Processed this from 3 images months ago and never liked the result whatever I did. Today took darkest image which had too much noise on the jeep and the normal image which had a totally useless sky. Made 2 extra images from each of the photos ie a dark one and a light one.
Processed each separately using Photomatix and then combined the two with layer masking in Photoshop.
Now I quite like it so please comment and critique cos this took all afternoon in fact a total of 5 hours solid work!!!!
Not sure if the purists will say I did enough to capture the full tonal range as in fact only two of the original shots were used

I am busy right now, but here is one thing you need to know. The shutter speed has NOTHING to do with the flash exposure. The shutter ONLY controls ambient light. So as long as it is short enough to kill the ambient and below the sync speed (If in high speed sync, even that does not matter) you can ignore the shutter speed. ALL that matters for exposure is your aperture and the output of the flash(es). 1/60, 1/125, 1/25o...does not matter.

This is important to understand because it allows you to balance flash with ambient. Balance flash output, ISO, shutter, and aperture. You have heard of the "exposure triangle? This is the exposure square.

Your camera appears a bit too high...or you are too low. :-)

I assume when you refer to Exposure Fusion, you are referring to the process in Photomatix Pro.

Exposure Fusion is not HDR, but similar to HDR.

Info on Exposure Fusion from another source:

In short, EF takes the best bits from each image in the sequence and seamlessly combines them to create a final ‘Fused’ image. Or more technically, the fusing process assigns weights to the pixels of each image in the sequence according to luminosity, saturation and contrast, then depending on these weights includes or excludes them from the final image.

Whereas HDR does combine the bracketed photos into one Low Dynamic Range photo via Tone Mapping. High Dynamic Range process can not viewed on our current day monitors or printed and thus be Tone Mapped. How it is Tone Mapped is what may give some photos that HDR look.

Somebody else's words on HDR:
The HDR process begins by taking a range of different “source “exposures so that important shadow and/or highlight are captured with details. All this data, however, represents a brightness range too large to display on a monitor or be used by a printer. HDR software then processes this HDR data into a low dynamic range (LDR) file suitable for display and printing. The common mechanism used is the tone mapping process,

When I process my bracketed photo as a HDR photo, I do very little enhancements with the HDR software and the image is pretty darn flat looking. I do PP (post processing) in PaintShopPro to make the image pop with some level adjustments, sharpening, curve adjustments, etc.

Intent was to point out there is difference between HDR and Exposure Fusion.

Willie

the definition of HDR is "high dynamic range". Simply stated this means you must make MULTIPLE exposures to capture details that are BEYOND your cameras ability to capture in ONE exposure.

You CANNOT extend the dynamic range of a shot by making multiple adjustments of ONE exposure. It ONLY has the dynamic range captured in that one exposure.

The only thing you are doing by using one exposure is TONEMAPPING. You can usually get the same results by carefully processing your original file.

The KEY to getting a good shot is to get the PROPER exposure of the scene in the first place.

With all due respect, I will disagree with your statement that HDR can be used by creating exposures from a single RAW image. Yes, the processing works. The HDR software does not know you are tricking it.

Let me try to explain. In a live stream from B&H yesterday the dynamic range of the new GH4 was being discussed using F-stops. It was agreed that the dynamic range was about 10 or 11.

So if a camera shoots a single RAW exposure there is about plus AND minus 5 stops of highlight and shadow zones with detail. In a JPEG, you might see about half of them. In a Lightroom manipulated RAW photo you might see detail in all of the zones.

If you split the photo into three equal parts you would be putting three and a third of the zones into separate files and then putting them back together in your HDR software. Things may look different, especially with the capability to manipulate color, but you still have 10 stops of dynamic range.

Now the math gets tricky. If you bracket the exposure by plus and minus two, you get the original ten and two more on each end for 14. An HDR image processed from 14 zones of exposure will have a lot more data to work with than splitting 10 into three parts.

Where I'm unsure of the math has to do with the F-stops. I know that a whole F-Stop change doubles or halfs the exposure or quantity of light. So, I think that to express the effect of the additional 4 stops, you square it. In other words, I think there is 16 times more light captured captured in the camera's data files.

Math or no math, if there is a higher than normal range of brightness in the scene, the results of bracketed shooting will produce a significantly (H)igher (D)ynamic (R)ange in the created photo.

If the original scene is "normal" or relatively flat multiple exposures won't add much if anything. If the original scene meters to only 8 stops of range to start with, multiple and bracketed exposures won't do much. Running them through HDR processing will give you teh excuse for some color manipulation, but not increased HDR.

The really good HDR shooters look for the scenes that will "blow out" normal techniques, bracket with 3 to 7 shots and combine them in software. The best ones leave the color manipulations out.