Hmm, personally I would much prefer a simpler explanation. There's a lot in here that's quite acceptable, but I have a few bones to pick.

First of all, I don't like the HDR comparison. HDR is a photography technique that can be used to good effect but is widely abused to the point where many serious and amateur photographers view it as a crappy cliche used only by and for people with no taste. Now, my guess is that a lot of SF purists will be nodding their head and saying "Yes, exactly". But I disagree; I dispute that. There is garishly-written fantasy out there, but then there is also subtle, nuanced, and delicately-written fantasy. There is careful, meticulous SF out there, but there's also garishly-written, lay-it-on-with-a-shovel SF as well. At this point the purists will want to say that the garishly-written stuff isn't SF at all, but the hell with that. You can't just define SF as "stuff I deem worthy" and fantasy as "stuff I deem unworthy".

Then there's this bit:

If it evokes awe and mythos and yearning, then it's fantasy.

Good lord, what are we going to do with Arthur C. Clarke and Carl Sagan, and doubtless many more besides? Hell, even science reality is stumped by this one. Do you not feel a sense of awe and yearning just at the very thought of Mars? A sense of mythos from the eternal dance of the planets? Dread at the idea of a black hole? You've also just ejected a large number of self-declared fantasy writers from the genre they thought was home.

I have a big, big problem with defining SF and fantasy based on the themes they deal with. I believe that any genre of fiction can deal with any theme it damn well pleases to. Nor am I willing to force SF to mean only fiction that Asks Big Questions. If you try to do this, you leave enormous swathes of media out in the cold with no genre at all, because they don't have any of the typically acknowledged features of fantasy. And you also define your genres in ways that virtually nobody else recognizes.

The fact of the matter is that most people, even the most avid readers of both genres, are going to define SF and fantasy by their aesthetic trappings rather than their underlying structure. This is because their underlying structure (in my opinion) is basically the same. Both genres deal with the same enormous variety of themes, questions, character types, and kinds of plots. The difference is whether the writer uses spaceships, robots, and bionics or wizards, magical creatures, and spells to decorate those structures.