Totally Unrealistic HDR's Vs. Realistic HDR's

[sando]

Okay guys,

To me post processing is acceptable. I know some people harp on that it's cheating, conviniently forgetting that the same things have been going on in the darkroom for donkeys years.
I do disagree though when an image is worked over so much that it becomes a bit of a cheat. Such as someone claiming that whilst they were phographing a particular pretty landscape a huge bolt of lightning came out of nowhere and they happened to catch it. Adding things like that, in my eyes, are unacceptable.
You get my drift anyway.
I've been a fan of a site for a while now, I know the guy who it belongs to is a member here and my apologies but your psuedonym escapes me. I do know that your name according to the site is Pete Jackson. Anyway, the HDRI on this site are awe inspiring. Yes, HDR is a way of manipulating an image into being something it wasnt but the point of HDR is, I think, to replicate the way the human eye can adjust at lightning quick speeds to differently lit parts of a scene, very unlike the way a camera cannot. Therefore, HDR, is a way of really bringing the scene home with you as you remember it.

The point of all this is really to ask what you think regarding HDRI such as this:



Is this taking it too far? or is this the future of digital photography? HDR is taking off big-time, and whilst cameras are getting better and better... Computers are getting more and more powerful. I have no doubt that taking a picture is going to become secondary to processing the image afterwards. And whilst I'm sure the author of the above image is very talented, is this photgraphy or is this digital manipulation?

Discuss

* Pete Jacksons Site: Clicky

* Fake looking HDRI: Clicky

I hope that you, pete, dont mind me taking this liberty!