How can I make a cloudy sky more interesting?

[Bill Junk]

I have an image that has a totally cloudy sky.  The clouds have some variation in brightness and it looks interesting enough to try to emphasize those variations.  What I've tried doing is to apply a layer to achieve the desired result.  I've selected the sky and then applied a Brightness/Contrast layer.  Unfortunately the sliders on this layer won't give me the range of variation I'd like to see.  I might be able to use Generative Fill but was hoping to find another way to make the sky interesting.  I then thought about using a Black & White layer on the sky.  With the various color sliders I actually can create some more variation and contrast, but the clouds shouldn't be pure B&W because they don't look natural.  I then though that if I changed the density of the mask that might work, but what that does is to apply the B&W slider changes to the parts of the image I don't want changed (the parts excluded in the full density mask).  Any good ideas out there?

[Bill Junk]

Writing the post above got me to thinking more after I posted it.  I added a Photo Filter layer with a little bit of color and low density.  That gave me the results I wanted.  I would still like to hear other suggestions if any of you have found creative ways to accomplish this.

[Semaphoric · Accepted solution]

I would select the sky, and make a Curves adjustment layer. With that, you can emphasize contrast where needed.

[Bill Junk]

Good idea.  I'll give it a try.  Thanks.

[Bill Junk]

That worked quite nicely as a clipping mask on a Brightness/Contrast layer.  Thanks again for the suggestion.

[D Fosse]

Yes, Curves is the obvious and most effective tool for this.

Brigtness/Contrast is very crude and inflexible, and experienced users generally don't use it. Anything you can do with it, you can do more efficiently with Curves.

The main problem with Brightness/Contrast, and Photo Filter as well, is that you don't really know what it does. You get no real understanding of what happens to the image, and so you're just as blank the next time, you haven't learned anything.

[josantgomez]

Your post attracted me. Having been born and lived for about 40 years in a beautiful city but with a rainy climate, for a long time, even afterwards, I could not escape the aesthetics that were so familiar to me. Today I see clouds differently. But I would like to see the full photo so I can give you an opinion. A school of French painters from the late 19th century said that if you knew how to paint clouds you were already a painter... (Of Fontainebleau?). But, if what you want is to add drama, I share what they have suggested. But without seeing it, I repeat, I wouldn't know what to think about it. André Kerstesz has a photo that I will not forget: "Clueless Cloud", a sky between skyscrapers in New York. (I'm not sure if I spelled his last name correctly, and if you search for it you may find another one with the same name but who is a philosopher. My doubt is with the letter "s")

[Bill Junk]

Sorry but I don't read Spanish.

[Bill Junk]

I did discover that Adobe provides a translation. So I will ammend my previsous response to say thank you for the information you provide.

[Bill Junk]

I did do a Google search for André Kerstesz and found the image to which you referred.  It's quite interesting.  I found a few others as well.  Thanks for the suggestion.

[josantgomez]

André es considerado maestro de maestros. Merece la pena conocer su obra y encontrarás que Henri Cartier, Brassai y otros han aprendido de él.  Y su biografía muy interesante.  En su etapa americana tuvo que vivir haciendo fotos para revistas de jardines...  Quizá te preguntes al final si no habrá sido él el primero en poner en práctica el instante decisivo... aunque las nubes no era lo suyo...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Olc_QLDPUeU

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=99vVNQBtuBo