nelu_goia wrote: no camera can match the human eye.
Nelu
I generally agree with your post--especially in regards to the photographer's taste and skills. At issue is when we make our cameras
exceed what the eye can accomplish on its own.
I'd liken much HDR (recognizable as HDR) to photographic snack food----in particular, piling on the image equivalents of salt and fat --saturation and luminescence. IMO, their over use is appealing not because they capture the image accurately, as the eye actually sees it, but because it calls up viewers' store of idealized image qualities such as brilliantly green lawns, nearly blue/black sky, piercing red socks, etc. In other words, the photo matches or exceeds reality as viewers have learned reality from other photographs or LCD screens, not from their actual on-the-scene experience.
I'm reminded something that I'd attribute to Richard Armour, the poet/humorist: Some poets aim for the truth but only get half way there; I want truth-and-a-half.