Perhaps we should discuss when to use HDR? Tons of people are learning HDR but seem to be applying the technique to any capture without regard for how it fits the scene. IMO, HDR for the sake of HDR kills the art worse than the "over cooked" HDR.
HDR evokes drama more than anything else. A simple side view image of a car, for example, just looks odd when converted to HDR no matter the skill used in the HDR process. However, if the photographer gets in close to the car and takes a shot at a dynamic angle the HDR process can really help to add drama to the scene.
I, for one, would like to see users concerned less with the HDR process and more with getting a shot which will best lend itself to HDR. The actual process of generating an HDR is quite simple (trial and error, playing with the sliders until you get a result you like). However, the process of learning how to capture compelling images will make us all better photographers.
I agree 100% with this.
For me, HDR is best for photographs where (a) there is a real dynamic range issue or (b) there is an element of "drama" that can be brought out through the process.
In the case of (a), an ND grad filter is a good alternative, and I greatly prefer this on wide landscape shots (and, consequently, I tend not to like HDR shots of landscapes).
In the case of (b), I find cityscape/architecture shots benefit most from this. The effect of HDR on skies, particularly with whispy thin clouds on a blue sky or with ominous dark clouds, can really add to the look of cityscapes. HDR can even work on portraits, when you want to emphasize the grit.
I'm a relative newcomer to HDR, and when I first started with the technique, I went overboard a bit. I quickly discovered that it does not make up for poor composition (in fact, it makes things worse), but is a really great technique when used on the appropriate material.
