How can I make my shots look like this one?
I added an emphasis to the question you asked, which is pretty much the answer: You make an image like that.
There's no way your camera will produce an image like that directly. No matter what settings you dial in. You have to apply some heavy post processing to get an image like that, the steps are usually:
- The image you are showing is very likely an hdr image, which is a blend of multiple different exposures.
- Add saturation
- Add contrast
- Add more saturation
- Add more contrast.
- Add even more contrast so parts of the clouds turn very dark or even black. If your image looks as unrealistic as the one posted, you're done
As you only have a single image, you can still add more and more saturation and contrast, which will bring you closer to other image. However, there are a few other things to consider, too:
- Pick more interesting scenery. Your image shows some green hills whereas the other image shows distinguished peaks, with different vegetation (and even lack thereof) and a lot of sky. Besides the post processing, the other image simply has a more interesting subject matter, which improves the image.
Pick more interesting weather. The other image was shot at a very sunny day. The clouds throw shadows with hard edges onto the land, which results in brighter and darker patches of land in the image. The clouds are individual entities in the image. Your image was taken at a more overcast day. The shadows on the land do not have as hard edges as in the other image. The single cloud in your image is more of a curtain, which is less interesting. That's because texture is usually perceived to be more interesting than a solid color. If you compare the skies: yours is pretty a single color, whereas the other shows many patches of white and blue.
A polarizer might help cutting through the mist of the clouds to get a less dull image.
I thought I give it a shot, threw the image into Lightroom to play around with it and see what works and what does not work.
Nothing new here =)
Oh look, there's detail in the sky! The landscape didn't take the edit too badly either. What the meter considered "right" might not have been the best choice for exposure.
Even more detail in the sky. You cannot see it in the low resolution jpeg, but reducing the highlights by that much introduced some artefacts in the clouds. This is where shooting RAW helps or the aforementioned HDR. Both give you more room to work around the limited dynamic range of your camera.
This helps getting the landscape back to a good brightness level.
Reducing the exposure at the beginning helped to stop the whites from clipping. But even after that, there are still no true blacks in the picture. For this shot, I'd say there should be some darkness between the trees of the forest. That mostly went missing due to the mist.
This contrast brings out the details. Look at the trees in the foreground (around the patches of grassland).
this adds saturation and intensifies the colors.
hue: green +20
The grassland now looks greener than before.
hue: aqua -30
This was an attempt to reduce the blue color cast of the mist even more. The results are very subtle if at all visible. Changing the white balance would probably have been the better tool to get rid of the blue color cast.
disclaimer This is in no way saying this image should be edited this way. As some of the annotations point out, some of the modifications are too much (because the jpeg image material doesn't take them well or they are just generally over the top) while others are very subtle. Personally, I wouldn't necessarily edit this file this way. This is meant to be a starting point. Most of the edits were motivated by the overall dullness of the original image due to mist, which is why the result is quite punchy.
If you cannot spot the differences between two steps, download both files and toggle between them in an image viewer
I'd rather keep my image original than adding some effects
As pointed out in the comments, instead of dismissing all edits, try to find your edits (which of course might be no edits). In general, no image is complete when it comes out of the camera. This was true in the film days and remains true in digital. You aren't doing photojournalism or product photography. If I were travelling to some remote place and all I could get were some dull images I'd give more severe editing a try, because it's not the weather that I was trying to photograph, but the scenery.