As and as far as Photoshop’s HDR functions, I have no experience there. I use Photomatix Pro all the way. If I use Photoshop at all it’s in post-production after I’ve tonemapped the HDR image.

Absolutely right that Photoshop isn’t the best tool to create HDRs.

Photomatix Pro is my tool of choice. However, if you haven’t already done so, I also recommend looking into FDR Tools. I’ve given FDR Tools a try, and I liked the results I was getting from the trial version I used. But in the end, I chose to stick with Photomatix Pro primarily because I am happy with the results I am getting with Photomatix, and FDR Tools didn’t add extra benefits over Photomatix.

Still, if one is in the market for their first HDR software, I would say it’s a toss-up between Photomatix Pro and FDR Tools.

It is interesting to read your comment because I was going to reply before, mentioning how the approach of generating three separate files from one RAW file may be problematic.

In particular, it’s not possible to create any more information from one RAW file than already exists in that file; as such, one could argue that the three files you would create (one underexposed, one metered, and one overexposed) from the one exposure isn’t going to give you any benefits. I’ve actually experimented with this approach for the creation of my very first HDR image, and I found that Photoshop can figure out when you’re trying to create an HDR image from the same source file. I worked around this issue by stripping the EXIF data using IrfanView (an awesome program for those of you who are running Windows), and then Photoshop didn’t complain. Looking back at that image, however, I am confident that the result pales in comparison to what I could do with Photomatix.

Also, as Paul mentioned, using Photoshop is not the best program for the creation of HDR images. I’ve been using Photomatix Pro for over two years now, and I am really happy with it. Most of the time I use three RAW files (exposed at -2EV, 0EV, and +2EV) for the creation of HDR images, but occasionally I create a pseudo-HDR image from a single RAW exposure (some examples are here, here, and this one of Centennial Olympic Park). I usually only create pseudo-HDR images for rapidly changing scenes, such as the three photos I linked to. Most of the time, if you can help it, using three (or more) RAW files is beneficial. I’ve done some testing myself, and what I’ve found is that if you create a pseudo-HDR image from one RAW file compared to using three RAW files, the dynamic range in the final tonemapped image (from one or three RAW files) will be similar, but the difference will be the large noise amplification in the pseudo-HDR image compared to the true HDR photo.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/comphacker/3698348420/

;-)

Although since I made that comment I’ve experimented with it a little more. Although I mentioned using Photoshop or something to take a RAW and generate three different photos out of it (presumably to JPEG), lately I’ve just been loading the RAW straight into Photomatix, which will automatically make a psuedo-HDR photo. Obviously if you’re using another app for your HDR you may need to actually make the three separate photos.

I’ve gotten a few good results from that method. My current camera (in the market for a new DSLR) is a Fujifilm FinePix S5100 I inherited from my dad. It’s basically a glorified 4MP point-and-shoot but I’ve gotten very good results out of it. It has the capability for RAW built-in (although it’s buried in the settings) and also has auto-bracketing. I’ve had better results just taking one RAW than trying to find good auto-bracketing settings. This photo was made using this technique. Another photo was made with the same idea but I used different settings in Photomatix which gave the photo a whole other mood.

Still trying new things, though I haven’t gotten around to photography as much lately. Again, thanks for the mention!