>>8041066I'm like 66.66666666% sure that's an infrared photo, anon.
Looks like the bottom half is IR, and then it's mixed with a normal photo.
Main way I can tell, is that the grass is red also, and then suddenly shifts to a normal color near the horizon in a straight line across the image. Doesn't really make sense to me that nature would arbitrarily decide to to that. Nor have I seen grass look like that except in IR photos.
The remaining 33.3333% I'm unsure about is the trees in the background on the ground are normally colored. Since if it was IR, they'd most likely be red, unless there's some weird shit about pine trees in IR where they don't color shift. Then again, if it were 2 photos overlayed and mixed together, it'd be pretty easy (ish) to color select those trees and then mask them out so they look normal.
At the very least, the photag (or someone else) boosted the saturation by a fuck ton. Those trees would never look that red IRL. There's also fuckin pine trees in the foreground that are red, which really has me leaning towards IR. If it were a regular photo taken during the autumn, we all know that pine trees don't change their color or lose their leaves. Nor would all the random bushes and grasses on the mountain.
So yeah, changing my 66.66% to a solid 90%.
