I'll be the odd man out I guess. I don't like it. The composition is good but the processing in the sky is very very obvious. It doesn't look natural at all. Sorry.
Duhhh... this is the "Experimental" area. It isn't supposed to look "natural". Um, that's the point. It's supposed to look the way I want it to look. Which, BTW, is what every poster of every image on every section of POTN is after - some go for feigned realism however. But there ain't no such a thing. Photo-realism is a pretention. The question is NEVER, "does an image look 'natural'". The questions are, "Does an image resonate? Does it communicate? Does it sing? Is it poetry? Does it trigger an emotion? Does is share an idea? Is there more than a glimpse of value in it? Does it tell a tale? Does your mind demand to fill in the back-story? Will you return to it? Does it haunt you like that tune you cannot stop humming? Does it continually payoff if you do return? Is the viewer rewarded beyond a mere "Wow!"? Is it authentic? Does it make you wonder? is it a question, or an answer?
Robert Frank wrote, "a photograph is a portrait of a photographer at the moment he made the photograph." And revealing portraits are complex, rarely are they 'natural'.
If anything ought to be 'natural' it should be a rapport between artist and audience. Mostly, postings at POTN are not for legal or scientific use. So all of them strive to communicate more than the 'natural.' Many don't make it. Some though... soar. And the in the best, the intention of the image, when it is undserstood by the vierwer, is considerably greater than the image itself.
Thanks, while you may have missed why the sky doesn't appear 'natural' you noticed that it is an 'obvious' element in a larger narrative. And that's the beginning of communication. The next step is to question, "Why?" 
Thanks for sharing.
