White sky on Sol too dark or burnt inside dark outside, how to get the perfect balance ...?
The HDR is becoming more fashionable. Used by many amateur, he begins to contaminate professionals wishing to challenge the shortcomings of their digital devices.

Before starting the comparison between HDR and Tone of the tool, I'll try to explain each of the concepts.

I ask the indulgence of my experts to simplistic definitions, but the goal here is that everyone can understand.

HDR: High Dynamic Range or The Great dynamic range, is the ability to display on a single image of very bright and very dark. It is dynamic because it is able to go back diametrically opposite tones without sacrificing the other.

It is a kind of super RAW where you can underexpose and overexpose the parties of interest. To achieve this we use a software. In my Photomatix Pro is one of the best, because very simple to use. Photoshop meanwhile, gives results very open to criticism and takes longer. But this list is not exhaustive!
HDR requires 3 or more RAW images, taken in very different exposures. Raw format and the fact of taking three different photographs (minimum) are prerequisites to achieve his HDR. Extract 3 shows a single RAW is not recommended!
You understood, it involves using the bracketing function of your camera, and especially to take exactly the same image. Train movements, the use of tripod is recommended. This already greatly limit the use of HDR.
From these three pictures (one underexposed, one overexposed and one normal) the software will merge so you leave the choice of proper exposure, the strength of the merger, saturation, contrast etc. ..
It'll just export your work.

underexposed image

Exposure 0

Overexposed

The exposure blending: is a derivative of HDR. It requires two different exposure RAWs. The rendering is more natural because this technique does not push the exposures on the same image, to the extreme ...
it is proposed by Photomatix Pro. I will not present it here because you get something similar to the technique of tones, and with the defects of HDR. So here it is losing.

Menu software Photomatix Pro

Tones: Present in most image management software (Lightroom, Aperture, Capture One, ..) they remain the preferred solution for pro photographers and serious. Tons of editing does not allow for a (false) dynamic range as large as the HDR, but the result will be much more natural and subtle. It consists of two options: Highlights & Shadows.

Tons of tools in Apple Aperture

Caution in Capture One Phase One, the tool is called Tons "HDR" and options, "shadows" and "highlights". Also takes advantage of the hype, because it is not really HDR, because we start with a RAW classic LDR (Low Dynamic Range - Low Dynamic Range).
The cursor "Highlights" will decrease the brightness in areas very bright image, and can even recover some of the sky and the cursor "Shadows", to clarify the dark. It also has the advantage of using only one image and thus allow for movement.

Tons of tools in Capture One Phase One

The comparison:

I propose 2 × 2 minutes from the preceding techniques.

1.1 / HDR rendering

1.2 / Rendering tones

2.1 / HDR rendering

2.2 / Rendering Tons

The HDR-friendly rendering, but overrated. As soon as you push the process, we obtain a kind of halo around the edges of image details. This is the signature of the HDR. The latter has a certain gap separating two differently exposed too.

Tons tool, it is more subtle. It provides a uniform result while maintaining the realism of the image.
Although there is less detail in light and dark areas, the result is very satisfactory.

Only Bémol noise in dark areas. The fact recover the brightness in dark areas raises the noise already present in the image. Remember to shoot below 200 iso for that. Score one for the HDR.

Crop HDR

Crop Tool Tons

There are also two situations or the use of the techniques mentioned above is not recommended.

In photography, interior parts are often darker than the outside (windows cramées). In this case the use of flashes, deported on the ceiling, preferably, is required to obtain a good exposure. Of course, when it lends itself well. it will be difficult and refused to inform any one church

Photo inside with 2 Fill-in flash - Merwen BA 2009 client: Caloundra City Backpackers

Landscapes at the beginning and end of the day: That's when the light is the most difficult to tame. HDR may be the only solution capable of combating the political stagnation of our DSLR. However moving parts and the surreal effect certainly spoil the result. The use of neutral density filters famous gradients is essential for an accurate rendering.

Australian Sunrise with GND filters - Merwen BA 2009

Verdict:
This simple and quick test shows that the HDR is not a viable solution for a professional result. although it may seem ideal, magical, I remain convinced that a trained eye will spot defects of HDR so rude!
On the other hand, it is a solution (emergency) to keep below the elbow. Some situations may in fact require such manipulation for the photo could be exploitable.

Some also argue that a well done HDR can be perfect. Probably, but despite all my efforts, I still have not managed to get a satisfactory result naturally. Indeed, rendering a HDR effect can be more natural if it is moderate, but suddenly it will be less "efficient" a good tool Highlights / dark ...

The current Artistic HDR: I want to relativize my comments regarding the legitimacy of the HDR. I am well aware that it can be considered an artistic surreal. In this case my speech will be different. Everyone is free to love, the effect he wishes to apply to photos. The purpose of this paper is to compare different solutions to achieve a subtle and credible results.

Read also:

1. [TECH] My Workflow or Workflow
2. [NEWS] Aperture 3: The new Apple supremacy