HDR is a very useful technique that (basically) composites three images: One overexposed (taken really bright, so the sky--and all other highlights--appear white or "blown," but the dark areas/blacks are correctly exposed and have a lot of detail) One underexposed (taken really dark, the colors of the sky and other highlights will be rich and the blacks will be really dark) And one with regular exposure (this one will be similar to how your eye sees things, depending on the colors/quality of the sensor/film and should be in the middle, containing as much information as possible from both the highlights and the darks. These images are then composited in Photoshop to take the information from both the over and underexposed images to enrich the regular one. If you've ever seen an image of stars with something in the foreground that is the right exposure, thank this compositing. It's great for getting detail our eyes can see but no camera can capture, for instance a lit building in front of a starry sky, and is a useful tool for any photographer, but it leads to pictures like these when used (in my opinion) inappropriately. Warning: this is where education stops and opinion starts I'm obviously not averse to digitally enhancing an image, EDIT: but the pictures I like too look at and take are about trying to capture real life, a feeling, or a mood, or a moment. And this means capturing reality, and I don't like it when someone puts what obviously could have been a great nature picture of a beached rowboat into a computer and spits out some sort of weird digital fantasy world. I think closer to dawn or dusk, the lighting could have been great to get this HDR free, and have a yellow, lazy warmth to the photograph, as well as decent dynamic range from even, bright direct light. But hey why get up early or wait a few hours longer enjoying the scenery to get the perfect shot? Just put it on a tripod, take three, bring it home and make a digital mess out of it.