My choice of making the guy in the distance as vivid as he is was to try and give the bird a sense of direction, where it will be flying to. I worried that if I made him any paler, the direction of flight wouldn't be particularly obvious, or what was actually going on in terms of the story in the scene and tried to make a compromise on the two by using high visibility colours. I do agree though that in terms of value, it's not 'correct' as it is, but I struggled to figure out a better way to do this with my current understanding of values.



The scene is intended to be more of a valley shot than a traditional mountain range, where they actually ARE supposed to be stood on small rock formations and surrounded by taller cliff like structures rather than large scale mountains. I thought with humans in the scene, I'd have reduced the confusion of scale of certain things, but maybe I don't have enough familiar objects in the scene to really tie down how large/small the surroundings in the image actually are.



My reason for leaving out more detailed vegetation was because in previous images it's been suggested that I add fine detail where it isn't really necessary and tried to stay clear of that in this image, but may have taken it too far in only hinting at grass in the foreground.



As for your other points, I agree looking back on them, the foot prints are a little on the large side and maybe I could have done more with the shapes in the distance to add either some interest there, or to make them look more natural.



Thank you very much for taking the time to write this critique, I really appreciate it. It's very helpful to me for future ideas and I always keep notes on the things people point out and try to think about them more in future projects.