For me, HDR processing is like adding vignettes: If it's immediately noticeable, it's usually too much.
Typical HDR image processing tends to look flat (two-dimensional), have strange smears and halos, crunchy texture and over-the-top colors. When I see an image, I want to see depth. I want to feel it pull me into its perspective. With the typical HDR image, it's almost like my eyes don't know where to start -- even with an otherwise excellent composition. Instead of a wide-angle view of the interior of a rusted-out car, with mountains and sky in the distance out the windows, I see a everything at once, as if it was on the same plane -- like a chalk painting. Just a visual overload for me.
Feeling well explained!
And that's the beauty of it. One can feel that "ordinary" photography tends to focus, sometimes even manipulate, the viewer's point of view to whatever the photographer thinks is important. Why?
Why don't you present me with all the facts and i will choose what is important and what is not?
Isn't real life an overload of information and our senses filter them on our own?
Again, photography is an art (to some extent). I appreciate to see things your point of view, especially when you do it in a pleasant way. Belive it or not but I am a big manipulator of the viewer's point of view, especially in post and I am amazed with how some people achive their goal.
But sometimes I need a change, sometimes I need more, sometimes I need variety. HDR shows me alot, and when it is done in a pleasant way, I apreciate the effort.
The key is "pleasant way" and the exchange of idea like this thread helps in that direction.
I did may be two or three HDR attempts in the past and I stoped, but I like watching them on Flickr from time to time.