like I said, I do a lot of photography, aNd have noted the things I noted aS they are familiar techniques to me- The dynamic range is too great for a simple straight out of camera shot-The shadows have been lifted- this isn’t something that a long exposure will accomplish- it has to be done post process- and the color is far too saturated- and it has a heavy vignette as stated before- The composition is incidental to the points brought up- it has nothing to do with shadows, color, light etc-
These of course are personal preferences- I don’t particularly like photos that manipulate the dynamic range so much, nor that boost the color saturation to such a degree-
there are some other indications as well, such as stars I nthe sky- long exposure would cause ‘trails’ in the stars because of rotation of earth- (depending on how long the exposure is)- They would be blurry- and look like streaks- to me this photo seems to show some as streaks, some as sharper points of light- but it’s hard to tell with a small photo
you can see the sky is blotchy I n the light area- an indication of lifting the darks in the sky and of color manipulation- A straight out of camera shot would have the sky much smoother looking- it was pushed quite far-
The dynamic range isn’t as great as you say it is. Everything in the shot is dim compared to daylight (look at the shadow of the plane (it’s black)), but is made to look bright by the long exposure. And there is a slight amount of blurring, but an exposure of around 60 seconds isn’t going to cause that much, and that’s all that’s needed.