OK, here's an example of the results of the same HDR conversion in Photoshop CS3 & Photomatix Pro.
The original three exposure were RAW but as they were NEF's (which hold onto camera info) I converted them all to jpeg in an attempt to make a level playing field. It's also faster.
The only post-processing that was done was to crop all images to the same size (1680x1050) and the two final images were sharpened equally in Capture NX.
Like I say, I'm no expert here. This is the best I could do as regards a tutorial because I've never done anything like this before.
These are the three original exposures -
This is what Photoshop came up with -
This is what Photomatix came up with -
This is a sreenshot to show the settings I applied in Photomatix -
This is what Artizen HDR came up with, using default settings for the "Fattal" tone mapping generator -
And this is a screenshot showing the default Artizen HDR workspace. As you can see, there are more options than I can shake a stick at, some of them work wonderfully well -
For the record, this is the same job done with the original RAW (NEF) files in Photomatix. Make up you own mind -
I hope this at least helps a bit. I'm sure a better result can be got out of Photoshop but I haven't found a way yet.
Sorry about the images being so small but the files were too big for my host at their original size (which of course I didn't find out until the very last upload).
The difference between the two results is huge though.
Contrary to what I've said before I find the HDR using RAW files as source to be the better result. I think it's often down to "operator error".
Various lenses, SB800 & Manfrotto 190 with 460MG head