To be frank...
- You're not really getting any serious extension of dynamic range off of a single exposure even when you take advantage of some of the extra leeway you have with a RAW. You can see this in the harsh shadows and contrast extremes in your image. Generally an HDR would not have these quite so noticably.
- The treatment of the image is a little surreal, but this is entirely a "taste" thing. I prefer to make my HDRs look as normal as possible... some people prefer to go way funkier.
- The composition of the image itself is kinda lacking... if this was just an EDR/HDR experiment, then who cares, but the composition of the image should come first FOLLOWED by an HDR treatment when one is required.
If you can forgive me posting images in your thread, let me give you a couple examples.
This particular image was a case where I needed the HDR in order to be able to see both the exterior and interior of the building when I had a SIGNIFICANTLY brighter light outside than in that the camera simply would not be able to compensate for...
Now in this next image I wanted to capture a fuller range of tones and shadows that would be impossible with a single exposure. There was an added benefit of not blowing out the windows on the ceiling, but they weren't so bright that it would have really been an issue. The key here was the rich tones in the woods and books and such.
Both of these images were about 5 exposures, spaced 2-3 stops apart, and in each the composition choice was made first and then a decision to perform an HDR process was made second.
Hope this helps.