[dms]

actually looking at it more the lighting is rather confusing--possibly photoshop but perhaps combination of partly higher clouds resulting in areas not lit well and some lit well, as well as reflected light. Because even in the distance areas seem lit from above--and yet some shadow (left side of valley) suggest contre jour/side lighting.

[song_hm]

actually looking at it more the lighting is rather confusing--possibly photoshop but perhaps combination of partly higher clouds resulting in areas not lit well and some lit well, as well as reflected light. Because even in the distance areas seem lit from above--and yet some shadow (left side of valley) suggest contre jour/side lighting.

The top edge shows patchy clouds, this tends to support your theory of selective lit area. the shadow on lower rightmost rocks suggest lighting from the left side.

I am still wondering how the overall look was achieved though.

[dms]

The overall look is due to the scattering/excess of blue light which causes the loss of detail in the distance. This (and difference in size) is what suggests distance in mountain photography.

As I said earlier it is the reason to NOT use UV filters--anyway with film as the UV filters the UV light that registers as blue light in the film. Thus w/ a UV filter the distant scene is sharper and thus seems not as far away/less dreamy.

I don't have much experience with digital in this area--but presume the sensor does not (I gather) register UV as blue. Actually with digital a pale blue filter may (thus) enhance the effect.

[Anvh]

The filter on the sensor and the coatings on the lenses filter UV and IR light.

[Sagitta]

There definitely appears to be some artificial lighting going on. Its either a sunset or sunrise shot, which means those top-lit flowers are being illuminated by something behind and above the photographer.

I think they also did a selective exposure boost (or vice versa) in post, since the light travels up the valley in a pretty unnatural looking manner.

I suspect its not HDR but an orton effect in play (or perhaps and ortonized HDR image, I've done that before).

Here are few orton shots that that shot reminds me of I've done in the past...










FWIW, those shots all took very, very little post work, its a pretty simple technique and can be tweaked to roder depending on how your taste for it goes. There are a lot of resources online that will step you through how to do it - the only trick after that is practicing until you find a way you like.

[Imcalfin]

The Orton effect is great fun to (ab)use. The intended audience for the first two pictures quite liked it. She was somewhat disappointed by the absence of the little princess with her white pony, though. The last one is a bit more restrained (the effect is limited to the upper midtones and highlights). All three have been tweaked and mangled in ways that no photograph should be and are in no way representative of what might have been the reality at the time.

When used in moderation a slight Orton effect does seem to have its uses. It seems to make those damnable little hotspots that bright sunlight through foliage produces not quite as nasty.

Links to a larger version below each picture.


https://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/NGpiQAnDyK9suGTDWQN3FNMTjNZETYmyPJy0li...eat=directlink


https://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/x2uuh9VyZUpG41rRktT2ItMTjNZETYmyPJy0li...eat=directlink


https://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/zDp5196ra3A3uezJn1lsddMTjNZETYmyPJy0li...eat=directlink