Nice one Craig, but have to agree with Dave regarding the top of the image. Maybe little bit more tone mapping for my taste but love the rusty barrel.
Now regarding the moonhead and likes who think that Reuters or any other agencies are the most objective photo critics out there. The photo that is or is not post-processed does not make it bad or good. And if Reuters say that the photo is best, it does not mean one should blindly take this fact. Everyone got his own brains and eyes and should judge for himself/herself. If you like it just say you do, if you don’t have a guts and say so, but do not give me Reuters bulls**t. I love many photographers work that I have come across since i’ve started photoblogging and many are an inspiration for me, but not the material to copy. So some should better start thinking and judging with their own brain rather than Reuters brains 🙂 Oh, and 6000 pounds do not make a good photography.

Nicely done, though I think I might have been tempted to tone down the highlight areas of the sky a little, either that or crop down below the burnt out sections at the very top of the image. Other than that though, I like this one.
In response to moonhead: for me, the relationship between a latent digital image and the final “photograph” is a complex one – one that sometimes results in something close to photojournalism, and sometimes doesn’t. Neither result is better than the other, they’re just different.
I suppose the key point for me is that there is no such thing as an “over cooked” image, at least not in the negative way you seem to imply. Sure, there are badly cooked images, as there are badly taken photographs, but the amount of time and effort spent during post-production is irrelevant to whether an image is good or bad.
I’d also like to add, as did Craig, that this is my subjective take on the topic – not a statement of fact 😉

I don’t buy all this ‘true photography’ stuff. Put the Photoshop enhanced version beside the original and nine out of ten people will choose the enhanced. It’s not just about what you can get straight out of the camera anymore, is it? And the line between the people who love or hate digital enhancement by others probably also separates those who can and cannot do it themselves.
I’m not great in the post-production area but I enjoy trying things out and getting the best out of my photos. Just because it’s not possible in the darkroom, doesn’t make it creatively unacceptable. Times are a changin’, and who’d know better than those who make our equipment? Canon opted to drop the word “Digital” from their new line of entry-level DSLRs in North America recently with the release of the Rebel XSi/450D.
I’ve always loved HDR, and this is a brilliant example of the process’s potential. Clouds are always rendered strikingly, adding a huge amount of depth and the foreground here has benefited easily as much. Really great work, csj.
PS. what do you think it is that makes HDR scenes? Is it the light, the exposure bracketing level, or what? I’ve not got a really useful result yet from Photomatix. What could I be doing wrong? =]

over cooked in PS (sorry) – as with Chromasia you seem to rely on photoshop for most of your images.
In one of your comments to ‘riverdance’ you stated other photographers should pack up and go home. I found this statement offensive. Not everybody on the beach has 6000 pounds worth of camera and glass to play with.
One of the best images taken of the boat was by a reuters photographer and published in the nationals. Not only did the photographer capture a great image that said Blackpool – it was created without the need for photoshop. (PS it is banned by the agency – except for very minor adjustments). Now that is good photography!!