I tried to attenuate the intense blue spectrum in the sky and over the Chocolate Mountains on the horizon in Post-processing. In the upper image, I added some contrast and increased the overall brilliance (I hate it). In the second image, I kept all the same settings except I reduced the overall brilliance a little to add punch (I prefer this one). Now, what do you think of these versions, do they look more "natural" ???

[BigMackCam]

Definitely heading in the right direction with image #1, Richard - at least, based on my perception of colour.

It seems to me that there's a fairly heavy "blue cast" to the image - a coldness overall, despite the sunny conditions... as if the white balance is off - and it's really heavy on contrast, which I think might be contributing to over-saturation of the sky.

I hope you don't mind, but I took the liberty of making some very quick 'n' dirty adjustments to your first JPEG in Lightroom, to show you what looks more natural to me. That's not to say it's accurate to the scene (only you can know that), nor that it suits your creative style (I know you prefer very punchy images)... but at least you'll understand why I've previously commented on the above photo and others you've posted

This - to me - is a more natural rendition in terms of colour and contrast (and with a bit more work, it could be improved much further):

[RICHARD L.]

Thank you for taking the time to analyze and comment this particular image.

My vision and my memory of the scene tell me my second posted image looks more like the original scene. The asphalt was very old and heavily weathered, thus a little darker. The mountains' name is "Chocolate Mountains", so they must be some tone of brown, I presume (I am totally unable to identify which color they are, i.e. put a name on their "hue"). The Humidity level was very low in the desert (Radio station KFI said there was 6% humidity in the air), so there cannot be a blue haze over the mountain range. If I were to play "silly", I would say I prefer dark chocolate and this is the reason I removed some brilliance to the second image. The sun was very high in the sky as this is a summer image and Southern California sits at the 33rd Parallel N., so the light level was very intense.

The version you reworked seems a little "yellowish" to my eyes (I may be totally wrong, I apologize in advance) but maybe I could play a little with the White Balance.

Lastly, this picture originates from a Canon compact camera and each camera maker offers a different color palette (Canon manufactures its own sensors).

Thank you very much for your help !

[dms]

Since you are asking,
-- yes I find the blue a bit too much and the contrast too strong (but that may be me, as I never use PL filter and find Adam's skies are too strong, ...)
-- The other thing is the distant mountain is so clear (sharpened?), I would expect some haze and that would suggest distance.**

_____
** You do mention this and about low humidity. I am more used to film for outdoors, and there I believe the UV light would create the haze. Anyway if you sharpened it you may try not.

---

Last edited by dms; 06-25-2022 at 11:10 AM.

[BigMackCam]

The version you reworked seems a little "yellowish" to my eyes (I may be totally wrong, I apologize in advance) but maybe I could play a little with the White Balance.

It depends on what you're used to looking at, Richard. When you've been looking at images that are generally "too blue", correctly-balanced images will look "too yellow" initially. It takes a short while (sometimes a long while ) for the mind to adjust. When asked to pick neutral grey from a number of choices on a screen, most folks will pick one that is slightly colder / bluer than neutral grey. Similarly, folks that are used to using a laptop computer with un-calibrated, un-profiled screen will typically perceive a correctly colour-profiled screen to be too warm and yellow-ish, until they've been using it for a while and then it feels normal.

There's a couple of interesting experiments you might try, if you've the appetite to...

1) Shoot JPEG + RAW, using AWB in the camera, and the Natural or Bright in-camera colour profile (not Vibrant). With the JPEG file, allow yourself the flexibility to adjust exposure in post-processing, but don't adjust anything else. What you end up with - at least in the types of lighting and for the kinds of scenes you're shooting (where AWB will usually be reasonably accurate) - should be a good and pretty honest colour and contrast rendition. Compare it to the raw file you've processed in your normal way, and I think you'll see a big difference.

2) If you have one, use a white balance card (or, at a push, an 18% grey card) to set the camera's custom white balance prior to shooting your scene (if you don't have such a card, I'd recommend buying one, as it's a really useful and inexpensive piece of equipment to own). Alternatively, you could include the card in a test shot and use the eye-dropper to sample it in post-processing and set the white balance for subsequent shots from that. For the resulting raw file of your scene, use the camera's white balance values, choose the camera's Embedded colour profile or your software's "Standard" profile, then allow yourself only small adjustments of contrast, clarity, vibrance, saturation etc. - but no more than, say, +10 for each. The result will likely be a fairly accurate rendition of the scene, with perhaps a little extra artistic "pop".

3) Since I know you're fond of using an ND filter, try backing it off a little. I've noticed quite a few folks will always adjust their ND filters to maximum effect when shooting, and whilst it certainly looks dramatic, less is usually more with these things. Try setting it half way instead of all the way. The resulting skies will still have some drama to them, but should look a lot more natural, and you'll have a little latitude for further (gentle) adjustment of contrast and vibrance / saturation in post-processing without those skies becoming unnaturally dark and/or over-saturated.

EDIT: These experiments won't necessarily produce images that you find pleasing given your own colour perception, but they will go some way to demonstrating a fairly natural and accurate look you can use as a baseline and starting point. You can take it from there, adjusting as little or as much as you want to achieve the desired end result, but just bear in mind that the stronger your adjustments to satisfy your own tastes, the more personal it becomes - which might be perfect for you, but may look increasingly "off" to others

Thank you very much for your help !

You're very welcome

[dms]

Along w/ what BigMackCam mentioned, if you open the file and pick the white of the clouds to do a color balance, there is a very large shift in the image. (I did in Photoshop CS6 ACR.)

[BigMackCam]

Along w/ what BigMackCam mentioned, if you open the file and pick the white of the clouds to do a color balance, there is a very large shift in the image. (I did in Photoshop CS6 ACR.)

Indeed, or that white strip on the road is a pretty good reference too... at least as a baseline. At the very least, it gets an accurate green / red tint adjustment, and a reasonably neutral colour temperature... after which gentle adjustment of the latter might be needed to replicate the light for the time of day and sunlight / cloud conditions...

[dms]

Although it may be too much reduction in detail for the foreground, the reworked image perhaps has more of the sense of a distant mountains. And adjusted white balance.

[RICHARD L.]

Thank you all for your wise advice. My vision limits me somewhat and I may continue to post "strange-looking" pictures but it's not by fault of trying ...

Best Regards