it is a stand alone application and you can down load a demo at
http://www.hdrsoft.com/

I use it and I like it a lot. Sometimes it is really hard to get normally looking results but sometimes it works very nicely.

It is a stand alone application.

I use instead of split neutral density filter in landscapes where the sky is much brighter than the land.

Here is an example:
http://www.istockphoto.com/file_closeup.php?id=3725439

If I remember correctly I took 3 RAW exposures from a tripod (so they will be aligned) and then processed the RAWs in photoshop (so they have the same WB,...). Then I took the jpegs and made one HDR image in photomatix.
It is a lot of work but for this particular image it was worth it since it is my current fastest seller (I uploaded just in time for the pre-autumn sale of autumn pictures).

I only have have Photoshop 7 too, and I use Fred Miranda's  DRI Pro. It's a plug-in, works well and costs a whole lot less than Photmatix.

You can see details here:

http://www.fredmiranda.com/shopping/DRI

I've use photomatix a bit, and have some quite cool landscapes out of it, but I'll second the comments about artifacting and noise.  The results can be quite noisy, and sometimes have a very 'processed' look.

Looks fine for prints but I'm not sure you'd get many HDR images by reviewers that were created using tone mapping, rather than manually using layers in PS/Gimp.

The results out of photomatix really rely a lot on the input images.  Use Av mode, manual focus, a tripod, set white balance rather than auto, bracket three shots using the camera, mirror lockup if you have it, self timer..   Any trick that will ensure you get sharp input images, with no difference in focus or DOF between the frames.

I did an interior shot of a building for a commercial customer a while ago, used 12 exposures, and I did it using the 20D tethered with EOS Capture so I could adjust the settings between frames without touching the camera... 

It's an interesting aspect of photography, but I'm not sure it will get you much stock..

Subtle ones like Maco's landscape will get through, but many HDR's look quite over processed IMHO, although I do like the look of some of them..

The other really interesting thing about HDR is that some things you look at and think 'Yeah, I'll HDR that' look crap on screen, and other scenes look great, it's often hard to pick in your mind exactly what the HDR result will look like until you try it, and sometimes the results are very other-worldly.

Just my 2c, as always. :-).

Yes I use it quite a bit myself and pretty happy with the results. Does take a bit of practice to get it right.  Also have quite a few images accepted by various agencies (I find that iStock are the most picky when it comes to HDR) and never do shoot in RAW when doing this type of shots.

to sbonk:

I think what they mean is that no display can snow more that 8bit (as far as I know) so there is no point of doing it.
But printers can take advantage of 16bit so their answer is kind of weird.

Sorry, I am probably not much help.

You want to have some fun, check out this program.  www.HDRshop.com  This is from the University of Southern California.  Version 1 can be downloaded for free, but you are not allowed to use it for any commercial purposes.  Version 2 is around $400.  From what I've been told, this is the program that's mostly used in the film industry.  Much of their 3D animation requires HDR and at places like Gnoman, they are using this along with their Maya classes.

I asked where they usually got their HDR images and was told they typically make their own as they can rarely find what they need already made up.  So apart from some great looking prints and fine art, there may not be that much demand for HDR in stock ... at least not now.  In the future ... who knows.  If designers go more with 3D type images, the demand may rise.

I use HDR quite a lot as well for my pics . I just published a posting on my blog (http://microstockexperiment.blogspot.com/) if it can be helpful
Cheers
Laurent

One thing I like about Dynamic Photo HDR is that there are tonemapping options that create results that look more like a traditional photo than typical HDR. This does not cause problems getting accepted at any of the sites. But I input multiple 16 bit tiff images and get an 8 bit image out. So further post processing is then done in 8 bit mode when I want 16 bit.

Hi sbonk,

Nice pics! BTW, the latest version of DPHDR (1.65) allows to save also 16bit TIFFs! And there are also two new options in tone mapping - Clarity and Dehaze. I would try the Dehaze option on your cliff shots.