Hi Pete

It doesn't matter what you photograph or what genre you get involved with as long as you remain true to the reasons for getting involved in the first place. However, I can see why you are labelled as an HDR photographer regardless of the proportion you say are actually HDR. Almost every image of yours looks over processed, as is so much of the HDR stuff around these days. For many amateurs it has become a crutch for piss poor photography and bad exposures. Even forgetting HDR / pre HDR people were pratting around with saturation sliders in PS in the belief that the more overkill the colours the better the image is.

Now I have said before that your photojournalism images are ACE, (it's the only reason I still subscribe to your blog), in composition AND content (really ALL that matters in PJ)however they STILL look over processed. Even if they are not HDR they 'look' HDR with shadows to highlights all screaming for attention. Now in some, like the picture of the girls in bikinis on a wet Liverpool day, I loved the green reflections in the shadows on the street but in others the images look garish (maybe that's what you intend, but it's what I felt).

I feel that your 'style' or technique often overpowers the very subjects themselves and that is not good IMO. If style overpowers content and message then something is wrong in my opinion.

If you want to break away from the HDR label then you may need to re-evaluate the techniques you employ (or moderate them or whatever).

Wouldn't it be better to be known as the chronicler of everything Liverpudlian than the guy who makes most things look unreal? It's why your B&W versions ALWAYS become more arresting IMO because I see the subject within amazing compositions, not an overworked style.

These are just my thoughts following your questions on the blog. Hope the thoughts may be of some use.

Best wishes
Glyn