"White Mountain Dusk"

On this evening, the sun would set over the Sierra Nevada. Problem was, the clouds were hanging to the east over the White Mountains and skies were clear over the Sierras. The only option was to shoot a front lit scene to the east in the opposite direction. Because it was clear to the west, however, I reasoned that the clouds would still gather some good twilight color. I shot for about an hour, but as the sunset time passed, I was not witnessing what I had expected, so I packed up and started heading back to my camp. As I climbed the long grade, another glance at the clouds revealed the color I was anticipating. I quickly pulled over and composed a scene that would have at least some foreground element. As I captured the scene, I also took a few moments to make a mental note of the color. I compared it to the LCD previews and also recorded a description of the colors intensity. To render the scene in post pro required some major adjustments. The deep pink in the clouds was my major guide. Was the scene this vivid or more or less? It matches my recollection, yet my adjustments were considerable. This moment reminds me of situations that we as photographers have all encountered. As we shoot the last frames, we decide to pack it up. We break down our gear, fold up our tripod and start heading back. We take one last look, only to find ourselves pulling everything back out to capture more because it looks so vivid once again. Meanwhile, I believe that what really happens is that after looking at a scene for so long, our senses become desensitized. We feel the scene is losing it's punch. Our vision becomes "numbed" by the long visual exposure. After looking away for a period of time to pack our things, we look back and have a "clean slate" impression. Our perceptions are not a constant, but an ongoing variable based on many influences. More on this subject in forthcoming posts! Please consider the Larger preview.

You need to import a Stoic tree for that foreground ridge ;-)

I find these colors/saturation to be completely natural and believable.  There is an area on the bright white area of the closest cloud that (only on the larger image) looks strangely tortured and "uncloud-like" without the softness that I expect of a cloud.  I'm sure that it is what your camera recorded but it looks off to me... maybe a little local blurring there?

Thanks Dave! Indeed, a rogue tree on that ridge would have catapulted this humble composition. I think perhaps the reason for posting this image is more for example, and not much more. I wished I had remained where I was, but I knew that getting back would have not been possible, the light changed rapidly. As for the weird cloud. Well, as you stated, it is what was recorded by the camera. There is some stray darker ice crystals wisping in front of the brighter area and the compression along with web sharpening has given it an almost crunchy look. I should have masked the sky when I sharpened it for the web, but I get lazy sometimes. The full res TIFF looks much more like what it is; virga I believe it's called. 

Mark, thanks for the story. Indeed many of us have experienced the phenomena of the best light arriving after the last bag is stowed. Regarding the post processing, I also agree that the image as presented, has the lighting and tonal balance of a "natural scene". I fully relate to the idea: does it really take this many adjustments to achieve the scene I saw with my eyes. And, as you know, sometimes the answer is, "yes it does". Regards.

Thanks Craig! I believe some feel that more than two moves in Photoshop and the image is a manipulation of the truth. I agree about the manipulation part, but not that it forces the image to stray beyond truth. In fact, I feel the unprocessed RAW file couldn't be further from the truth in many cases!