As your comment: "Please keep in mind you are seeing what was good after all that manipulating not the whole shambles. " states, getting something good doesn't happen in a flash, it takes lots of work and trials, it also helps to look at things differently, and I feel that the advice to try a different camera angle, is good advice.

I also found that looking at specifics is better than looking at the overall effect, by that I mean that if I look at the overall effect of an image by someone like say... rochr, I just feel miserable if I compare that to my own stuff, well you would wouldn't you?

But if I look at what (in general) he has done that I haven't - then I can learn something.  Like he has more little (usually fairly simple in themselves) items scattered about in his scenes, creating background detail, his textures are generally better, and also use small details to add to the general impression.  He is also an artist that consistently uses different camera angles.

I cannot emulate him, but I can improve my own scenes to make them better than they are, and my current project is aiming for just this effect.

So my main suggestion is, look at the art you most admire and wish to approach, figure out what the major differences are, and attack those differences in your own work.  Usually one by one works best.

And I really like both your methane cathrate and your ice cubes.  Are you entering that in the challenge this month?  That methane would be an excellent candidate.

Measure your mind's height
by the shade it casts.
Robert Browning (Paracelsus)

Fran's Freestuff

http://franontheedge.blogspot.com/

http://www.FranOnTheEdge.com