The original image has the sky over exposed, it was metered off the trees. It was 100% overcast with some variation in darkness.
I was shooting 1 stop brackets, but I didn't for this one.
I tried to bring some sky and the mountain back by reducing it's exposure 1 stop.
I also gradient warmed the image and I enhanced the blue tint of the sky mask. I think that's why that part of clouds looks blue.
The image was already red and blue-ish naturally. I thought it would look more interedting with a orange and a blue tone.
The original is 60mp, I compressed it to 2ish so I'm not posting so many huge files. I'll try something less compressed next time.
If it was my image, I would have no hesitation in replacing the sky with a similar looking overcast sky. In this scene it would be quick and simple to do.
For goodness sake, there is no cliff. That's just the STEPS! The drop of the steps ranges from 12 inches in the middle to 4 feet on the ends.
Here's an unedited photo of the end of the pool where the U shaped steps are. You can see all the elements - the steps, the solar floats, the waterfall, the vintage concrete blocks used for the edging - all the stuff that shows up in my set. It was simply the angles and play of light on the surfaces that made them look interesting enough to capture some abstracts from.
No one is trying to trick you or anyone here. Photoshop and similar programs are not an evil force but a set of tools we can use or not, according to our own wishes, with our own photos that we share here among online colleagues. If we use editing tools, most of us will gladly discuss them, as some people have in this week's thread, because that is how we learn new things about how those tools work, how we learn to bend them to our will to get the look we want in our own images.
It's surprising how we can look at a photo and make "assumptions" about how part of that abstraction relates to our experience, what they represent in reality. And because we often don't realise that our interpretation is based on a series of initial assumptions (especially when we glance) the deductions we make often get treated as fact.
It's not wrong, only human. And it gives a window into how we actually view and make sense of photos. One small incorrect assumption and we can reach a deadlock about "truth" because we don't examine the nature of the base assumptions we make, we just "assume" we saw an absolute truth. "It's a photo, a product of science and can be explained by reason."
"Ah, but you view it as a human, and very often that can't."
That's kinda the point, there is a vertical drop in the image where one is not expected to be and if you decide it's flat then it must look odd for another reason.
You'd be surprised just how much glancing with a strong confirmation bias really does distort what you see. I suffer terribly, I must do because the way some of your images look on my screen...
LOL, I see what you did, you big kidder. Associate my point of view with humour. LOL what a fool I am.