blown-out sky

[nartreb]

Yes, I know I should have used a filter and/or bracketed the exposure. Yes, it's slightly tilted.
Thought I'd offer the result shown here as a challenge to digital post-processing masters. I know the original sky color is unrecoverable, so don't limit yourself by what was actually there. Can anybody fill in what *might* have been there?

(click to enlarge)

 

[^MtnMike^]

A quick one (just a quick mask using the original image and then a sky pasted under from another picture):

^MtnMike^

 

[DougPaul]

A quick one (just a quick mask using the original image and then a sky pasted under from another picture):

There is the minor problem that the clouds don't appear in the reflection off the water...

Doug

 

[^MtnMike^]

Good catch Doug! *Fixed*

^MtnMike^

 

[nartreb]

I like it, Mike!

 

[DougPaul]

Good catch Doug! *Fixed*

Rats! Now I have to work harder to tell the fakes from the real ones...

Doug

 

[Tom Rankin]

Rats! Now I have to work harder to tell the fakes from the real ones...

Doug

Yeah, now I'll be suspicious of great looking sky!

Actually I thought the picture was all about the beaver, not the sky...

 

[forestgnome]

beautiful image

 

[ALGonquin Bob]

Nice photo and a great fix. The beaver adds interest. The easy digi-fixes are nice, but the result for me is that I can no longer marvel at the "great nature shot", because even so-called professional nature photographers alter their images (Ex.: add a blue sky and clouds, or even add the animal in the water - who would know?). Though for images like this, or for most of what I shoot myself, it doesn't really matter if it's "photography" or "photo illustration".