This!
In my not so humble opinion, most HDR photos that I see posted are overdone, if not poorly done. There are a few, however, that use HDR effectively, and with those, it's not obvious at first glance that they are HDR shots.
couldn't agree more !
its like burning / dodging, lith prints, wet plate, high contrast work and just about anything
there is a lot of it, and some of it is good and some of it not as good...
Everybody with five cents worth of brains in their heads routinely masked Ciba prints. It went out of production for entirely different reasons. But when it comes to HDR, five cents of brains seems darn hard to come by. Think of monkeys getting ahold of finger paint. No reserve. I totally agree with the foregoing post.
maybe
i think people who are good at things do them well
and there are a lot of people who want to do things well but the learning curve is steep
so they don't do them as well, this is with all types of photography ( and everything else ).
imean there are a ton of people who
shoot f64 type grand landscapes or 8x10 landscapes in color or black and white some do it well, some not so well,
and some love velivia and highlysaturated work and know what they are doing and others stuff looks kind of garish, same with pictorialist images, uber sharp clincal digital, and everything in-between.
besides, it's the
HOBBYISTS ( people who spend their disposable income on photography stuff ) are who drive the market for all these things ( from digital programs to 10,000$ lf lenses ) some are good and some aspire to be good. and does it really matter ? NOPE cause they are having a good time.
i've said it 10,000 times on this website, its too bad people get a boat load of bad vibes thrown at them
because they are having a good time, and they happen to be at one or the other end of the "purity of photography specturm"