Will new "blur" LR Classic feature make fast f/4 wildlife lenses obsolete?

[Chaz Harrison]

It’s interesting to read some of the comments here, my lord there are some huge egos and snobbery here.
The way that some you imply a them and us society is staggering, if you are a position to afford the ridiculously expensive lenses by all means do so, but don’t assume that us poor people are not real photographers.
Just because you have a big lens doesn’t make you any better a photographer than the person who only has a 70-300 lens or similar. I would actually go as far as to say that maybe the “poor” photographer is possibly better because he actually has to really try harder to get a good shot. When I hear comments like “purist” it makes me laugh. I for one applaud adobe and everyone else for bringing these features into editing software.

Some good common sense in your comments.

However I am quite happy to be thought of as not "a real photographer", not that I will be judged very often. Sue likes my photography (and as an artist herself often has some cogent comments to make) and a number of friends also like to see the photos I have made. Apart from a very few that I have posted on this forum I don't show my stuff publicly.
I have used Steve's advice in his videos and books to set up and use my kit although I can't begin to match the quality of his work - there is no substitute for experience.

To return to the subject of this topic - I will try any of the available software tools that LR provides to improve my images, if they aren't effective having tried them then they can be ignored. Whether the "blur" facility is useful or not to me I don't know as I haven't used it yet. If it improves an image taken with my longest lens (500PF) I would use it but I suspect it will be no substitute for something longer.

Chaz