its identity as a photography forum.

This is primarily a photography forum, and since there is a distinct difference between a photograph and an AI generated image we should carry on seeing this forum as a photography forum that also accommodates various creative activities such as the generation of AI images, AI-assisted post processing etc.

One of the most common motives in photography is our desire to create our own captures of whatever subjects we choose to capture. Our photographs become our own personal record of the reality of the captured moment. AI plays no part in that process. However, it can be used to help us deal with our less-than-perfect captures (which includes our mistakes).

The water tower is more clearly the subject in #2. In #1 it looks like it could have been an accidental inclusion.

#12.

As already mentioned there's no right or wrong. However, it's always a good thing if a photo has something that sets it apart. The colour version is nice and has various positives going for it but the B&W version does a better job of capturing a distinctive look. The "something special" about the scene is more clearly brought out in the B&W version.

Any of the processes that magnify noise will do that regardless of which order things are done in. You could do some denoise only to find that by the end of the edit you need to re-work the denoise.

One of the targets with denoise is to give the photo the minimum that it needs. You can't accurately assess that until the rest of the editing is completed. Plus sharpening and denoise should be done together so that both can be optimised. It's not a good idea to do sharpening too early in the edit. The answer is to do sharpening and denoise together at or close to the end of the edit.

Try clicking on the small down arrow just to the right of the thumbnail size slider. I suspect that "View Modes" may be what you need.

#6.

Optical filters remove things. The sliders in your editor allow you to manipulate the process of converting to B&W without removing anything (unless you want them to). Removing things just limits your options. Better to stay with the full palette.

The colour sliders seldom have a major effect. Most of the time they're for tweaking things like foliage, although they can have a significant effect on the sky and other large areas that consist mostly of one colour. The heavy guns in B&W conversion are the contrast slider and the Whites, Highlights, Shadows, Blacks and Brightness sliders. Texture modifiers can also be significant depending on the content.