On 7/19/2017 6:10 PM, Bill W wrote:
On Wed, 19 Jul 2017 10:10:11 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On Jul 19, 2017, Bill W wrote
(in ):

On Wed, 19 Jul 2017 11:43:07 -0400, wrote:

Bill W:
I'm definitely in the pro-HDR camp...

I repeat: "Hell, there are people out there who still think that
so-called HDR is cool!"

It's a tool. You snipped an essential part of my post, and completely
changed the meaning.

Davoud is of the anti-HDR school because of over-cooked, oversaturated,
poorly processed early examples, and something he wouldn’t consider using.
He is thus prepared to discount all HDR, and the process, regardless of how
subtle, and how well it can be done. His remark is obviously intended to be
demeaning, and an insult.

And this just goes back to what most of us agree on: why limit your
options? It's a tool, it can be useful, it's free with LR. Use when
needed, that's all.

Personally, I have never heard HDR described as “cool”.

I'm sure it has been, but probably not by serious photographers. And I
don't even fault those photogs that use it to produce that crap we've
all seen. Everyone needs to make some money, and some people happily
buy that crap. So, whatever. Some folks just take themselves too
seriously.


My cousin's ex made a lot of money selling paintings on velvet. But, the
only ones he ever had in his house were samples he brought home for
convenience. A lot of people bought them.


--
PeterN