In the immortal words of the late National Geographic photo editor Bob Gilka, "Kid, if you want to be a better photographer, you're going to have to stand in front of more interesting stuff."

That said, welcome to the sometimes not-so-wonderful world of the commercial/industrial photographer. As often as not, making a dramatic, exciting picture of something not unlike an ordinary light bulb in a relatively plain fixture (neither of which is in quite the sort of pristine shape you'd prefer) in such a way that it can be the eye-catching cover of a catalogue (well, eye-catching to people who are into that sort of thing, at least) is what puts food on the table. Hobbyists may scoff at the choice of subject matter, but then hobbyists always have a choice, don't they?

I suppose the first thing to do in a case like this (other than previsualizing) is to disabuse yourself of the notion that you can get it all in one shot without a lot of additional lighting and test exposures. (There was a time when that was the only real choice, and if you have the equipment it can still be the economical choice.) And by "all in one shot", I mean "all in one HDR sequence" as well. It's not that you'd need to shoot the sequence multiple times, necessarily, but that you'd need to develop it multiple times to get the best possible rendition of different parts of the image ignoring everything else in the picture. It's not like you're trying to compress the dynamic range of a scene with a long, smooth luminosity gradient (only the inside of the reflector bowl matches that description) — you have a picture with some very abrupt and radical jumps in luminosity between well-defined, distinct and easily-masked regions. Treating each of the regions as a separate problem to be solved will both save a lot of headaches and ultimately result in a better image. You have an editor that will let you combine the best elements of several images, so why not leverage its capabilities?

All of that work will get you a "reality" shot. And that may be what you want for personal or editorial work. If you're looking at something more along the lines of a commercial shot, there's still a lot of retouching to do. There always is. That spun aluminum reflector bowl is going to have scratches that run at an angle to what's there by design, and they are going to catch the light. Those scratches will be there in every single production example of the reflector, but they can't be there in the catalogue shot or people will think shoddy or used. The zinc chromate primer is uneven (it usually is; the surface is meant to be painted to match the decor). The bulb will have shadows from condensed mercury that you can't get around by cleaning the outside of the tube (although letting the bulb run for a long time before shooting can eliminate most of them). If there isn't dust here and there to deal with, there will be a prominent fingerprint that's somehow managed to etch itself into the surface somewhere. It's fiddly, painstaking work, but if you do it right, it will still look like you "have a really good camera" rather than like you created a 3D rendering.