Ok, now I understand you're looking for critique...
To my way of thinking, there are two or three parts to how I do critique. Also, when asking for critique on public forum, expect honesty (nobody would do you any favories if they were dishonest in hopes of not hurting feelings). So promise not to melt.
If an image were entered into a competition, the judges wouldn't necessarily have time to carefully evaluate each image. They're looking for "stopping value". Here's what that means: Imagine you are thumbing your way through a magazine... looking at photo after after. They're all "nice"... but then you come across something with impact. It causes you to stop and linger for a while on that image instead of just continuing to turn the page. That "pause" is what I mean by "stopping value". You could shoot a photo fo a sunset, but we've all seen thousands of sunsets so a sunset is unlikely to get anybody's attention (it'd really have to be some incredible sunset).
I'm normally looking for basics...
Is the focus accurate?
Is the exposure technically correct (not over-exposed or under-exposed)?
- And then there's a variation on this... is the exposure also artistically appealing? Did you use a narrow depth of field to help some single element in the image stand out and blur the background & foreground? Did you use a slow shutter speed to create motion blur and imply a sense of motion into a still photo? This are examples of ways to not just be "technically" correct, but artistically and creatively appealing.
How is the composition? Are you drawing me to looking at something? Does it seem balanced? Is the cropping awkward?
I could go on with more examples, but the point is, I'd look for a technically good image and also an artistically appealing image that draws me in.
While your image is nicefly focused and nicely exposed, what I'm lacking is a focal point of interest. I suppose we could say that those rocks are a focal point, but the framing looks random and nothing especially draws me to that subject.
The shutter speed was fast enough to "freeze" the motion of the water, and the water is dramatic (it's not a storm, or massive waves crashing, etc.) This means there's nothing of particular interest in the water. if you wanted to evoke a feeling or emotion of tranquility or peace, you could use a very strong neutral density filter (e.g. 10 stop filter) and take a long exposure photo (on a tripod) near evening, and also down near water level and this would blur the water to an almost glass-like look (sometimes if the water is a bit more active you get a foggy look.) Use of a circular polarizer (CPL) can help tune out the reflection of the water and make it easier to see the bottom through the water.
You mentioned you have the Peterson book (I assume you are referring to Bryan Peterson's "Understand Exposure"). In that book you'll learn how to shoot in "manual" mode. I think everyone should learn how to shoot in manual mode and then learn how to to decide when to use fast shutter speeds vs. slow shutter speeds or narrow apertures vs. wide apertures for creative impact. Once you know "how" to control your cmaera for impact, you don't have to use just "manual" -- I use almost all the modes on my camera.
There's a book I like on composition by Michael Freeman called "The Photographer's Eye: Compositon and Design for Better Digital Photos".
Take some time to read... then take a LOT of time to go shoot and practice. Some people are strong advocates of "just get out and shoot". I prefer to shoot with a purpose... read something, then go try to apply that one thing (rather than justing out with no specific goal). That helps because you can come home, review your shots, and decide how well you achieved your goal (make the goals things that you can realistically achieve.)
Tim Campbell
5D III, 5D IV, 60Da
