There have been many topics and posts addressing sky replacements in photographs. I do not want to regurgitate old arguments regarding the legitimacy and ethical correctness of doing that. Neither do I want to revive the debates about the validity of photo manipulation in general. I'm looking for a different perspective.

Many if not most photos with sky replacements posted here just don't look that good to me. I question the value added, the commonly accepted premise that a photo with a "boring" sky will be made much better with a different sky. And the result is too often an image with overly dramatic clouds that compete with and take away from the main subject. I know that people like dramatic skies and that these types of images sell better. But why?

Does anyone out there agree with me, or am I just out of synch with the rest of the world?

So many of the threads in this forum, and in particular in this section, end up bloated and spiralling down into slanging matches. I can't help thinking that those threads would be far more constructive and edifying if we could identify and avoid the usual derailer subjects and associated behaviours.

One of the main ones that I've identified is what I'll refer to as High Horse Syndrome - people forming strong and very entrenched (i.e. inflexible) opinions on various subjects. I'll list what I see as some of the most common problematic opinions.

1) Post processing is for fixing mistakes that should have been avoided at the time of capture.

2) Post processing's main purpose is for creating fakery of various kinds.

3) To be able to proclaim authoritatively what a real photographer is or isn't, you need to be a fully fledged member of the High Order of Self-Appointed Real Photographers. The same condition applies to being able to declare what a real photograph is or isn't.

4) If you let the camera do anything for you, you can't call it "manual".

5) If you give an image any post processing, it's not a representation of reality. And you should have been able to get it exactly right in camera, so shame on you.

If you want to make a suggestion of your own or elaborate on any of my suggestions, feel free.

I feel less needful of extra dynamic range than some (many). Unless the detail in that part of an image cast in shadow is of real importance, is it wrong to include a natural looking shadow in a photograph? (even if inky black next to sunlit subjects).
When chatting dynamic range, it is not unusual for someone to say that the human eye has a greater dynamic range than does a camera’s sensor, but surely the truth is not so – a camera’s sensor together with it’s adjustable aperture can have just as great a dynamic range. The eye also has an aperture – which adjusts as the direction of our vision roams over dark and light areas, I have looked at brightly lit areas, conscious that in the corner of my vision are very dark areas. I have also been blinded by sunlight when exiting a darker house (equivalent to blown highlights)? Of course, this effect can be overcome with the help of the latest Ray-Bans.
Attached is a pic I shot a couple of days ago – there is a dark corner (bottom left) would you leave it or PP lighten it?

Yes. Not noticed by most most users but it’s really there. Attaching a +diopter always reduces the FL of the lens. That is how it enables closer focus. So you indeed do have a wider angle lens.

When a +diopter changes your 50 to a 28, it’s a very real 28, a wide angle. Since the lens barrel is built for a 50, you now have 22mm of “extension tube” between your camera and your newly created 28mm wide angle.

You would get exactly the same result if you take a factory made 28 WA and a 22mm extension tube and mount the combo to your camera.

I just chose 50 and 28 for illustrative purpose cuz they’re familiar to most users. Various +diopters on various lenses will result in different numbers, but a +diopter will ALWAYS shorten the FL of the main lens. So, yes, it has a wide angle effect. That’s why you get a short working distance and is why most users want a long FL (~100 or 200mm) macro lens, to increase working distance.

The only people that should care what anyone else buys should be stock holders in that company. They both learned to make optics from the Germans during WWII. The German teachers brought cameras to photograph their travels. They both introduced their first production camera in 1948. Each new model since then has some new feature that the other doesn't have. So, at any given time one might have the edge over the other. For most of us the decision to buy one or the other is economic. We have an inventory of one manufacturers lenses that we can't afford or can't be bothered to replace. There are some idiots in the world that think everyone should own what they own. Maybe to validate their own decision. They probably have an opinion on Fords vs Chevys too.
While Canon and Nikon have been the leaders for a long time there are now many other choices. So if you're looking for a new camera, don't ask here. You'll just get a bunch of BS. Read the reviews. fondle the hardware and make up your mind what's right for you.
Remember I said those Germans, that came to Japan to teach, brought cameras? Look at daddy and his two children by different wives.