@ mattpugs - Congratulations - the more clients want to use images you have made, the more you are going to have to learn how to take criticism. Gary was neither disrespectful nor was he harsh - he was giving his opinion of your images. You may not like the way he did it, but there was no ad hominem, personal animosity, simply his assessment of the images you posted.
If someone has decided that they want to use your images for a project that is great. However, there will always be a give and take between your vision and the client's. Be prepared to accept criticism and take it professionally, not personally.
In reviewing this thread, the comments stem from your images of the Capitol Building, if I am correct. Those images appear to be shot in overcast light with a dynamic range of the scene that probably did not require HDR image acquisition and processing. The processing has the signature Photomatix look where coal dust gets deposited over everything and there is a bluish cast, with a greenish-yellowish tint to the building. If this look is what you are after, then mission accomplished. That statement is not meant as a slight, it is just a recapitulation of what I see of my display and I genuinely mean that if that is the look you are going for, then you hit it.
What Gary was stating, if I may try to interpret, is that this image is an example of a shot processed in Photomatix, but not one that required HDR acquisition and, likely given the comment about putting a signature on it, one that he did not particularly find appealing. That is his opinion. So what? I did not find his statement harsh, but truthful.
The statement about "newbies" redefining HDR has merit in that a lot of people who are new to HDR imaging sometimes do not understand the motivation or the concepts behind HDR, but rather read a tutorial or two on the interwebs and shoot a +/- exposure sequence, run it through Photomatix and call it "HDR." Unfortunately, "HDR" has become synonymous with the look rather than the actual imaging technique and the lack of distinction between the two often rumples the feathers of people who have taken the time to explore the basis and application of HDR imaging techniques. These people, like me, are often pejoratively referred to as "purists" - as in "don't worry about what the HDR purists are saying about your work, if you and your clients like it then who cares what they think?" Thus, Gary's statement that "newbies" are redefining HDR - in a sense his statement is correct because of the lack of understanding a newcomer often has of the difference between the "look" and the actual technique.
This does not mean you cannot shoot a 3 image exposure sequence for a scene that requires only a single exposure and then run the sequence through Photomatix and get an output image you (and others) like. There is no rule that says you MUST only use HDR imaging for scene that actually possess a high dynamic range - you can do whatever you like! However, simply adopting an HDR workflow does not make your image "HDR" per se - the scene defines the dynamic range.
THere is no need for newcomers to the forum to get all up in arms about posting their work here, or taking down images in protest - just understand that there are experienced folks here who have opinions, ostensibly ones that you and others are seeking. That being said, if someone really is being offensive or attacking you personally, then you absolutely should report it to the mods. That did not happen in this case, as I'm sure you will agree.
If you do not like criticism, but rather want people to respond with things like "those are cool!" then you are probably not going to learn much. If you like what you are producing, then you probably don't need to learn much more to be satisfied. If, however, you want to benefit from others' perspective and experience, then this is the place to have a dialog.
Have fun, and good luck with your project.
Kirk
