It is really a beautiful sunset. However, it is too dark in the shadow area and too much highlight over the top of the house that causes details to be blown out. It is likely your camera was set to under expose. You need to check your camera's exposure at all times to make sure it is correct.
Thanks so much for your response, I appreciate you taking the time. The area between the ridgeline and the yellow in the clouds was just sky, no clouds. So what area would be considered blown out, and should I have darkened the sky in that area ? Also, I wanted the roof to somewhat disappear rather than distract from the colorful clouds. Do you think that roof should have been more visable ?
Thanks so much again.
In post processing, if you reduce highlights, and white (slide sliders to left) and increase shadows and black (slide sliders to right) That will take care of both area's details. You can also mask and make adjustments of specific areas using the Camera Raw plugin in Photoshop.
I believe what you have done is to increase saturation, Very rare I do that. Most of the times it is ok, or I might need to take off just a small amount; that is of course if the camera was set correctly. However I still believe your camera was a little under exposed. If you had your camera set on auto, in the evenings it usually takes underexposed images. It is best to manually set your camera and monitor it as light changes fast while the sun is going down.
Thank you so much for that input and explanation. It was on manual, but I'll definitely work on that.
And I'll play a bit more with post. I really appreciate your time. Thanks again !
Jacquelin is right. You should expose for the highlights. There is no detail here, and there should be. Also, the foreground is too black. You need some detail here as well. If you wanted a silhouette effect, this shot doesn't work. This is more of an exposure problem rather than a technical issue problem I think.
Thank you for responding and for your time. As I mentioned to Jacquelin, the area between the ridgeline and the yellow in the clouds was just sky, no clouds. So there was no detail that was missing. I could have either darkened the sky, or added clouds, but I try and avoid adding things that weren't originally there. Also, I was looking for more of a silhouette, as I felt the roof would be more of a distraction than a pleasing part of the picture. You mentioned the silhouette appearance wasn't working, can you give me an idea what would have been better ?
Thank you again.
For silhouettes to work, you need more of an outline, a distinct shape. In your picture, you end up with more of a black blob at the bottom (in my view). The hill on the left of the picture also weighs it down too much on the left-hand side making it unbalanced. The white sky bit is just too bright - burnt out. You don't see any colour of the clear bit of the sky. You've ended up with a bright white patch in the middle of the photo. It also doesn't balance well with the bottom part. You have a black blob at the bottom and a white blob in the middle. The overall composition is not so good.
Cropping though would help say a 16:9 ratio and crop the bottom of the photo more and reduce the black area, but still, you have your bright sky bit.
Also, you actually don't have to use manual mode for such a shot, but using either aperture or shutter priority, and then use exposure compensation.
The white sky here, cannot be fixed in post-editing as there is no detail to recover.
This photo was accepted by seven other stock sites...
I found that Adobe stock refuses a lot of pictures that others providers let pass ... mostly refusals have a good reason.
I'm in-line with Jacquelin and Ricky on the picture. Pictures like this are difficult to shoot, because of the limited dynamic range of the camera sensor (or even film...). That's why filters are still important (real filters, not filters in post production).