[Zig]

I've used quote marks as this is not really a full-blown HDR image in the strict sense; it is also a stitched mosaic of 2 images, hence not really a "pano".
Inspired by several of you, this is what I did:
Took 2 old raw files that when joined resulted in a stitched image.
Converted each to low-contrast mono twice: once "exposing" for highlights, the other shadows.
I stitched each pair together using PTGui.
The resulting pair of differently-exposed images was combined in Photomatix free version, resulting in a low-contrast mono image that carried greatly-enhanced detail(ie; shadow and highlight detail that had been hidden when I'd just converted the original, last year).
Though the resulting image was not terribly attractive...it did not immediately have all the "zones" from white through to black...it DID now have more visible detail.
Because of the above, was then able to adjust contrast, along with dodging and burning, to much finer parameters than if I'd not extended the dynamic range in Photomatix. As you know, Photoshop cannot do this from one discreet raw file. I did feel as if I had more "room to manoeuvre" when using such detail-sapping tools as burning.

Though I rushed the sky as I was quite excited by everything else(my excuse!), the result is that the final image shows a much less overt use of Photomatix...and to my thinking and eyes, a more successful one.

[Toad]

Yes - I think that was quite successful. As you say, the sky can use a bit of work yet, but overall pretty effective, nonetheless. Lots of formerly hideen detail revealed.

The exposure blending component of PhotoMatix that you are using is much more subtle and because of this will probably be a more useful tool in the long run. The "look" that tone mapping gives however, is pretty cool, and for the right photograph will also be pretty handy - really depends what you are going for. For my own stuff, I never really go for a naturalistic look that often, so I can see tone mapping being a pretty handy trick to have up my sleeve.

We'll see...like all new toys, I use it a lot in the beginning - and usually less as time goes on. A really good plug-in, however, stays in my bag of tricks for a long time - like say Buzz Simplifier.

[Polly]

You've managed to bring up a HUGE amount of detail and tones in there! These distant b/w landscapes of yours blow my mind actually and the extra tones add even more to the images .. makes them kinda 'pop' even more. Sometimes the TM works and adds something extra, other times it doesn't have a lot to offer - but it's always worth a try to see what's possible.

As Toad said - it's another tool to explore and see what it can do for you. That's how I view it anyway.

Pol

[Petographer]

It turned out just fantastic zig. I might have to play with this too.

[Keith Alan]

While it would help to see something of the original files to judge how much more successful this image is, from where I sit it looks very good.

[Zig]

True Keith; I was going to, yet would have had to faff around with crops in order to illustrate fully. (As most of the detail/nuances only seem to gather weight when the pic is in hard copy as opposed to monny-friendly 72dpi, and given that I really just wanted to report my findings, I was just lazy and couldn't be arsed mate!)