Haze and it's "Removal"

irksome?
Would you “correct” the colours of a red sunset?

Both haze and sunsets involve Rayleigh scattering; sunlight travels through the atmosphere and changes as it is scattered.
The path length of the light though the atmosphere for a sunset is longer and the light reaching us will appear more orange or more red.

Haze is more local, the light path-length is shorter and we get a bluer effect on the objects like mountains from that locally scattered light reaching them.
Both are real and both are natural effects.

Would you “correct” the colours of a sunset and remove that redness?
Probably not, and in the same way you could also artistically embrace those bluer colours caused by haze.

As I mentioned above I will also remove some haze in my images, but usually I won’t remove it entirely because it is, after all, a natural effect and can look good.
Also, the editing actions used to remove haze can end up looking very unreal

[deleted]

Do you have one for us?

[deleted]

thank you

I was not arguing.

[deleted]

I think haze is a property of the real world. It's there in the scene we want to capture to a landscape picture.
In painting art they call it aerial perspective, or atmospheric perspective. It's the painting technique to show the distance to different parts of the painting.
But it's a physical phenomenon, it's really there. We see it, our cameras see it.

You are correct, but that's aside from my point. I'm talking about its effect on the image, comparing the scene with the haze to the same scene if there were no haze.

graphics.stanford.edu/papers/glare_removal/

Sensor DR and scene DR are "apples and oranges", though. Even if your scene+optics only has 10 stops of DR, it is still beneficial to have 14 stops of sensor DR rather than 12 stops, if you plan to do much with the shadows. Sensor DR is not limited by actual recording range; it is limited by practical noise. With sensors, more DR means less noise in the deep shadows; it really isn't about "recordable range", per se.