I did some shooting in Newburyport, MA yesterday afternoon during some pretty lousy (bright yet hazy, late morning/early afternoon) lighting conditions. I knew that I wouldn't have very good results. For one sequence, I did a five shot bracket set with EV range 0,-1,+1,-2,+2. The shots were handheld at ISO 250, F/22.0 (aperture priority) with varying shutter speeds and with a polarizer filter. I post-processed the five shots using four different HDR processing applications. In each case, I tweaked the HDR settings in an attempt to get the most pleasing result (in my view). Of note, I very likely could have gotten better results from some of them with more tweaking of their various controls. My unscientific results: Photomatix was a clear winner - it did far better than I expected to get from the very harsh lighting over the scene. Next best was Lightroom - better than the others, but still dull when compared to Photomatix. Results from Photoshop and NIK were not good at all. The NIK result had significant ghosting that might have been reduced/eliminated if I selected the optional deghosting option, but it was otherwise so inferior that I didn't bother to try that.

Below are five images in following order:
(1) the (0 EV) source image.
(2) the Photomatix HDR (its a trial version with watermark)
(3) the Lightroom HDR
(4) the NIK HDR
(5) the Photoshop HDR

...I guess it may be time to purchase Photomatix license.

http://static.uglyhedgehog.com/upload/2017/8/23/t1-462126-capture.jpg
If that is a single image... 1/250 and you have this kind of motion???

I recently posted a thread on the motion reduction filter using PS CC.

Something else...

By the way, you mentioned using LR and PS CC. Both come with a program called ACR. You can open multiple files with that and select to merge them to HDR. THAT will Align all the images (if possible) then create a new image to edit.

As I said, you have no clue as to the software you already own can do.

If you look at Bob's threads on raw shooting and processing you would also find that he creates HDR images from a single shot. He uses a free software to do so too.

My guess is that you could probably use the -1EV image all by itself, which would have recoverable highlights, and process that in Lightroom, without the chance of ghosting, horrible halos (the Nik version), etc.

Photomatix is great software when used correctly. But if you had a -2EV shot in the mix, it is not evident by the blown highlights in all of the images save for the Nik one. Even the Photomatix image has veiled highlights - gray and not clean, indicating a failed attempt at recovering blown highlights.

I would love to get a hold of the -1 EV image to see what could be done with it. From what I can see from what you posted, this is not a shot that requires or could benefit from HDR.

I am not sure how you arrived at your exposure compensation, but the proper exposure for your highlight shot should be equal to 1 stop over what the camera's spot meter reads for the bright boat deck in the lower left corner, and the proper exposure for your shadow shot should be the same boat at the waterline, uncompensated. The median exposure should be exactly that, the median between the two.

If your scene does not have a wide tonal range, it is not suitable for HDR processing, but you might get something interesting if you apply some tonemapping, such as what Photomatix offers.

I find that using HDR on moving subjects rarely yields a great shot - you just can't get rid of the ghosting. If you do come across an HDR type subject, then use a tripod. That will help with some of the ghosting.

I did some shooting in Newburyport, MA yesterday afternoon during some pretty lousy (bright yet hazy, late morning/early afternoon) lighting conditions. I knew that I wouldn't have very good results. For one sequence, I did a five shot bracket set with EV range 0,-1,+1,-2,+2. The shots were handheld at ISO 250, F/22.0 (aperture priority) with varying shutter speeds and with a polarizer filter. I post-processed the five shots using four different HDR processing applications. In each case, I tweaked the HDR settings in an attempt to get the most pleasing result (in my view). Of note, I very likely could have gotten better results from some of them with more tweaking of their various controls. My unscientific results: Photomatix was a clear winner - it did far better than I expected to get from the very harsh lighting over the scene. Next best was Lightroom - better than the others, but still dull when compared to Photomatix. Results from Photoshop and NIK were not good at all. The NIK result had significant ghosting that might have been reduced/eliminated if I selected the optional deghosting option, but it was otherwise so inferior that I didn't bother to try that.

Below are five images in following order:
(1) the (0 EV) source image.
(2) the Photomatix HDR (its a trial version with watermark)
(3) the Lightroom HDR
(4) the NIK HDR
(5) the Photoshop HDR

...I guess it may be time to purchase Photomatix license.

I did some shooting in Newburyport, MA yesterday afternoon during some pretty lousy (bright yet hazy, late morning/early afternoon) lighting conditions. I knew that I wouldn't have very good results. For one sequence, I did a five shot bracket set with EV range 0,-1,+1,-2,+2. The shots were handheld at ISO 250, F/22.0 (aperture priority) with varying shutter speeds and with a polarizer filter. I post-processed the five shots using four different HDR processing applications. In each case, I tweaked the HDR settings in an attempt to get the most pleasing result (in my view). Of note, I very likely could have gotten better results from some of them with more tweaking of their various controls. My unscientific results: Photomatix was a clear winner - it did far better than I expected to get from the very harsh lighting over the scene. Next best was Lightroom - better than the others, but still dull when compared to Photomatix. Results from Photoshop and NIK were not good at all. The NIK result had significant ghosting that might have been reduced/eliminated if I selected the optional deghosting option, but it was otherwise so inferior that I didn't bother to try that.

Below are five images in following order:
(1) the (0 EV) source image.
(2) the Photomatix HDR (its a trial version with watermark)
(3) the Lightroom HDR
(4) the NIK HDR
(5) the Photoshop HDR

...I guess it may be time to purchase Photomatix license.

I did some shooting in Newburyport, MA yesterday afternoon during some pretty lousy (bright yet hazy, late morning/early afternoon) lighting conditions. I knew that I wouldn't have very good results. For one sequence, I did a five shot bracket set with EV range 0,-1,+1,-2,+2. The shots were handheld at ISO 250, F/22.0 (aperture priority) with varying shutter speeds and with a polarizer filter. I post-processed the five shots using four different HDR processing applications. In each case, I tweaked the HDR settings in an attempt to get the most pleasing result (in my view). Of note, I very likely could have gotten better results from some of them with more tweaking of their various controls. My unscientific results: Photomatix was a clear winner - it did far better than I expected to get from the very harsh lighting over the scene. Next best was Lightroom - better than the others, but still dull when compared to Photomatix. Results from Photoshop and NIK were not good at all. The NIK result had significant ghosting that might have been reduced/eliminated if I selected the optional deghosting option, but it was otherwise so inferior that I didn't bother to try that.

Below are five images in following order:
(1) the (0 EV) source image.
(2) the Photomatix HDR (its a trial version with watermark)
(3) the Lightroom HDR
(4) the NIK HDR
(5) the Photoshop HDR

...I guess it may be time to purchase Photomatix license.

To many Rongnongno is cruel and crude, by doing the non UHH thing of telling you like it is instead of giving you the typical "nice" or just thumbs up.

Personally, I think that Photomatix HDR is a way over priced software that is like a religion... you dare not like it! Franzis, obviously a WW2 German Company with dreams of annexing France, sells the "previous version" 4, vs the newest, 5 for $20 thru Ashampoo.
There is an additional set of presets available for $30. So, for $20 or $35 you can have an excellent HDR tool kit.
https://www.ashampoo.com/en/usd/pin/partner0105/partner-software/HDR-projects-4-elements
read my discussion @
http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-480519-1.html
There are free presets also available as mentioned in my topic.

"The Captain Kimo" gives it a 4 star while giving Photomatix a 5 star. Franzis, 2015 #4 out of 20 tested. Guess who sponsors him ... yep Photomatix. https://captainkimo.com/hdr-software-review-comparison/

Final comment: "Write if you get work, till then hang by your thumbs."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/entertainment/books/bob-and-ray-bob-elliott-and-ray-goulding-by-david-pollock/2013/07/03/6a8ffd26-ddc5-11e2-b197-f248b21f94c4_story.html?utm_term=.131c6a7e54a7