We start the same way, but you, as I understand it, use the fill light, and I make multiple 16bit tiffs, paste them on top of each other one at a time, and mask them, either filling in with the brusn, or using the gradient tool.
That shot started grey, hazy and murky with a redeeming touch of orange in the sky.
So I took the image and pushed the clour temp right up (to change the tone to orange) and then hammered the vibrance. That gave me the orange sky. I don't normally fake stuff this blatantly, but here I had a really dramatic shot spoiled by the weather, so I had no choice.
Then I created a second version, this time with the colour temp pushed down, to give me the sea.
I pasted the sea version over the sky version, picked quick mask, and used the gradient tool fade out the sea version at the top, so the sky stayed orange.
Then I created an over exposed version of the sea shot, pasted it over the top again, and masked the water this side of the wave before deleting the rest. Then I deleted the overexposed foam to get the detail back from the darker layer below.
Finally, in an attempt to shapen up trhe hazy, dark cliffs, I created a seriosuly over exposed image vith the contrast psuhed to the max, pasted it over the top, masked the cliff, deleted, reduced the opcaity, and ran smart sharpen over it.
I don't like this shot - it has gone beyond enhanced to being a blatant fake IMHO. It is a good example of how far I can push my technique though
I'm one of those people who can't draw a straight line with a ruler, so it is all technique, not skill. The secrets seem to be big, bold strokes, and keeping any joins in the dark, not the light parts.
Another thing - I really disliked the original, but now I look at it, maye I like it beter than the fake. Here's the original, untouched...
Which do you prefer?
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/acam
http://www.pbase.com/acam/ 
