Yikes. That first picture looks awful. The HDR+ version looks like cheap CGI. Very plasticy. Some of the other pics are nice so that seems like a really weird one to lead with.
As someone who is a pretty serious hobbyist photographer, it is actually the second picture that looks very unnatural to me.
The first one I can imagine existing in "real life" if there were a soft-box enclosed fill light out of the frame that was lighting up the lady's face (it can't be the sun since the tree isn't being lit the way it would if the light hitting her was point-light-esque), which would make the photo very "posed", but still possibly something that isn't highly post-processed.
The second picture with the two ladies is much more distracting. The HDR version keeps a lot more detail than the non-HDR image, but at the expense of making everything look extremely flat and unnatural as your brain tries to process how the lighting is working (this may be unique to people who are used to worrying about light with regards to photography and a non-issue for normal folks, I can't say for sure) since the scene is clearly midday but the light across the entire scene makes it seem like the sun must be very low, which doesn't match with the contents of the scene.
The HDR version of the second photo would look better if the exposure on the two ladies were bumped up close to the value that the background sky was bumped down, but doing that automatically would be an amazing visual detection feat that I wouldn't expect out of a phone camera. The lighting still wouldn't make sense but at least it wouldn't look so flat.
The interesting thing about the second HDR+ photo is that it seems to have true high dynamic range instead of the limited range created by different exposure settings. The subjects are actually darker than in the non-HDR picture. I'm not saying that it looks great, just that it's interesting from a technical perspective.
If its done right you don't notice it. Since Photoshop added HDR photo merging its been a thing to capture the full dynamic range of a scene and make it look HDR.
The first one I can imagine existing in "real life" if there were a soft-box enclosed fill light out of the frame that was lighting up the lady's face (it can't be the sun since the tree isn't being lit the way it would if the light hitting her was point-light-esque), which would make the photo very "posed", but still possibly something that isn't highly post-processed.
The second picture with the two ladies is much more distracting. The HDR version keeps a lot more detail than the non-HDR image, but at the expense of making everything look extremely flat and unnatural as your brain tries to process how the lighting is working (this may be unique to people who are used to worrying about light with regards to photography and a non-issue for normal folks, I can't say for sure) since the scene is clearly midday but the light across the entire scene makes it seem like the sun must be very low, which doesn't match with the contents of the scene.
The HDR version of the second photo would look better if the exposure on the two ladies were bumped up close to the value that the background sky was bumped down, but doing that automatically would be an amazing visual detection feat that I wouldn't expect out of a phone camera. The lighting still wouldn't make sense but at least it wouldn't look so flat.