PGAero wrote in post #6337901
Radtech1 and I are saying the same thing. Your brighter exposures (the one you're using for the mountains) is so bright in the snow that the color of the sky is blown out. You've lost that beautiful amber/orange/pink mix that makes the sky look so interesting.
I hope you can work through this. It's a beautiful scene, and a great learning experience.
For the record, I don't know what I'd do if I were in your place, because I have never used any photo editing software beyond adjusting curves and sharpness. I wish I could help more... but I'm learning as we type.
Take care,
~P
I think we're confusing each other here....
The sky is one layer all by itself and everything from the mountain ridges on down is another layer.
In order to get a nice rich sky, I need it to be less exposed than the rest of the scene. Obviously, if the entire scene were exposed for only the sky, you wouldn't be able to see anything except the snow (maybe) and the stream as it's as bright as the sky.
So, my task is to substitute the darker sky INTO the version that holds detail in the mountains, the pine covered hills and the grassy meadow.
However, the stream is also an issue because it's so bright.
Ultimately, I think I'm trying to do too much with too few layers. The more I study this the more I see I need separate handles on:
- The Sky (levels and saturation)
- The snow-capped, bare-rock mountains (levels, white balance and saturation)
- The Pine Hills (Levels and contrast)
- The Grassy Meadow (Levels, Saturation, White Balance and Contrast)
- The Stream Highlights (Detail, White Balance and Levels)
- The Stream Mid Tones (Detail, Saturation and Levels)
I've been trying to work with only two levels but I think it needs to be surgically split into about six. 
So, back to the drawing board.
I certainly appreciate everyone's interest and willingness to play along! 
