Don't mean to be a downer, but these images don't look like true HDR images, just ones that have had the exposure, contrast, fill light, saturation, and hue altered slightly. I'm not sure what your HDR program is saying that it's doing, but I was under the impression that an HDR photo is a composite of multiple exposures of the same image. Like more than one file, that the photo program grafts together to come to some optimal exposure for all areas of the photo. Kind of like the old burn and dodge type deal when printing with regular film, where you can combine a perfectly exposed foreground film with an underexposed sky, (with some tricky handwork) and come out with a deep contrast and bright image.
So for instance set your camera up on a tripod and you take a picture with settings ISO 200 and F 8 and 1/160th shutter speed.
The light meter is dead center, and gives you a bright foreground trees, but the sky is overexposed(whitewashed).
So you can while leaving the camera on the tripod, change the settings to ISO 200 F 8 and 1/500th shutter speed.
This meter will be a little to the right. (as long as light is constant) and the foreground will be underxposed (darker/black) but the sky will be perfect exposure (blue with puffy clouds)
Taking these and running them through an HDR will combine the perfectly exposed bits of the 1st photo (the foreground) and the perfectly exposed bits of the 2nd photo (the sky), so that you don't have to compromise on pixel density or ISO quality or depth of field. It will spit out one nice looking photo, and the more gradients along the overexposure/underexposure that you take, the higher pixel depth you can achieve.
Here is my crummy example from when I did this a while back.
Here is my overexposed photo (washed out sky) ISO 100 f16.0 1/25 sec
Under exposed photo (good sky but dark foreground) ISO 100 f16.0 1/400 sec <--- only changed shutter speed
And here is a generic HDR combining those two
It looks kinda crummy, and not that dazzling, but I did not edit any of the contrast or lighting or saturation or anything on that image yet. You can definitely tell the difference between it and either other photo, and there are some peices of both in the photo. I don't know that I'm that enthused about my photoshop's ability to do HDR composites, and I know that people buy much more expensive software to accomplish this task better. However this is the basics of how you can achieve maximum pixel density and perfect exposure for subjects which are in obvious different amounts of light.