If this, like the previous ones you posted, is processed in C1, I really like how you're getting it to handle skies.
Most converters add a strong s-curve into the RAW-process. This ends up with bright (and visually pleasing) pictures. But it reduces the contrast in skies too (which are a bright part of a picture). Therefore you recover highlights in the sky to get the details back there.
In C1 you can choose a linear curve at the beginning and use the recovery slider for the darks which acts like adding exposure to rather darks than brights. In the end, the result of both ways is quite close but with the "linear" way you do not touch the sky very much.
In the picture of Sweden, the sky was already perfect in that night. I recovered the trees and added a vignette from the top and the bottom. That's it. The first picture of Chur is a completely different story. The sky was dull and grey and I tweaked with several layers on the sky to get it to the final result. IMO the processing of sky is very dependable to the foreground. The more I push the foregroud the more I have to adjust in the sky too. In the Chur picture the foreground was very dark without visible contrast. To match fore- and background in the way I want I had to push brightness in the foreground and reduce it in the sky.
Here is another one. The closer sky and landscape are the more processing is in the picture. (Sadly with some strong motion blur)
It's all about shooting sceneries with more than 20 stops of light with a camera that can measure around 14 and make it visible with 8 stops. To get it visually pleasing you have to create an illusion.
Rheintal
(a7RII + Sony FE 70-300/4.5-5.6 G OSS)