I don't always agree with what Roger Hicks writes in Final Analysis but I certainly agree with almost everything he wrote about Nina Leen's photo this week. In particular, I wholeheartedly concur that this is an image which benefits hugely from being in mono rather than colour - for all the many reasons Roger gives. My point of issue is, in a sense, not related specifically to the photograph under discussion but, rather, to Roger's odd use of the phrase "the curious unreal hyperreality of HDR". HDR should not produce anything curious or unreal - hyperreality or otherwise - but, instead, should produce a more accurate rendition of reality than can be otherwise achieved using the current state of digital camera sensors. Of course, the term High Dynamic Range is frequently misused to refer to either the processing method or the final photograph. That is wrong. The phrase should be applied to the original scene being photographed. The process or the result should, more accurately, be called "Compressed Dynamic Range". Think about it - in a so-called "HDR image", the whites are not any whiter than normal and the blacks are not any blacker than normal. The dynamic range is no greater than allowed by the printing process or viewing screen. What using so-called HDR processing to combine several images taken with a range of exposures achieves is a more normal picture with the tones between the extremes smoothed out - much as our eyes would see them. In other words, a more accurate representation of our reality. OK. I know that many people (but surely not Roger) were poisoned against HDR by the passing fad, a number of years ago, to grossly misuse the software to produce grotesque images that appeared to have been over-sharpened and over-saturated to the extent that perverted reality and gave the impression that the photographer was high on hallucinogenic drugs. But to dismiss so-called HDR processing on the basis of such perverted use, rather than acknowledge it as a legitimate tool to achieve a better representation of reality, is a bit like dismissing the whole art of photography on the basis of the output of a few Soho pornographers. When, occasionally, I use those techniques, my principal indicator of success is that no-one viewing my finished print should be able to tell that I did use "HDR". Going back to the photo in the article, making a colour version would have necessitated "HDR" because, as Roger appropriately alludes, the highlights would look hopelessly blown and the shadows hopelessly blocked in a straightforward colour image. That is one of the reasons that mono is more effective in this case. Apologies if this discussion goes over the heads of the apparent majority of Forum users who do not read the magazine and cannot appreciate the context within which it arose. You really should mend your ways!!