Craig, what do you like better about Enfuse? I haven't tried it yet, still using Photomatix, but will give it a spin.
David, I wouldn't go quoting McGrath. I've always felt his work was mediocre at best. Your own images have much more depth, richness and refinement than anything I've ever seen of his. Software will never give you the same volume, texture or depth of space that lighting does. Take it from someone who typically composites 5-7 exposures for every image.
IMHO
-CB
Chris, I mentioned McGrath mainly because he is someone who is widely recognized among architectural photographers. Anyway, I appreciate your comments about my work, especially since I really admire your talent, skill and experience and refer to your work as one model of high quality for the genre.
I have to agree with you about lighting, and I can't see myself doing without it. That said, I admire the work of Scott Frances, who claims he no longer uses supplementary lighting (through heavy compositing, rather than HDR).
As for Enfuse, it seems to me to be about the same thing as Photomatix fusion, without all the controls of the latter. However, when I use Photomatix fusion, I tend leave the controls pretty flat and do all the tonemapping and other post stuff in Lightroom and Photoshop.