Some of the debate and positions on the value or "purity" of HDR are interesting, if a bit silly. If the photographer's intended vision resulted in an "art print" or "CGI" look, then so be it. It's photographically-based art. Personally, done well, I think they're gorgeous.
Photography isn't about just attempting to capture a perfectly true representation of what the eye sees, and never has been--it's never been able to to this point, and likely won't ever match the capability of the eye and brain. Getting back to its roots, photography is "light drawing," the means or intermediate steps not being subject to rigid definition. The best modern definition I've seen is, "[SIZE=-1]Visual art created using a camera to initially capture one or more still images that serve as the foundation for the final piece." HDR is that, as much as any other method, in-camera or in post, that doesn't necessarily capture or reproduce the "true" image.
For those who promote an extreme purity of image, who among them has never retouched, adjusted, enhanced, cropped, or otherwise altered, in any manner, the camera's original image? Each of those simple, innocent techniques or tools, destroys the perfection is a little way, doesn't it? The only camera that was completely "pure," in that sense, was the Polaroid.
One's tastes should never be confused with authority, and opinion should never be mistaken for fact.
[/SIZE]
