>>3994512>Pulling is exactly what you do when you want more details on the highlights thoTrue, but the look anon is after is the opposite: he wants bright, almost blown highlights, to stand out from a darker sky.
>>3994154Anon this is not a good example for filter usage. It's overcast. With overcast skies it really doesn't matter what filter you use, it's like using no filter at all. Everything is the same colour, so even if the eye is picking up formations of darker and lighter clouds in the overcast sky, a colour filter won't increase their contrast in the film.
>>3994155This is better.
And yeah, using a cpl on top of your filter is a good way to get more contrast and darker skies.
Aside from that, time and atmospheric conditions will affect how dark your sky is. In general, the more blue your sky, the better a red filter will work. Anything that causes the sky to wash out a bit with the naked eye, like mist or haze with high humidity, etc., it will cause it to not darken enough with the filter.
Also, you're using a deep red (3-stop) filter and not a 2-stop one, right?
If you wanna go harder you can try some of the more extreme, near infrared filters.
Keep in mind, many finished pictures you see are a product of gradual ND filters or/and manipulation in the darkroom (burning in the sky, works great if the burn is with a #5 filter, so as to keep the clouds bright while darkening the surrounding sky).
Something like this (
>>3994585) for instance would be ideal to do in post with burning in the sky (or to an extent in-camera with a GND).
That almost black part on the top right is virtually impossible to get with colour filtration alone, at the very list it'd need cpl+red or gnd+red. Or you can do it more easily and with more control in post.
The only time I remember getting super crisp clouds and dark skies with a single filter, was with an IR filter. Second biggest effect, CPL+red filter. Practically, I'd carry a yellow filter and CPL using either or both.
