Originally posted by Schraubstock I am not a huge fan of long exposure water pictures because I don't like water to look like fog, but this is entirely an individual thing. All in all I like the image.
My first thought of this image was that the long exposure was TOO long for this image. There isn't enough water "space" for the "fog" effect to be dramatic or pleasing. It seems more "empty". Probably no more than 1 second would have been advisable for this scene. You would still get the motion blur, but the waves' crests and dimensionality would have been maintained.
One thing I try to do is shoot the same scene at 3 or 4 different exposure times so I can pick later which shutter speed yields a more desirable image. But I also know it's tough as the last light fades to keep shutter speeds "up", so I try to make an educated guess what would be best and shoot that first. I have rarely found anything longer than 2-3 seconds to be pleasing to my eye. When shooting ocean scenes, I try to keep it closer to 1/2 sec to maintain the wave forms.
In terms of processing, I think I like schraubstock's slightly "brighter" suggestion.
In terms of composition, I think the scrubby trees in the top left are very distracting and the water cut through seems too middle-ish. I would experiment with a more panoramic cropping, starting with the top of the rock where it makes the 65 degree-ish turn. I think much of the top 1/4 of the image provides no value; the drama in the sky is near the horizon and just above. additionally, I'm not sure this image needs as much rock foreground. I might experiment with cropping from the bottom, as well, somewhere about where the green patch almost disappears but then returns.