Just a quick rant - why do people insist on calling unrealistically tone-mapped photos generated from a single image 'HDR' or 'pseudo-HDR', or even associating unrealistically tone-mapped images generated from an HDR file with the HDR process, rather than the tone-mapping process?
HDR simply refers to combining several images, taken at different exposure settings but compositionally identical, to produce a single image with greater dynamic range than is possible with a single exposure. It is no more or less realistic in appearance than any other image, although, without further processing, it needs to be 'windowed' through different exposure values to see the highlights and shadows properly.
Every digital image - HDR or not - needs to be tone-mapped, otherwise it's just a string of 1s and 0s. It's in the curves setting of DPP or done automatically by the camera, and can be further modified in Photoshop using Curves, Levels and other tools, to give either realistic or unrealistic results, depending on the intent of the user, with either HDR or non-HDR images.
Associating unrealistic images with HDR (even when they're not HDR images) just gives HDR a bad name, particularly when it's such a good technique for producing completely-realistic images of scenes which could otherwise not be photographed in a single exposure, due to non-straight horizons and the like.