Originally Posted by
Robert Amoruso
That is an involved question Adams.
The short answer is technique, composition and lighting. For composition you are looking for a center of interest - in this case the water. Then you are looking to arrange other elements in the image to complement and balance the center of interest. FG is very important and having an interesting FG is good. Case in point, good looking bush or field of flowers in the FG and a grand mountain in the background.
Contrast is next. Soft light generally best as you can get the full tonal range recorded in one image (HDR if the tonal range is exceeded). We spend time manipulating the mid-tones. Probably more then bird images. Whereas I can process a bird image in 5 minutes, a landscape can take hours. Local contrast enhancement, bleeding modes, masks, layers and a host of other tools are used. Such as Gayle's comments on bringing down the foliage to concentrate on the water or Roman's comments on saturating the greens more. Both are worth investigating.
Technique includes using a tripod, mirror lockup, filters as Roman suggested here. First thing I noticed was that the rock glare was OK because there was not too much of it so did not mention it (had to let Roman say something :)), but seriously, Roman's comment may sound simple, but eliminating glare saves a ton of time in PS. Using Neutral density filters to get slow shutter speeds and Roman's favorite a graduated neutral density filter.
This is why I like moderating this forum. I find it more interesting then light-angle, head-turn, eye contact and BG. I love making bird images but designing a near-perfect landscape image is a thing of beauty IMO.