Excellent!
A good example of using the milky-water technique to create an otherworldly feel. The tonality is spot on as well.
I have an hour or so before I go for lunch, and so I was wondering what to say about your unsettling declaration, above. (I think quickly but type appallingly.)
How can you tell that the tonality is spot on? Unless you were there, of course, but even then, your eyes would not have been able to see the scene in the same way as did the camera. Of course, on top of that, there is the inevitable time between the capture and the processing, during which the mind loses it, and has no real idea what the thing looked like at all, just a kind of generic trace memory of how such images are presented during any given era of tastes. To make things even less certain, the photographer has declared his intention of creating a series of images on the theme of blue, making reality even more unlikely in the effort to bend to a personal choice of motif. And without reality there is no way of measuring whether or not something is spot on: the call depends on an absolute.
Another problem, if the above were not sufficient, is that the person making the files then exercises his or her own sense of what looks good, what fits within his or her own ethic or even public image of style, not always the same thing: you can find yourself trapped in your own commercial bag, as it were. Reality is on a distant planet by then, and it hardly matters.
So how much is presentation a matter of personal style, a guess at what's popular and what sells? Anybody who has done stock gets the concept immediately: what's going to move and what will sit doing nothing until someone deletes it.
There is also the problem of genre; how many photographers have done exactly the same thing with the same or different rocks? How many blessed rivers and waterfalls have been photographed the same way or with faster or slower exposures, each an attempt to hit that sweet spot that might make the image different from the zillions of other similar ones? Then the realisation that hey, there is no difference at all: it's all one massive genre game, some people slightly more proficient than others.
And that the problem photography faces: it's all been done to death: from landscape through street, the best we come up with is a slight variation on the theme.
Which of course, is why the painter is the artist more often than is any photographer: he simply can't be as literal as the camera (except for very rare cases - and hell, even that's become another genre) and pretty much any painter of note will be more of an artist than your favourite snapper any day of the week if only because by his limitations he actually defines himself, as much as by his abilities. Somehow, that doesn't carry over into photography once a certain level of competence has been achieved: all you get are skilled or unskilled shooters, and digital, in making it all so much easier, has rendered that particular distinction less of a defining, separating aspect.
And that doesn't even look into the eyes of the photographer who subs out his processing.