Critique Required Two landscapes that don't quite work - or do they?

[Stevenson Gawen]

Any thoughts on these? I think I won't give any background, as I'd really like to hear your thoughts without any knowledge of why I did/didn't do what I did!

Not that there's much to tell anyway. Both same morning.

 

[Pete Askew]

I think there are both effective, although the second is the stronger image I think. Is that mist or smoke in the first? Actually I rather like that it is not clear which it is: in there second it looks like both!

In the first image the band of mist / smoke creates a sense of mystery I find and one wants to know what it is hiding.

The second is more conventional I suppose, but you have resisted using a large depth of field and the layers of focus work perfectly I think as do the layers of focus.

 

[Stevenson Gawen]

I think there are both effective, although the second is the stronger image I think. Is that mist or smoke in the first? Actually I rather like that it is not clear which it is: in there second it looks like both!

Mist. It does look a bit smoky... but it's just H2O.

The second is more conventional I suppose, but you have resisted using a large depth of field and the layers of focus work perfectly I think as do the layers of focus.

Interesting. I actually felt that one was a bit more adventurous! I don't know why actually. Depth of field, yes, I didn't give a lot of thought to it at the time, but the foreground is a lot closer to camera.
I think even stopped down to f16 or so it wouldn't actually be entirely sharp. And call me a fusspot, but if I can't have it sharp I prefer it to be properly blurry!

Thanks very much for your feedback - it's always much appreciated!