McGregNi wrote:
None of this can distract from the achievement of Carl's excellent shots, we all agree on that, and we seem to agree also on the special compositional quality of the last one.

Its good when images raise points of interest - it certainly adds to the number of replies and views, and thats always a good thing!

Skys contain a range of brightness 'levels' like anything else - highlights, midtones, shadows. The thing about an ND grad is that it works to reduce the levels of each equally - it does not distinguish between high, mids & lows - they all come down by the set amount, be that 2 or 3 stops depending on the filter. Moody cloud shadows would normally fall within the dynamic range of the surrounding scene ... it is really the highlights and sky midtones that are outside our available DR, and that need reducing with the filter.

Because we have no way to prevent the sky shadows coming down as well with the filter, we end up with very dark sky shadows (too dark IMO as you know). This I wonder if it has become accepted as a stylistic feature, added drama which was not really there ....

When I am saying to change the sky, it is not about the general brightness levels (midtones), nor even the highlights - it is just the shadows. What I am complaining about is not the darkness of the sky overall in relation to the ground - it is in fact the CONTRAST within the sky itself ... the relationship of the shadow levels to the mids and highs within the sky. So the remedy is not to raise the brightness of the sky, but to isolate the sky shadow tones and raise them closer to the nearby sky mids., thereby REDUCING CONTRAST within the sky area. This is what I believe will lead to a better, more natural result, without sacrificing the mood or drama within a nicely balanced cloudy sky.