Thanks for the congratulations. It's actually 25 years together and 20 years of marriage (same date) the wife likes things (dates) to have importance. We met at the age of 14 and 15 and have been together from that day forth.
I coined the term IDR because simply what we do is not HDR never has been and never likely to be. HDR or HDRI is a term now being used incorrectly as really a computer screen cannot show HDR but rather a "Tone Mapping" of a HDR image. In much the same way people still incorrectly use the term Nodal Point when what they really want is the Entrance Pupil/Point (EP) or Non Parallax Point (NPP) of the lens.
If what people are producing with odd colours and cartoonish looks are going to continue to call it HDR I'm distancing myself from it.
What I want to show is an image with Increased Dynamic Rage (IDR) that looks as nature intended with no real evidence of odd colours or fakeness via a cartoon look.
I would say that 90+% of so called HDR offerings on the Internet are horrible in my eyes. The colour red ends up with this fake fluro orange glow that is so far from real life I can't imagine why people would be proud to show it. I know I'm not alone in my thoughts as a quick search on Google will show up many people asking why people are doing this?
Anyway, I'm rambling. I put my example up to show what I feel is an IDR panorama image for others to make comment on (Good or Bad).
Just understand that my "Fusing" of bracketed images is NOT really HDR it is Tone Mapping and done properly it is Increasing the Dynamic Range of a photographic scene. When you increase the range, it is lighting depth and exposure, it really has nothing to do with colour, except for the effect of the light falling on it.