I'm interested if others share this opinion that is looks over processed because my wife thinks so as well.
However,
I've never used HDR so far on published photos. Clarity and or sharpness filters are at 0.
Vibrance is at 22 and saturation is at -5. Sky is a little bluer perhaps, but I don't think that's what's pushing it.
Edit: I'm reposting the image with different temp. I used a Lee 10 ND filter which sometimes plays havoc with temperature and tint settings.
Also I processed the sky differently.
Hi,
Yes, I also feel it is a tiny bit over processed. Especially in the green colours you see if it is the case, at least I do.
I have a friend here in Mexico and he also has always the habit of over processing and as I have has the chance to get his originals from time to time I have showed him what he is doing and how perhaps it looks more natural.
I also see a very very slight halo at the border between Sky and the mountain top with the trees. >That is normally a sign for pseudo HDR processing
One point to consider is the colour profile you use for presenting your images on the WWW. I downloaded your image and see the image is in the Adobe RGB colour profile. The only browser so far I know which interprets correctly any other colour profile then sRGB is Firefox from Mozilla.
I have made some tests and yes the images can look different ... not much but it can be possible.
OK, but here is a great problem and that is taste and how each person sees colours ... especially men do have more trouble seeing colours correctly, but OK ¿ what are correct colours ?
BTW My monitors are calibrated
Just my 2 cents ...