I made a comparision between TuFuse with default parameters vs SNS-HDR Lite for HDR tone mapping.
To capture the entire dynamic range of the scene I used 5 shots 2EV apart:
Just the central 3 shots could have been used. The outdoor highlights would have got blown a bit and the deep shadows would have become a bit less noisefree, but the final result would have been almost as good.
The RAW files were optimally fused using Zero Noise. The gray tones in the following blending map indicate the source RAW used for every image area:
The resulting image histogram reveals about 13,5EV of dynamic range (the highlights peak corresponds to the tungsten lamps and their reflections):
To do the automated tone mapping, several replicas of the ZN image were fed into TuFuse and SNS-HDR Lite. The resulting image with default parameters was finished with a standard contrast curve:
Both programs respected the colours of the initial image, SNS-HDR saturating a bit. However regarding local contrast TuFuse produced a more natural result while SNS-HDR obtained more texture where available, resulting a bit more unreal. In both lighting was kept reasonably natural, without producing visible inconsistencies like those usually found on Photomatix tone mapped images.
Finally just a proof of the need of doing several shots to cover the entire dynamic range, showing the noise comparision between the most exposed shot that preserved the highlights and the final fused image: