OK, here's what I think I did. First, I know I went out this morning and set the camera to take three exposures of each shot 0, -1.33, and +1.33. The shot was taken at ISO 320 (don't ask why, I just like varying the ISO, or perhaps keep forgetting to change it), f/9, and 1/1000, 1/3200, and 1/500.
And yes, we at Team Suck kinda like non-level horizons on occasion, so I do know that the horizon is most definitely not level. This was intentional.
Processing. Had Photomatix do an HDR on the three from the camera jpeg files. Saved that. Did a tone mapping and slid sliders around without having any real idea why or what for. Saved that. Opened the HDR in PS, added the tone mapped version on top of that. Adjusted the opacity and may have changed the blending mode to saturation but then I think I changed it back - can't tell from the history. Created a duplicate of the tone mapped layer and changed the blending mode to overlay, and reduced opacity. Flattened, sharpened. Re-sized then saved for web at 50% (!) to get it to 150K. LOTS of information in these here HDR experiments.
Now what I cannot explain: the HDR created by Photomatix does not have a watermark, but the tone mapped version does; yet the finished product does not have the watermark. I don't know where it went. I did not clone it out, nor erase it. I suspect when I used the tone mapping verion as a layer and changed opacity, it may have reduced it, then the second layer with a different blending mode may have reduced it further. At any rate, I can't see it.
Statistics
Place: 70 out of 84 Avg (all users): 4.8881 Avg (commenters): 4.6250 Avg (participants): 4.5000 Avg (non-participants): 4.9549 Views since voting: 1036 Views during voting: 520 Votes: 286 Comments: 10 Favorites: 0
Hmmm...Don't really like having to tilt my head to examine the pic. If you'd have wanted, you could've been more aggressive with the HDR settings to better expose the trees in the background.