Pushing the dynamic range limit on my X-T20 with this sunrise image from Newfoundland.

I exposed this pic so that the sunrise would not be overexposed with the plan to bump up the darks in post. I did it and something seems not quite right about it so please share your tips.

Looks a bit cool to me, but otherwise ok.

Did the scene really look like that to your eyes? I feel like there's a chance you've pulled the darks up too much and lost some of the natural contrast of the scene. Also looks like the darkest shadows in some of the shrubs close to the camera have no detail, which may go along with trying to pull too much out of the rest of the shadows.

Maybe not realistic, but I'm getting the picture! Tips are simple, if you exposed to sky, take it easy on the rest.
All I need to know it was kind of (nothing special) sunrise, nothing special place, but tent makes it special. Make it works this way, I don't need greens and rocks details, they are common rocks and greens. All of the drama in the tent and nobody here. It is hard to believe what it is still possible from here, Southern Ontario.

To me the photo is flat...none of the colors pop and I think that is what you were going for, a dramatic sky.

Take the raw and create two copies. Then use all three copies, one for neutral, one for highlights and one for shadows. Combine into an HDR.
You could also try to tone map the original in an HDR program or use luminosity masks to bring it back to life. A lot of options.

Care to share the raw w/ us?

Ok..... really? Here is the deal. The top image is how real life looks. No insult to the second image, or a lot of the "scenics" I've seen posted, but hyper over exaggerated color is not artistic. Its fine for what it is.... but they remind me of the 50 cent post cards I used to buy as a kind. Everyone has so gotten used to the over saturated colors from TV, they want to see everything in these "dramatic" colors.

If you are up pre dawn, before the sun has come up, these are the colors you see. And printed large, are gorgeous. The smoothness of the tonality. The gradual graduation of colors. The detail you see because they are not over exposed by highlights.

There are two distinctly different genres of scenic photographs. Those that try to amaze with their color and sharpness. Great photographer in Key West that does these with a Hassy that are extremely gorgeous. Then there are those who sooth us by wrapping us in their tonality.... calming.

The last is HDR..... which isn't an attempt to replicate nature at all, but is an interpretation of it. Nothing wrong with it. And its extremely popular. I am sure the author if this image could make it pop in photoshop or other tool.... if that was what they were trying to do. Its a mater of if the author was trying to represent something they saw - or create something they wish they say in a tool.

I lived up in the far north corner of Quebec many years ago, and to me, this is what an early morning looked like...

typically this would be done in the raw conversion, but without that option ...

Photoshop > Hue/Saturation >

reds +53 saturation
yellows +5 sat
greens +12 sat (foreground rock and hill on right)
cyans shown (foreground rock and hill on right)
blues -8 hue shift because the "beach" rocks seemed warm after pushing the reds

you gotta look at individual colors and decide what to do with each. In this photo some of the elements are lit primarily by the setting sun, but some are facing away from the setting sun (foreground rocks and hill on right) and have a cooler feel. If certain elements are pushed too far, i'd either mask off those areas before processing, or process two images and mask off with varying opacity the areas that aren't to your liking.

I created two virtual copies in LR, one for highlights and one for shadows. Combined the three in Aurora. Took that final Tiff into PS and added the original under it to get rid of some of the over saturated areas in the rocks.

Lots of good tips here.

Here is the raw: https://1drv.ms …VcP3p4YRs6DlwfK​_2R_Ce4iJP

Really interested in what some of you guys can do.

First image is Original (0), -1.5 and +1 merged in Aurora w/ a landscape preset.

I really like how you kept the detail in the clouds. What is Aurora and where can I get it?

Skylum.com

From your first images it's hard to say what you could do, but from some other edits, like DagoImaging's it's showing more of what the scene was like.

Now to me there is a lot about this image that needs fixing, not just exposure and editing.

First off, what is your main subject? Where do you want the viewer to look? What are you trying to convey with the image?

This isn't something I can answer for you, but I can make some observations.

Is the tent important? Perhaps a different composition to isolate the tent and patch of grass, removing the rocks and bushes in the foreground. To me those objects detract from the overall image. Part of that is composition. While a foreground element is important in landscape photography, the ones you chose are not the best IMO. They do not lead the viewers eyes into and through the image, but out and away. I spend too much time with them than looking at the tent and to the sky. Try to find foregrounds that lead the viewer into the photo. Leading lines, etc.

You've already seen some methods of editing improvements that can be made. I agree that your first image was too flat and did not have enough contrast and does not look natural as the rocks and foreground are too bright for how they would really look.

Dynamic Range is a good thing in a photo - and having the ability to push and pull areas because of this can improve the photo. But don't think that this just means making everything dark brighter and everything bright darker. An exposure needs balance and good contrast. The contrast in your first shot is lacking, and because you've pulled the shadows of the rocks up so much you can see color noise in them quite easily which isn't good.

I would recommend doing some reading on the Zone System which was what Ansel Adams developed. Part of the point of this is that it is completely valid to have Zone 0 and Zone 10 (pure black and pure white) in the same photo. As long as those areas don't distract from the overall shot, and the rest of the shot has a good range of values, it's not a problem. We expect certain areas in deep shadow to be just that - black. By trying to expose every single pixel and pull out every shadow, IMO you ruin the balance of an image. You do need shadow detail in most areas, but it's okay to not have it in some too. But detail doesn't mean fully bright, visible, etc. This is why a lot of HDR you see can look very cartoonish. It's not natural and it doesn't look pleasant.

This is also a reason why I still use GND filters to balance the exposure in the camera, rather than trying to "HDR" with a single RAW photo. You will get far better results in a single shot by using filters. You have to push/pull exposure areas far less that way resulting in less color noise, especially in the shadows. Barring that, you should bracket your exposures to get each important area exposed and then combine the shots in some manner be it exposure blending or HDR or whatever technique you prefer. This way you aren't trying to pull detail out of the shadows and creating so much noise in the process.

This is a super helpful comment.

I honestly don't know what I want to be the focus of the image. How do I decide that? To me the sunset and sky would be the most prominent.

Also I'm not sure what elements would lead the viewers eye in this scene but I know what you mean.

Living Daylight wrote in post #18705806
This is a super helpful comment.

I honestly don't know what I want to be the focus of the image. How do I decide that? To me the sunset and sky would be the most prominent.

Also I'm not sure what elements would lead the viewers eye in this scene but I know what you mean.

If you don't know what you want to be the main focus, you'll have a hard time producing impactful images. Sometimes you just see something and it makes it pretty obvious. This location - it seems a bit harder and not as much to work with. It's not necessarily going to have something like leading lines but removing those foreground elements present that kind of "block" your vision into the rest of the photo would help. In this case, that would mean standing somewhere else and composing the shot differently. Cropping is going to leave out too much sky area IMO.

It's also hard for others to help you decide on the subject. We all see scenes differently. I find it takes a long time to train your eye and to compose things in a way that can resonate with others. We have to be careful to assess the meaning of a subject too - something may hold specific meaning to you but not a general viewer that may not have any idea where the shot is from or recognize any landmark or things like that.