This image certainly has some drama, without or without Slobodan's artistry. However I don't feel it is "one for the wall". It's certainly not a "waste of pixels" as artists can learn something from all their works, be they sketches or prints.
For my taste, the image is too top-heavy. There is not enough foreground to comfortably support the background. I understand why that's the case as the foreground is not very compelling, so adding more of it doesn't necessarily turn it into a winning image.
Landscapes are built on their foregrounds - something to convert the dramatic background from being a two-dimensional backdrop to a three-dimensional experience the viewer can feel part of.
Also, landscapes depend greatly on lighting. While the lighting in this photo isn't bad, it's not ideal, either, being mostly front lit.
In other words, this photo has so much going for it, yet it's not quite "there". If the storm had been an hour later, you might have had more side lighting or if you had moved to the right a km or so, you would have had more side lighting (and, perhaps a foreground that would lend itself to this dramatic background). Most of the elements are in place, but a couple key foundations for landscapes are not quite.
With regards to the initial lack of comments, I don't know if others feel the same way, but I must admit to some reticence in giving negative feedback/critique when a photographer has visited a dramatic (and perhaps once-in-a-lifetime) location and is excited enough about their results to post here, yet the results are not quite "there" and can't really be improved upon with PP (or in this case, slightly improved upon, but with the underlying problems of lighting and foreground still there). Granted this is "User Critiques", but still, I tend not to comment if I think I'm raining on your parade with little chance of the image being corrected in a significant way.
Who knows, though. Perhaps you have a version of the scene that pulls all these elements together, but just haven't recognized it!
