Thanks, Mike.  This is a point which needs to be made more often...perhaps replacing "HDR" with "post-processing."  If more people were aware of this, we might see fewer overprocessed photos, and fewer people shooting with in-camera processing cranked up to 9.  For example, on another forum, I once saw someone say that he shot EVERYTHING with his camera set on "Vivid" (whatever that means).

My initial photographic experience back in the last century took place at a company which published several magazines.  Being able to see the original chromes compared to what came out of the back end of a 4-color, high-speed web press was an education in itself.  There were times when we saved ourselves much grief by never showing the client anything but a proof.  Seeing the original chrome would have created some unreasonable expectations.

Perhaps we'd also see fewer underprocessed photos, since this works both ways.  Browse some photo forums and it won't be long until you find a comment similar to this: "I do no/very little/hardly any post-processing.  My goal is to reproduce the scene as I saw it."  [Quoted from memory.]

Really?  Your camera sensor captures the scene "as you saw it," without any limitations?  All colors correctly rendered?  All edges properly delineated?  All details captured just as sharp as you saw them?  And both your monitor and printer also reproduce the scene just as you saw it?

Mike and many other people have written intelligently on this subject, but I repeat: Mike's point above that I've quoted needs to be made on a regular basis.