From what I have seen FDR Tools is far less "garrish" and enhances detail far better than Photomatix. Then there is Dynamic Photo HDR, Easy HDR, Artizen HDR, Picturenaut, Essential HDR, and probably others. Finding what works for you is probably half the battle. I'm liking FDR Tools, Dynamic HDR and Artizen so far based on some trials. More experimenting to do.
Photomatix, Dynamic Photo HDR, Artizen HDR,... why you don't even consider not using any of them? do you really think you need one of those tone mapping tools to achieve HDR? have you considered the possibility to investigate first:
1. What dynamic range really is
2. How to capture a high dynamic range with a low dynamic range digital camera
3. What's the problem to map a high dynamic range into a low dynamic range device or support (monitor, print, projector,...)
After you have done 1, 2 and 3, is when you are ready to decide whether you need (or prefer) assistance from specific software or you can do it just with basic postprocessing tools (basically any edition software allowing to do local level adjustments).
I am pretty sure this is what Ansel Adams would do today, because he was a scientist and a perfectionist. He would never try 100 pieces of HDR software designed by others, maybe efficient but black boxes to the user, to find out which one he liked best without mastering the underlying concepts first.
HDR is not a technique, HDR is above techniques, it is a
concept. HDR is about mapping high dynamic range data into a lower dynamic range format. It's all about reducing global contrast at the same time local contrast is enhanced, and you don't need any specialised program to do it.
This is a very high dynamic range scene (about 12 f-stops from the ceiling to the chair shadows), it looks natural, and it was achieved just with 3 shoots of the camera and a couple of curves in Photoshop. No need for any piece of software containing the word 'HDR':
BR