HDR is an art. Some people strive for realism, but some strive for artistic, over-the-top expression; and that isn't wrong too. It's not about how "accurate" the place IS supposed to be in everyone's eye, and no one comes up with a rule that all photos MUST be, and look like, of that particular place. It's not a must to shoot the subject the way the it appeared in reality but how that place felt to the photographer at the point of time, and how it should look like in his interpretation. And thus, that is wilz's interpretation of that place.
And when someone says it's "bad", I think it's better off not writing that kind of useless commentary (no offence) without saying how it should be corrected. It's like hit and run. That's not nice.
Anyway Wilz, if you strive for realism, you should practice more of it, find ways to fine tune it, rather than completely stop doing it.
Watch your tones, highlights and saturation and if possible, manually blend all the exposures in photoshop and not use any HDR software to even tone map it. It may take much longer time to finish processing it though, but take your time, blend them, and then pause, look and see if that is what you saw when you there, and remembered. Use your visual perception, ask yourself
"is that what that doorway, or the colour of wood should look like? I don't think so! Let's fix that!" remember what that place looks like in your eye, and try to render it as you have seen and remembered it as close as possible.
That's a great perspective of the Shears Bridge man... Never thought of that!! Anyway if you did a pano would be better, the sides are abit "tight" to be framed.
