(Slightly edited as I refined my ideas of what you were looking for, then saw the other reply, then just now saw your latest specification... And decided I've covered enough of the bases, so not adding more to it. Already it's grown into a sprawling mass of "if"s, "but"s and "maybe"s that you will just have to have fun picking through and sifting your own wheat from the chaff...
The better chlorophyl-ish compounds for the environment would be the colour of the light they don't
choose to 'process', as you've said. Green plants, unsurprisingly, don't absorb much green, taking in mostly blue-end light (strongest in sunlight) and red-end light (not sure if there's an advantage to that or that's just an add-on capability of a the undesigned system).
But a cool red star would probably demand extra attention for the red (making for more blue-green reflectivity), but then an intensley blue star might actually be more than intense enough, so a very light-shade (reflective of much of the unnecessary light) of blue may be protectively coloured in the same way. (Probably more due to adjustably-prevalent basic 'sunscreen' molecules than a 'light rejecting version of chlorophyl'.) Or they just develop more mechanical self-shading techniques, but the look
of the vegetation would be much the same regardless of which absorb-and-reflect balances are made.
By human eyes, that is. If the spectra involved are shifted significantly then the parts that matter to the plant might be beyond where we'd see. We'd see just the reflected spectrum in our own range of experience, an otherwise unconsidered artefact of the the real 'aimed for' absorbtion range. Which, along with evolution's "good enough" method of developing biological pathways (alongside actual influences such as being habitually in extremely high/low-light locations in the biosphere) doubtless leads to the full range of non-green photsynthesising molecules.
An intensely red-tended star wouldn't have much of either the green or
blue to be bothered about, whilst it concentrates on whatever it can do to grab the quanta of the red photons. But any absortion (other than the likely self-defeating majorly red/orange-reflecting hues) could be represented.
The big problem is aiming for the "so odd it must be alien" territory, like Mister Spock's copper-based green blood, but actually describing a possibly exotic but definitely Earth-bound combination (ok, so hemocyanin
is seen as blue, not green, but with a twe@k...). So, that said, you can probably just go with whatever you consider aesthetically satisfying.
Then realise that you may be looking at your bright blue foliage under the persistent 'sunsetlike at noon' red star (ignoring atmospheric effects on top of that) and then the vibrant colour does not
reflect well, because it isn't being lit
by much blue in the first place. So it may look quite dark, with yellow or maroon tints from the nominally fringe optical components that are
(Ok, so perhaps you have some artificial "White" or "Earth daylight" or even "Earth's incandescent/flourescent" flavour of illumination brung there. It might be worth that being described as the dark, seemingly muddy-brown vegetation under the natural daytime sky suddenly shining azure or indigo as artificial illumination more suited to a visitor is casually played or purposefully shone upon the immediate environment. Perhaps striking patterns shine out, like the UV clues we cannot see in our own plants without special photography, left there originally for the local equivalent of bess for whom the UV clues would be just too poorly serviced by the star's usual emissions, so they instead are 'unusually' perceptive within our very own spectral range, with co-evolved plants suitably obliging them in the dance of mutual adaptation.)