As I observed this image, I did not see the drama or the emphasis on the light cutting through and illuminating the lone orange tree. As a member of the audience of this image, I don't think that you achieved your desired intent. I don't think that doing something to be different is reason enough for the basis of an artistic decision. I'm not someone who believes that photography is supposed to represent reality. In fact, I take the opposite stance. No photograph can ever be representative of reality. Once the light hits the front element of the lens, it is permanently changed and what was reality has become something else.
To be honest, what you have here looks like a mistake in processing. I'm so focused on the flat gray sky, which appears to painted on, muddy midtones in areas, and halos at the ridges of the mountains that I cannot take seriously what has been presented. I'm not trying to say that a photo must be high contrast or that it can't have areas lacking in detail. On the contrary, many good photographs break the "rules." However, there is intent behind these decisions, and they are apparent and deliberate. These processing or photographic choices enhance the photographer's intent and improve the story being told by the photograph. I don't believe that your processing choices have achieved such goals.
Lux's post is an example of how a processing technique, such as desaturation, can be used as a tool that enhances the photograph. A story about the approach of the colors of autumn can be told, or perhaps the gray barbed-wire fence has a more sinister meaning when compared to the bright, lively colors of the trees. It could be a story of a transition between the colors of autumn to the gray of winter. In my opinion, your processing has gone too far.
Please do not take my comments as being mean-spirited in any sort of way. I am merely giving you my honest opinion, which I hope you will find helpful. It's obvious from your website that you're a good photographer.
