I guess that, no, I'm shure that some of you know and use Photomatix to create images that extend the dynamic range of single captures. Must say that I'm very interested, but I'd like to know from real users with real experience in the matter why the photomatix standalone is more interesting/needed to have than the ToneMapping plugin. I use CS2 by the way.

Is it a good app/plugin? Are there drawbacks, learning curve,...?

Thanks,
Tan-the-drooler

I'll add a few things I've noticed playing with Pmatix....others here have with more experience with it (Kai, I think uses it regularly).

1. For best results you will still need mutiple bracketed RAW files to give the max available DR...much better than a single RAW converted to HDR, then tone mapped!

2. Tone mapping is part of the process...you will need to do it after creating an HDR image

3. The conversion process to HDR adds a fair bit of noise to the image

4. The conversion to HDR and subsequent tone mapping seems to add a blue shift to the images...it will require further postwork to bring that back...if you wish.

5. One of the dead giveaways to an HDR'd  image is the presence of halos or ghosting in the regions near the dark/light interface....this is not unique to Photomatix.  It is largely a function of pushing the tone mapping too far.

6. Not all images are suitable for HDR/tone mapping....some will just give very poor results.

7. Learning curve?...not much...just play with the sliders!

8. Good program...yes

9. This program like many others should be viewed as only one part of your image processing workflow.  Used in isolation, it won't make your images perfect...but used along with the other parts of your process, it can give you some rewarding results.

Have fun!

Thanks for the reply. I read on their site that they are looking for some engineer to tackle that halo problem.
What I want is to extend the dynamic range. I know that the new 14 bit raw will do a lot, but it would mean an investment in a new camera body (40D) and very probably also an upgrade to CS3 for raw handling. This would be beyond whan I want to spend.

CS2 can handle HDRI, but compared with their results it's visibly more washed out. Besides, I don't think I (or most others) really want full HDR images: they cannot be printed or shown on the monitor, except reduced to 8bit. So...

I use Adobe Lightroom for raw processing and it works pretty well.  As for HDR, my only resource is CS2.   Yes, print will not show the full range and certainly the web is quite limited. Still, compared side by side, I do see subtle differences in the HDR and one shot exposures.

I have done only a few HDR renders.  To find a suitable subject is the primary reason, one with enough in it to justify 5 shots.

If you do render some HDR with bracketed original images as the source, please post along with a "central exposure" for comparison. Sure, the web defeats much of it but still might be worth a try.  You will certainly be able to tell on monitor if possibly worth posting.   If I happen to do any HDR I hope to remember to do the same.   Good thread.

It is not only worth a try: it is certainly "better". What I meant is that the dynamic range will be extended but will be compressed again when reducing to 8 bit for print or the web. But of course whilst interpolating the new range.
It's a bit like using 16 bit in Photoshop for levels curves etc, and then reducing back to 8 bit. You avoid gaps in the histogram due to more values to interpolate from.