Ruthlessrider

Not sure how to do that since there is a file size limitation. You can see I am rather new this site.

BobHartung Loc: Bettendorf, IA

This can also happen to a true 16 bit file in ProPhoto color space with a too zealous adjustment. YouTube abounds with methods to combat and correct. I have also found Luminosity Masking helps to a great degree.

Ruthlessrider

Thanks, I’ll check it out.

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

Excellent advice, Bill.
--Bob

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

Thanks.

When our lab had customers send us JPEGs that needed "more adjustments than there were tones available to adjust," my color technician would send me the files. I'd usually do that "convert to TIFF, adjust, convert back" trick, getting whatever I could out of what was there. It was never perfect, but usually better than what we were able to do by editing the JPEGs directly.

We got a lot of files that had been saved in-camera as medium size files, saved at maximum compression/minimum file size. That's penny-wise and pound foolish in 2022, and although everything was more expensive for its size in 2005, it was stupid then, too. My advice was always to record the largest pixel dimension size and the largest file size possible.

Our industry did not use raw files. So we had all sorts of advice for customers about white balance, metering, lighting ratios, camera menu settings...

These days, it is a LOT easier to work with raw data, but there is still a lot of finesse to learn to avoid artifacts of whatever type. I've seen some really good advice in this thread about masking and would encourage folks to experiment. Einstein's statement that, "If you keep on doing what you're doing, you'll keep on getting what you always got," is worth remembering.

Testing the ranges of all controls on the camera and in software is always a good thing. "Know the limits and stay within" is my motto, until I need a special effect.

Orphoto Loc: Oregon

Ruthless,
The answer will in part depend on which versions of Lightroom Classic you are using. The general principle as noted by others is to refine the mask used when you darken the sky. What is happening is that a thin band of original sky is showing through right along the ridge lines. In a perfect world the mask exactly matches ridge pixel for pixel.

In versions of Lightroom 1-3 years old you can use luminosity ranges to refine your selections. The most recent version seems to have dropped that but the auto sky selection works out very well. Either way you can enlarge the portion in question and either add or delete the selected zone using careful brush work. And yes, feathering the brush makes the edges less obvious.

When adjusting, realize that whiter bands of sky show up more obviously than do darker bands of corrected ridgeline. In other words, if you can't quite hit it just right, err on the side of including too much ridge rather than not enough sky.

Ruthlessrider

Thanks for the info. I’ll will give that a try also.

via the lens Loc: Northern California, near Yosemite NP

Did you go back through the image history in Lr to find out when the white line occurred? Sometimes this can be helpful. Do be sure to then click on the last, top, correction in the Lr history to ensure that you don't change anything if you want the image to remain the same. Then create a virtual copy from the original image and process up to that point and this way you can experiment at the point at which the line occurred? You may not be able to enhance the sky like you want or you may need to do it with a different tool. Not knowing what you did exactly or how you did it I cannot tell you how to fix it (sorry but my crystal ball is not working tonight...:). Retracing your steps is the best way to learn the program and processing in general.