One thing I am noticing on this board and a couple more forums is that people are not understanding what a true HDR is. Snapping a photo and running it in photomatix doesn't make your picture an HDR.
People seem to confuse tone mapping with HDR. I myself am a fan of tone mapping. Tone mapping doesn't make my pictures HDR.
People seem to confuse that any photo and I mean the composition/subject of the photo may not work for a HDR.
Maybe this forum should be called HDR and Tone Mapping, so the poor people that are just tone mapping don't get slammed for not having a real HDR image.
Any camera that allows manual over- or under-exposure of a photo can be used to create HDR images.
The key here is exposure bracketing. Now with that said, one still needs to learn this. Setting your camera to -2 0 +2 may not be enough to cover the entire range. This all depends on the shot you are making.
Images with too much tone mapping processing have their range over-compressed, creating a surreal low-dynamic-range rendering of a high-dynamic-range scene.
I believe most of the pics we see are Tone Mapped. Tone Mapped is just so much easier to produced than a true HDR image. I'm not trying to open up a can of worms or anything, but maybe some are seeing this particular forum section as HDR and not tone mapped. I keep seeing a single exposure is not an HDR, which is true, but it sure looks great tone mapped.
I see questions like, well is a single exposure raw file saved as several tifs with different exposures a HDR. Some say yes, some say no. I myself really don't know, but I sure can produce a really nice looking image by doing so. Photomatix complains about exposure when doing this tho vs. 3 different RAW files.
Is HDR understood that tone mapping is an added style of it or should it be HDR and Tone Mapping? I put my tone mapped images in the HDR section of forums even tho it's not really an HDR. See the confusion?