Thank you very very much for the greatn detailed comment and the idea, Doyle!
Of course I am going to try that again! I think that it will really get much better then. It will be a bit difficult since I want to have the water tecture also good in focus and that means v appertures and so also longer exposition times. But since this would blur the water, I have to wait for a bright sunny day in order to have enough light for shorter exposition times.
Nick: This one is very well composed. The land area is about 1/3 more represented than the water area and the sky area is about 1/3 more represented than the land are. While not equal and static, they are, in a sense, related in composition and somewhat dynamic. Your central land mass area is also divided . . . this time diagonally and that helps to add tension and interest to the lines - a very good thing. The foreground land mass is dark and silhouetted . . . a further contrast to the background landmass that is lit nicely and accented with trees, grass, rock and snow. The bridge to the divide is light and almost disappears into a skyscape that is beautiful and interesting. Your foreground water, while dark, has some sparkle to it and is well represented. If you have a chance to try this shot again . . . I would recommend that you change the focus and get the left-side land area into a very sharp focus . . . which would likely make this very good image a stunning one! Congrats.
0 
