HDR vs Non-HDR

A few weeks ago, I posted some pics of a Scion TC my brother bought.

I had one picture I was really proud of, but it needed lots of processing.

I tried two different techniques. A from scratch HDR (Not using "Merge to HDR") from a Photoshop CS3 book I have, and a "Dave Hill Style" technique I found in a flickr group, then modified based on some techniques I read in the book I have.

Which do you like and dislike and why:

HDR:

Second one definetly, the first one is horrendously over saturated

asylumxl wrote in post #6294945
Second one definetly, the first one is horrendously over saturated

i totally agree.. the second one looks fabulous.

I like the second one other than some small halo's around the cars.

The background is more defined and not over exposed and it looks more real to me.

Thanks guys. That's the feelings I've been getting too, but wanted some professional input

post ur original photo

asianstutter wrote in post #6295082
post ur original photo

here is one of them.

Byte size: ZERO | Content warning: NOT AN IMAGE

i tried to edit ur photo but it didn't come out too well.
the car is way to dark to be edited

#2 - the blues in the water are wack on the first

asianstutter wrote in post #6295575
i tried to edit ur photo but it didn't come out too well.
the car is way to dark to be edited

I was working from the RAW image when I made them....

the 2nd image is definatly the better of the 2.

non-HDR to me, HDR is just a fad