OK - I've had a few - so I may be stepping on a few toes here - but, what the heck. First of all, I have to say that this comment about your photograph was (I believe) well intended and designed to be "helpful". This flavor of response (in my opinion) should not be discouraged - albeit a tad unjustified. That being said: Point 1: (not that it matters), but the comment about the "Nikon N90" is completely irrelevant - great photography is not a matter of equipment, but a matter of being able to USE the equipment to achieve a desired result. Point 2: A time later in the day (on an overcast day) is, more than likely, to be...ummm...overcast. i don't understand how this is supposed to give a "more blue" sky...? Point 3: A slower film speed (and I don't care if it's 30 stops slower) - if correctly exposed, will not give any more definition to the sky - it may blur the water more (after slowing the shutter speed down some 30 stops worth) - but it will not pull any blueness into the sky (unless it's a roll of 1972 Ektachrome :) ) Point 4: IF you shot this image on a clear day (with a blue sky), the contrast range of the scene would have exceeded the range of the film (either the shadows would have blocked up or the highlights would have washed out) Point 5: ND filters would have only stretched your shutter speed out (or forced you to stop down more) - they would not have altered the scene (with the exception of blurring the water a bit more - which I don't think it needs - or give you more depth-of-field, whicj I don't think it needs) A polarizer - yes, it would knock out about two stops (see above reasons for NOT doing this) - in addition, it would probably reduce the reflection from the water (which, it definitely DOES NOT need) Point 6: I don't think this image needs Photoshop - although a bit more density in the tree color woiuld be nice - but I think that could be achieved through exposure (and this depends entirely on how YOU intended to expose the image, and the detail and the density that the SCAN captures, as well as the way the image looks on MY SCREEN) - but, based on that, I think a touch less exposure would saturate the colors a bit more without blocking up the falls too much (looks like the highlights of the water spray wouldn't be affected and I don't think the rocks would block up either - on the other hand, the area of the wall behind the falls may block out a bit...? - maybe a split ND filter? - but I'm reaching) Personal Opinion: (I know, nobody asked for one....or did they?) I LOVE to shoot in overcast conditions - but I make an effort not to include the sky (because it will wind up looking like a dirty white). realizing that this is strictly personal preference, I took the liberty of cropping the image above. Main Point: I love the shot - but the main question is "does this photograph convey the message you wanted it to convey?" - If so, then it's perfect (regardless of what any of us say) - if not, then you've got a neat location to return to! (Like I said - I've had a few - so ignore me :) )