These are my comments on Heinz's photograph (the one posted at the start of the thread):
I assume the picture is Heinz's response to the rocks running horizontally through the image, starting at the left.
As to the composition, I feel that the image is divided 50:50 at the horizon and this gives less prominence to the assumed subject and too much prominence to the sky and the bush at the right. I guess Heinz couldn't tilt or shift his camera to get more of the area below the rocks because that area was closed off by the rocks in the foreground to the left and right. In that case, I would have changed position. I would in any event, try to avoid including the bright rock at the right edge by turning the camera to the left, which would have included more of the subject.
I appreciate the desire to get something interesting in the foreground
Moving the point of view might mean losing the bush at the right but, if the rocks are the subject, the bush is too dominant and distracting. If the bush is the reason for the photo, or part of the reason, I would alter my comments and suggest Heinz crops out the right half of the bush.
I appreciate that none of what I suggested about composisiton may be possible for one reason or another!
As to the tones, my eyes scan the picture starting at the bright rocks at lower left, flick between bright rocks in the middle distant just left of centre and the highlights in the rocks below the bush and then wander around the highlights in the sky. To get viewers to settle on the assumed subject, I would darken all the distracting areas and try to lighten up the subject in comparison.
To me the image is very grainy and I am not sure whether the subject is sharp. I do not understand the need for grain in static subjects and I consider it stops the rocks from looking "crisp" as you would normally expect them.,
In conclusion, the vista seems to present a great opportunity and I would go back and take more shots. Sorry, Heinz.