I always thought Alpenglow was that pinkish color casting itself on the opposite surface,(in this case, mountains), from the sunset and most certainly, after the sunset. An example from my neck of the woods.

SoCalHiker wrote:I agree that some are really nice, but I just don't understand the obsession with those photos. As soon as there is some part of the mountain illuminated with some sort of reddish warm light the photo is considered "great"

I think what it is for me is the fact these moments are generally very fleeting and only last a few short minutes. Like Mental says, you can spend all kinds of time positioning and miss the shot you want cuz it only lasts 30 or 40 seconds.
Another reason I think they're popular is "Alpenglow", like sunsets and some other settings, is the photos are kinda tough to mess up.




I know...shameless plug.

Sorry.. didn't realize I pasted in a POSTER!

dskoon wrote:I always thought Alpenglow was that pinkish color casting itself on the opposite surface,(in this case, mountains), from the sunset and most certainly, after the sunset. An example from my neck of the woods.

Really nice photo. That certainly seems to qualify by my interpretation.

For crying out loud, Guido! I'm guilty as charged !!! : ))

But .. I seemed to get many hits on this one, and it was "morning glow" rather than alpenglow.

Didn't the word "alpenglow" originate in the European Alps ???

lcarreau wrote:For crying out loud, Guido! I'm guilty as charged !!! : ))

But .. I seemed to get many hits on this one, and it was "morning glow" rather than alpenglow.

Didn't the word "alpenglow" originate in the European Alps ???

we all are in one way or another

I don't know whether it originated in Europe but "Alpengluehen" is certainly commonly known there.

Have a good one.

SoCalHiker wrote:

dskoon wrote:I always thought Alpenglow was that pinkish color casting itself on the opposite surface,(in this case, mountains), from the sunset and most certainly, after the sunset. An example from my neck of the woods.

Really nice photo. That certainly seems to qualify by my interpretation.

The Sun has set at the photographer's viewpoint, but by the shadows on Hood, the Sun looks to be at least partially visible from points up on the mountain. Is that true? If so, it would not qualify as alpenglow as defined in your post.

SoCalHiker wrote:Also, "Alpenglow" in its truest meaning is not illumination of the mountain with the last rays of the setting sun. It appears <b>after</b> the sun set and the mountain is illuminated <b>indirectly</b> by the sunrays that reflect from clouds or particles in the sky.

Alpenglow is direct illumination by refracted rays of the sun. As you can see from the above photos, you can see the colors of the rainbow, especially yellow, orange, red, and purple.

True, the sun may have set but due to either elevation, refraction, or both, the subject is still directly illuminated with light.

The subject may be mountains, or it may be the clouds above. Either way, illumination is direct.

Sierra Ledge Rat wrote:True, the sun may have set but due to either elevation, refraction, or both, the subject is still directly illuminated with light..

My vote weighs in with Mr. Ledge Rat. Wiki is wrong, it's direct illumination. The sun has set where you are standing, but if you were on the summit of the illuminated mountain you'd have a direct line of sight to the sun.

My shameless alpenglow plug:

http://www.summitpost.org/image/326520/ ... -Over.html

P.S. A long, thorough discussion about alpenglow here, with the direct illumination point debated:
http://photo.net/nature-photography-forum/00FRnS

Day Hiker wrote:

SoCalHiker wrote:

dskoon wrote:I always thought Alpenglow was that pinkish color casting itself on the opposite surface,(in this case, mountains), from the sunset and most certainly, after the sunset. An example from my neck of the woods.

Really nice photo. That certainly seems to qualify by my interpretation.

The Sun has set at the photographer's viewpoint, but by the shadows on Hood, the Sun looks to be at least partially visible from points up on the mountain. Is that true? If so, it would not qualify as alpenglow as defined in your post.

SoCalHiker wrote:Also, "Alpenglow" in its truest meaning is not illumination of the mountain with the last rays of the setting sun. It appears <b>after</b> the sun set and the mountain is illuminated <b>indirectly</b> by the sunrays that reflect from clouds or particles in the sky.

Dayhiker, you're right; my mistake, and I confess that's not my photo, just one I pillaged that I felt fit my definition. Good eyes, you have, as we've all long known. Guess I didn't look closely enough at the upper, sunlit part, but was mesmorized by the pink.
I don't know. I'll let you guys hash out the scientific differences of particles and light refractions. Interesting stuff and a great discussion, along with photos.
Again, I was felt that when I was witnessing Alpenglow, it was more like the afterglow of the sunset, that pinkish twilight reflecting on the mountains, and not sunlight spilling over the horizon which obstructs your own view of the sunset.
Carry on.
And. . . so I guess by my definition, in the pic I provided, the lower part of the mountain is bathed in Alpenglow, while the upper, last sunlight on the rocks, is not Alpenglow, but rather, simply the remaining rays of sunlight.

Sierra Ledge Rat wrote:Alpenglow is direct illumination by refracted rays of the sun. As you can see from the above photos, you can see the colors of the rainbow, especially yellow, orange, red, and purple.

True, the sun may have set but due to either elevation, refraction, or both, the subject is still directly illuminated with light.

The subject may be mountains, or it may be the clouds above. Either way, illumination is direct.

Exactly my point. Indirect illumination for me means that the sunrays have no straight path to the mountaintop because the sun has set already. Rather they hit clouds or else above, get refracted and then hit the mountaintop. Of course at the end sunrays directly hit the mountain, otherwise you would not see anything. It's just that they don't come from a straight line from the sun (in my interpretation that is indirect illumination from the view of the sun as the origin).

Sure looks like nice Alpenglow to me. .

Nelson wrote:P.S. A long, thorough discussion about alpenglow here, with the direct illumination point debated:
http://photo.net/nature-photography-forum/00FRnS

Nice discussion, thanks for the link. AS one of the posters in that link stated, "Finally, I hate to dispute with Lilly, but Alpenglow is still very much a form of Direct light. If you stood on a moutaintop bathed in alpenglow, you would see the sun."

I think all of the above qualify as alpenglow. All show direct illumination of the mountains, or the clouds, or both. If you were up in the clouds in the last two photos, you would still see the sun from up there.

Even the photo posted by dskoon shows direct illumination, you can still see the shadows on the mountain.