I shot this area several times trying to include the thermal falls in context with the most dramatic skies and lighting I could find. Now I wonder if I overdid it. Does the overall scene have impact or has the impact of the sky detracted from the thermal falls? When it comes to Yellowstone, realism is a relative term, but does this scene appear realistic?
I'm good with the realism of the sky ... it can turn all kinds of colors, some more rare than others. The WHITE SNOW in the mountains give a visual clue of realism and believability to the sky that is BEHIND the mountains, yet not illuminating the mountains.
I'm diggin' the neutrality of that which isn't "sunlit", but rather illuminated by the sky (i.e. absence of the blues). Not sure if you went with a global WB that pushed your sky (and maybe the cranberry) or if you selectively separated the two.
As Karen mentioned ... the lighting is very flat at the falls. This is because it is only illuminated by the overhead sky gianormous soft box ... i.e. ultra-low contrast lighting ... without any specularity/contrast available from the sun at this hour.
We are naturally drawn to bright & contrast. The brightest portion of the sky (LHC) is in contrast with the mountain in both tone & hue. As such, it steals the show away from the low contrast values of the the falls (except for the high contrast cranberry).
Bob Jarman wrote:
I must agree with "over did" on the sky.
I'm more inclined to go the route of "under did" the falls (due to the variance in lighting contrast levels).
Took a stab at drawing the eye a bit more toward the falls, hopefully without losing the sky too much. In a rare instance, I actually ADDED some blue to the foreground color balance. Gave it a slight haircut also.
As always, S&P to taste as to how you might want to dial in the pieces of the puzzle regarding balance/weight, but hopefully this shows a shift in focal point toward the falls ... which, imo, is the point of the image.
BTW ... Nice capture. Thanks for the vicarious experience (with a little imagination) to "take me there".
Scott, Bob,
The foreground colors are actually pretty accurate. This was shot in July. There is no ice but rather travertine rock intensely colored by bacteria. I am including a closeup of this remarkable feature.
Rusty,
I think your version made some subtle improvements. Thanks
I mentioned shooting this numerous times. I was hoping for a great sunset which never occurred. This image was manufactured by adding a sky from another capture. My first attempt was really poor since the colors in the sky were intensely red and the WB in the rest of the image was cooler with blue mountains. I painted some faint red haze across the mountains and some of the foreground. I probably should have gone back to the original image to shift the foreground and midground WB towards red. After stitching in the sky, making adjustments was difficult.
I rarely do much but simple Photoshop processing so this was just an experiment which turned out to be more difficult than I expected.
The closeup really helps to reveal what we're dealing with. I had no way of knowing how much the red/cranberry was supposed to be, so I pulled it back more than I should have. Those are really excellent color features involved @ the rock. I suspected they would prove to be a natural aspect ... just didn't have a clue what it would/should be on this one.
Thanks for the vicarious experience (with a little imagination) to "take me there". 
