Uranium, one of the most challenging aspects of critiquing is the need for objectivity, so I'd like to take up one of your comments ...
I feel that the first one is more like a tourist’s image! I don’t like it at all!
These are your feelings, but what are your thoughts about tourist images? Do you mean the first one is a snapshot that a tourist might have taken, or a postcard shot that might only appeal to a tourist? If the first one, then I think it's unlikely that the average day-tripper could have taken this shot with a run-of-the-mill point&shoot - note the depth of field. If a potential postcard shot, doesn't that make the first shot a potential winner - for commercial reasons if for no other?
The composition in the first shot appears strong by virtue of the interest in the foreground and the feature in the distance, and the tones, given the contrast between land and sky, are well rendered. Plus, I'm a sucker for strong leading lines. I find the second image less appealing for this reason. Perhaps the contrast could be a tad higher, but I'm viewing this on my monitor so I have to allow some latitude on this point.
One reason I'm commenting on the first image is that I find it attractive and interesting, which is a matter of its appeal to me and not a reflection on any inherent quality. It may be difficult to distinguish between one's feelings and one's opinions, but it's worth the effort if you want to help the photographer.
Joanna, some of the impact of the composition is lost on my screen if an image is taller than 600 - I have to start closing toolbars to see it in its entirety.
