Even a five stop bracket on sunflowers shows how you can still get it wrong. But with the current rate of advance I don't see that lasting for ever.I agree and since I'm not shy, I'll post my own failure by showing two simple landscape compositions. Here's a recent shot I took and layered with great care. It wouldn't have been the greatest shot anyways, but the luminosity blending just doesn't do it for me. Even though it comes very close to what I saw with my own eyes, there's something I don't like about it and that something is too much DR. I have tweaked the contrast, shadows, and many other things a whole lot, but in the end, it just doesn't look right to me.
On the other hand, here's another shot with MUCH less DR that does not accurately represent what I saw with my own eyes (the trees had some detail) but I am much happier with this photo.
What you probably find dissatisfying about the first picture is that it is too close to how we see things. The old artist masters of past years, way before the advent of photography, could, if they had so wished, have painted things as we actually see them. After all they could lift the shadows as much as they wanted. But they didn't. They enhanced the shadows, increased the contrast, purposely lost detail in the shadows and so on. Why ? Because they wanted to produce a picture that is pleasing to look at just as we do now.
If you look at a scene with a decent EV range and consider what you are looking at you realise that we see things very flat, which is probably why we have such good DR ( Even better than the Nikon D800 !!
), but it makes for a very poor picture.
No one here has talked of technology taking over from creativity, just the human input necessarily to produce technically