I thought the comments on this article were interesting - the author is basically getting flamed for too much HDR and claiming that it is the key to "advanced photography". Some nice pics there... but I agree - there's more to photography than HDR.
http://www.smashingmagazine.com/2009/02/...hy-skills/
Soem HDR I really like, but a lot of those just look surreal to me..maybe by design... guess I am more of a fan of what I consider "true" pictures, I want it to look real or my perception of real at least.
I also find overkill with a lot of HDR. If it is done tastefully for landscapes an such it is OK. I think Irma got it right most of the time. The ones with the monster truck thing was superb, but you could not go that far with landscapes. IMO.
Having said that, looking at millions of photo's on the web is quite trying. The class ones (HDR or not) do stand out, but finding them among the dross is like finding a needle in a haystack.
Why do they bother labelling it? Just show the photo and let us judge it. I don't have to know how it was done. HDR is not a new species, just a technique.
HDR should be tool used in creating the photo, like a tripod; not the point of the photo.