I did a shoot this weekend of a new listing we have and decided to use both my usual lighting technique (primarily on camera flash) and Enfuse and use what ever worked the best. It turned out not to be much contest; I like the Enfuse results best. Here are a sequence of photos that I used Enfuse to get. For all these shots I shot 7 shots (+3EV,+2EV, +1EV, 0EV, -1EV, -2EV, -3EV). I then Enfused them from Lightroom with LR/Enfuse.
The light outside on Sunday was pretty bright (for Issaquah and the home was high up on a hill in a new development with no trees so all the windows were brighter than usual for this time of the year.
I've used Photomatix on many of these and I find that I can get to pretty close to the same place with Photomatrix but I have to spend more time getting the tone mapping to look good. The thing I like about Enfuse is you can get to almost the same place faster.
Here is why Enfuse is faster: Doing HDR with Photomatix is a two step process:
Whereas Enfuse is a one step process that uses a technique called Exposure Fusion (here is their paper on Exposure Fusion) invented by Tom Mertens, Jan Kautz and Frank Van Reeth that fuses a bracked exposure sequence into a high quality image, without converting to HDR first. Skipping the physically-based HDR assembly step simplifies the process, is computationally efficient and allows for the inclusion of flash images in the sequence. Their paper gives all the gory details and many great examples of how Exposure Fusion works and gives some examples.
Enfuse is open source software implemented by Andrew Mihal (developer of Enblend, software well known to 360 panographers). But Enfuse is command line software that needs a GUI. Some GUI's are Lightroom ( see LR/Enfuse ) and Bracketeer for PC, Enfuse Gui for PC and xFuse for Mac. I like LR/Enfuse because it fits into a Lightroom workflow nicely.