Here’s the same rock, notice the person.
Perspective can be deceptive.
T 
I hope you don’t mind, Pixolator, but I just went to Renderosity and wanted to let everyone know that this image is much larger over there, and MUCH more spectacular with the higher resolution. Many more details are visible. Pixolator’s pic at renderosity
I really love landscape images, and I really love the way you’ve inspired us to think about artistic composition. It’s interesting that you say that adding something would spoil this image yet you’re wondering what could be added to improve it. I just spent a good amount of time in photoshop “climbing around” in this image and the detail and technique are truly amazing. Yet there does seem to be something “off” about it as a whole. I can’t believe I just said that to you, but I trust that you have an even more amazing improved image waiting in the wings. For me right now the problem is mostly in the upper right corner where all of the rocks are blending in color and tone with each other. I also played with this image in ZBrush and used the highlighter brush for the first time and found it very useful for adding selective contrast and separating edges. Seeng this image reminds me of school when our professor showed us landscapes by photographers like Aaron Siskind, Frederick Sommer, and Minor White. They flattened out the perspective and depth on purpose to reveal the wonderful shapes and forms within everything. I look forward to an updated version of this 
P.S. I really like Kruzr’s remarks. To be very honest in the pursuit of effective and successful artwork is very noble and helpful to us all. I would welcome as direct critique of my own work as we’ve seen here.
I think you should add a creature, but perhaps only a hint of one. Like it’s shadow, or maybe it blends in with the rocks so its hard to make out.
Nice job!
I thank you all for your kind and thoughtful feedback! I love the art creation process and being able to share some of the excitement with other members is exhilarating.
Many good (and knowledgeable) suggestions have been made and I thank you all for talking the time to post your 121, images and links 
Here is some info about this image…
This image was created in 2 layers. The water was drawn in layer #2 while everything else was drawn in layer #1.
The water (without the mist) was created by using the method that is described in the transparency with shadows tutorial.
Most of the rocks were created from 3 deformed spheres that were draw in different orientations.
Many details (such as stones) were drawn with a small 3D object (such as sphere) with intensity set to 25-50% for MRGB+Z and a Dots Stroke Type. Simply varying the color of the 3D object and applying free-hand strokes quickly adds details to the image.
Some of the tiny stones were added by using the bump brush with a doted alpha (brush 23).
Another common technique is related to materials. The rocks were originally drawn with one material, which later was duplicated (by saving it and loading it into another material slot) and slightly modified by increasing the specular highlight. A higher specular value gives the impression of a wet surface, which I have applied to the near-water rocks. ( In the zoomed-in image, you can see these 2 materials used for the lower-left rock)
The water mist was the last item added. Prior to adding the mist, I have flattened the image (combining both layers into one) and applied a best render (including shadows and environment reflections ). When the best render completed, I have ‘baked’ the image (The image was baked in order to allow for a fine control over the look and feel of the pained water mist). To draw the mist. I have used the SimpleBrush with a dotted alpha (Brush 23), turned off Z and activated RGB drawing mode, reduced the height of the brush (in the DRAW menu) to about 20% (getting an horizontal-sliver shape), drawn the white mist and then used the Smudge tool for a motion-blur effect.
Thanks,
Pixolator
I have to disagree strongly with Ed_the_Atom. Your approach is that of an analyst…very linear, or concrete sequential in style. Artists don’t generally work that way. The really great artists compose by feel and not by logic. Also, I am a spelunker and I have to tell you that that scene is right on the mark. It’s an amazing piece of work. I’m not crazy about the way the water fall edges turned out, but hell, it’s a masterpiece. Forget all the cognitive exercizes and enjoy it.
Well, of course you are entitled to your opinion.
Although the majority of great artists do work fron an analytical standpoint…read your art history, and what is art if it is not analytical? The artist chooses the piece, then decides how best to do it…etc.
Where did I say I didn’t enjoy it? but Masterpiece I think not…extremely well done yes.
Very pleasant to have met you in this manner
O Pixomaster, give us a step by step, pleaaaase? 
Hi Fets
Quasi all is explain in the Pixo post above
And play the Alpha Century script Inside the prog, it will be help you
And make your own research, it’s very funny!
The re emerging of a thread is always magic
Thx for that Digital and welcome aboard !
A another analyse is coming today in this post Filament 9 thread
Essay of Analysing imageby Steven Stahlberg
Always interesting to see how creation comes or is explain
Pilou
Ps My 2 cents for the cave image
Problem of lisibility comes by the shadows
We see a “natural scene” lighting by the sun, and the sun don’t makes such shadows (on our planet
So our brain has some problems