Hello Paulo,


Please have a look at my blog below I posted something about my experience my HDR and microstock

http://microstockexperiment.blogspot.com/2007/09/hdr-and-microstock.html
Cheers
L

Thanks:) It is difficult to get HDR pics to IS because it create artifacts, SS is much easier I found.DT take them usually as well
L

For some reason I can't see the slideshow in that link, so I can't see these specific images, but overall I don't like most of what I see in HDR - images are not only too unreal (that might be a strength, if not exagerated), but the halos look horrible to me.  I have seen some great results however, like an image taken indoors with both the interior and the exterior perfectly exposed.

Regards,
Adelaide

Hello everybody, this is my first post, and I am very new to MS, having not been accepted to any sites, yet (still assembling a small portfolio of noise free, stock style photos), most of my Flickr stuff is great for collecting icons and faves, but not really stock material, but I have learned a thing or two about HDR over there after literally looking at 10's of thousands of HDR shots there and taking a bunch myself.

I've always used the axiom that HDR is like shapening, if you can see it, it is overdone.  That said, the wild slider on photomatix just doesn't cut it, artifacts are high and light halos get bad quick.  Though not as favored by the wild HDR crowd, if you want natural HDR, PS CS2 or CS3 is the way to go, artifacts and noise are much more controlled and halos are relatively easy to eliminate.  I find CS2 HDR to be lower noise than a non HDR image when minimal tonemapping and range compression is required.  I rarely tell anybody if my images are HDR or not, it is not necessary info and there is a anti HDR bias among many people.  The only way to tell for the most part is all of my non HDR images have exif data, my HDR ones do not. 

There must be a market for HDR images though, a well done one looks outstanding on a computer monitor, and many stock images are purchased for web use, if the end user is only displaying it on a computer monitor, good HDR looks stunning, whether totally natural or having a high resolution 3d rendering look.

Though it is a Flickr shot and not a MS shot (that I am aware of), here is one of the most natural HDR's that I have ever seen, converted with CS3.  It is not my work, but a favorite of mine, but it shows just how good it can be while maintaining a perfectly natural look to the shot.

http://flickr.com/photos/braid44/2183037765/

Well done Paulo way to go
It is true that there are lot of quality HDR on Flickr.
If you want to see amazing ones took in Manhattan go to Shutterstock and type HDR

This one is mine that I did recently