One thing I do is look for unusual kinds of found lighting that I can work with, something that has some kind of unusual color interest, and often in the very low light region. There is a qualitative difference working this way. What your naked eye tells you is there underestimates by quite a bit the cumulative effects of supersampling the scene 5 or so times over. More than a time exposure. You have to turn up your eyes in order to imagine how small and distant lights will become more cinematic, and spill into the scene like antigrav paint. A neon sign next door, a candle flame, a streetlamp across the street, all paint distinct colors. In one of the club spaces where I've been shooting, there are some painted florescent bulbs and a black light, along with 'white' lights of every kind...hopeless for white balancing, but a bonus for HDR. So in a sense, I'm bringing out something that is actually in the scene, but doesn't appear to be there to the naked eye. In short--Cherchez la lumiere.
While this technique does alter the reality, it's going to develope more, just as you say. It won't go main-stream, but will most likely have a growth in popularity due to it's more artistic rendering of a subject. I like the look I get when I've used it.
There are variants of this being used with good success, but in the article I mentioned below, one of the forerunners of this states that it's lost it's appeal due to being cloned by others. It's a different look than what you have, but being cloned nonetheless.
I believe the really good portrait photographers endeavor to develope this important rapport in order to better portray their subjects. The interesting thing here is that there are not that many subjects that even care. A decent shot with big smiles is still the prefered look, as long as it takes no longer than 5-10 minutes to accomplish. Not easy to find subjects that appreciate the extra time required to develope a truely great portrait.
You may have not added color, but any adjustment such as levels will affect the look of that color and the true-to-life color will no longer match. HDR processing has it's own affect on colors, and especially with the shadow areas seems to increase saturation, hence the video-game look, which is somewhat fetching.
Could not find mention of that article in your text, but I'd be interested to read it.
Often, in spite of hours or days spent in pursuit of a portrait, particularly a fashion portrait, the only true relationship that exists between the photographer and model is the institution of fashion, which is mainly constituted by power and financial relations.
A further thought on this -
What needs to be kept in mind is that what we see in life cannot be seen by any means invented whether film or digital. There is a compression of what the eye sees by these mechanical means. Film and digital both have a limited latitude, where the human eye has much more available and is ever changing as we look around a scene. Our "aperture" is constantly adjusting and we don't "freeze" a moment as photos do. This is not just about the dynamic range, but aobut the variations in hues that even 32 bit capture will not be able to fully duplicate. However, 12 bit is close enough so that most don't really see the difference so that it would matter. Even 8-bit jpegs are good enough for average observers.
