I'd say that works pretty damned well. There ought not to be an HRD 'look'.

I disagree with the comment by photographic.ca about it not looking like HDR. Thats the whole point of HDR, is to accentuate the detail into some dramatic form which makes photographs almost appear surreal or like a painting.

As for Picturenaut Plug In, I'll stick to my Topaz Adjust plug in, I get much more dramatic results.

<a href="https://picasaweb.google.com/Trevoc2/NewestPictures2011" rel="nofollow">picasaweb.google.com/Trevoc2/NewestPictures2011</a>

I tend to agree with photographica as I also dislike the over processed look. Here is the actual definition of a high dynamic range image from Wikipedia:

"...high dynamic range imaging (HDRI or just HDR) is a set of techniques that allow a greater dynamic range of luminance between the lightest and darkest areas of an image than current standard digital imaging techniques or photographic methods. This wide dynamic range allows HDR images to more accurately represent the range of intensity levels found in real scenes, ranging from direct sunlight to faint starlight."

In a nutshell, HDR is about compressing an extreme tonal range into a single image. When you start processing the image to make it more dramatic or visibly less of a photograph, you're moving into the realm of digital art. I've been known to do a bit of that myself, but I don't call the resulting efforts straight photography as they most certainly are not.

Wow. I went and looked at Tony625's picassa images. I dont mean WOW in a good way. I mean, WOW, I didnt know that HDR could cause cancer of the eyeballs. Holy crap! I think those sliders were greased with Vasoline.

Sean, your use of HDR is considerably closer to simply adjusting curves in LR or PS. You're trying to expand the range of tonality. Makes sense to me.