Yes, Hugo, indeed! I think that this is the great advantage of a photo - it simply sublimes a huge number of parameters, techniques etc, to a simple thing that is pleasant to view. (Wonder what kind of complex mathematical mapping could ever make this possible to grasp the analytical way - perhaps it is impossiblr?)
Your idea about condensation - yes! That *has* to be a very important part of it! I remember that I had to clean the lens thorougly afterwards. And now that you say it, of course! A thin, thin, thin layer of humidity on the lense! It *has* to work the way a cloud enhances the redish hues on sunset or sundive! Thank you for enlighten me!
Also, thanks a lot for the detailed explanations about your work with PS! I really thought of extremely complicated procedures that need hours and hours of work!
Hi Nick, thanks for your explanation. Very enlightning! In most cases theres so much more behind a photo that it's virtually impossible to grasp it; all one can do is explore his / her thoughts based on views and preset preferences...
I think the refraction of the light is plausible, and I can also imagine some slight condensation on the lens. It sure is very damp in it's feel.
In my version, I think I did the following, not sure if I remember every step correctly, didn't keep the file open. I used PS CS2, and started with applying a subtle Shadow / Highlight filter (a combination of contrasts and levels in older versions of PS) Then, I copied the image onto a new layer, and set the layer mode to "soft light". Flattening the layers again, I increased the saturation in the yellows, reds and greens, and desaturated the blue tones, as well as decreased the luminosity of the blue tones. That's about it... :)
Hi Hugo, and many many thankds for the detailed critique.
This image has a rather long story full of problems. You know, sometimes at higher altitudes there is a kind of humidity in the air that is not as dense as fog but nonetheless it influences vision in a ratehr peculiar way. Everything looks so wet then. Now, since it was about life, and since water is one of the most important things to support life, I wanted to capture that peculiar atmosphere of humidity in the air. I had luck one day, that wet looking atmosphere was there, and I took many photos, but after processing they didn't look the way I thought. They were rather milky and really not warm at all. I gave it another try correcting all expositions to 2/3 step darker and it worked well for some images. It must be the combined effect of that misty atmosphere and underexposing - what you already found out. I have to experiment more on that, since I don't really understand why underexposition in this case works in such an unexpected way. It must have to do (also) with light difraction on the tiny drops of water - but I am not quite sure.
The other thing you mentioned, the tilt... well, it really looks like a tilt but I had a rather horizontal position of the camera. It is the shape of the lake and of the mountains at the distance, and the section I captured that makes it look like tilted. I try to illustrate that on the attached image. And imagine, I didn't even noticed when I was shooting that, because I was too concentrated at the foreground.
I find the image that you created using PS very interesting. It has a bit of that vintage coloring and grainyness from the first steps of color photography, and I might be biased here, but it brings into my mind all those memories of my first botanic books with color images when I was in school. May I ask how you achieved that? I find it great in a very different way. Unusual and quite surprising since the foreground is so sharp and the background so grainy - quite a nice thing in my eyes!
Thank you very very much for taking the time and for the kindest comments!
Excellent choice of low PoV and shallow DoF. Strange effect in the tones and appearance, there seems to be a slight haze over the image. And looking more closely, the image tilt (far end of the image, near the lake) is quite unexpected. Neither of them affect the image, though, and it does create a rather surprising effect, which I like in this image. Quite unusual, but effective.
I fiddled around in PS a bit, to see what created that effect, and I feel it's a bit underexposed. (again, not a negative critique, I think in this case it really does justice to the feel of the image and the thought you've put in the about) In the attachement I placed a slightly manipulated image, not as suggestion or meant as improvement, though, just to illustrate the differences...) Good image, very creative!
0 
