Not to beat a dead horse, but HDR is an attempt to make up for the poor latitde of digtal sensors by making muliple exposures and combining the results to get the same latitude you could get with any decent color negative film.
I get really tired of current photography magazines being fixated on the HDR thing. Occasionally, I would notice that Popular Photography would have a few great shots taken on Velvia 50 or some other film in one issue. Rest assured that the next issue would be all about HDR after the advertisers came down on them about showing something that didn't push the latest wonder digicam. This is the main reason I dropped all those subscriptions and put that money towards APUG instead.
I read an article once where the author showed that his current "pro" level Canon (Mark II something or other) DSLR could handle about 7 stops latitude while Ektar 100 in a 30 year old AE-1 did 14 with no problem. My K200D handles about the same latitude as garden variety Ektachrome 200 from the 1980s (it was my favorite film at the time) which is OK, but nothing to write home about.
In the end, HDR, well not counting the hideous uses of it, is really all about making today's digital sensor try to do what film already does extremely well.
I feel better having gotten that out. No need to go into any digital vs analog thing. But don't get me started about B/W grain plugins!
Please go off and try any creative analog thing you want to try, this is all about creativity and fun anyway! Maybe you will figure out some really cool analog technique.