Would a CPL or UV filter improve this shot

Im talking about the white'ish/blue'ish tint (haze?) in the not so distant mountain.

Would using a cpl or uv filter (maybe using both?) will improve this.

Thank you for looking and advising.

Edit: Dont know if its needed but Converted in DPP and put on Daylight WB and Landscape mode, sharpness 5, everything else is 0.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

Nope, neither of them would make any difference. The white sky is caused by scattering of sunlight by water and pollutants in the atmosphere. Looking towards the horizon you're looking through a thicker layer of the atmosphere - which is why the effect is more pronounced than at the zenith.

^^^ im less worried about the white sky. Im asking about the 2nd line of mountains in the pic. Before i converted this the whole mountain kinda has a white'ish tint to it. It just turns blue when i up the saturation even by a little bit.

Hi Musashi - owing to the type/angle of lighting and the time of day, the exposure is a bit challenging.

IMO I feel that the second line of mountains would actually benefit from slightly less saturation with the associated addition of blue. Visually, as the human eye looks off towards the horizon, the landscape does tend to lighten up as you look off into the distance. This helps to enhance the sense of depth. If you look at the museum exhibits of many master painters you will see examples of this in their work. I try to use this technique in most of my landscape work when appropriate.

A lighter mountain range would also benefit the two men in the photo by setting off their heads better. Right now their black hair tends to merge with the darker landscape. - Stu

I think there's another factor. The nearby mountains - as well as the two men in the foreground - are back-lit. Thus, there are significant shadows on the camera side of them. The mountains in the distant background appear to be more front-lit than the nearby mountains and thus they appear lighter.

On a somewhat different note - if a flash or reflectors had been used to put more light on the front of the two men, there would be more contrast between them and the mountains immediately behind them.

Polarizing or UV filters could not have improved the lighting.

Different exposure settings might have made noticeable changes in the overall image.

SkipD wrote in post #11717220
I think there's another factor. The nearby mountains - as well as the two men in the foreground - are back-lit. Thus, there are significant shadows on the camera side of them. The mountains in the distant background appear to be more front-lit than the nearby mountains and thus they appear lighter.......

Good observation Skip - I'd overlooked that. Getting better lighting for that component of the image is almost more a sense of timing than anything else .

Thanks Stu and Skip! It was'nt a planned shoot, we were coming down from a ski resort and just decided to stop the car when we had a nice background. It was actually mid-day or almost mid-day, I had my flash set to manual, tv mode to 1/250, then -2/3 ec, but couldn't really overpower the sun. I tried. lol. Trial and error, and more practice is the fastest way for me to learn. Thanks for advising, I was really looking to get a cpl for my 17-55, I just thought i'd ask the question if its gonna help this kinda shot.

You're welcome Musashi .

Certainly nothing wrong with this as a "grab shot." You may want to achieve more with it technically, but it's often the subject matter and emotion that hold more meaning and tweak our memories of the good times .