"Polar: sure, but the reflections on water, white surface etc are hard to handle with a polar filter. I earlier used circular polars, but was not satisfied. I'm also not a too big HDR fan too: it needs a tripod and those are too big and heavy to carry all day ;-)"

"Yes, I know HDR. I did not think about aperture priority, though, but it makes sense.

On the other hand, a polar filter can also visually extend the visible dynamic range by darkening the sky."

"HDR basically is not about color tuning, instead using alternate exposure times in the same image. One have to shoot an aperture priority bracketing: typically \-2, 0, +2 exposures. Aperture should be the same, to have the same depth on the whole image. Than you combine the three image: get the shadowy parts from the +2, get the sky and the well lit parts from the \-2 and the rest from the 0. Thus the result should be a well balanced image regarding exposure. That's all. Photosop "color-magic" is not a HDR must have, however often used on images called later HDR ... Nice part is the algorithmic merging of the photos ;-)"

"Well, maybe, I'm not sure. I don't think HDR could help with that. And I just don't like HDR that much. What I plan instead is to invest into a polar filter. I lost mine years ago and I did not restock it yet. That can also improve the image significantly leaving less necessity for color tuning."

"LOL. Anyway: I'm especially not fond of kitten ;-) HDR can be used carefully, to make the images more like you really see the nature. Most of the people use it to create supernaturally looking images: those I do not like either.
In this image on the other side of the lake the greens probably were greener to your eyes, and the shadows of the clouds on the mountain side were not so blueish, hmmm?"