Upload & Sell: On
+1 @ white spots @ trees and hot above mountain.
Think about your lighting for the day. Was it a clear blue sky, direct sunlight or grey overcast that was illuminating above/behind your clouds? As is, you've got your sky set to around 245 (which is pretty bright). I'm thinking that the atmospheric conditions that are present for this kind of scene to exist likely don't include such a bright sky as you currently have.
Natural light can be incredibly variable, so we can get away with just about anything ... as long as it is congruous and plausible. Who else was actually there to say differently? When I look at images (mine or others) for processing, I try to make sure I understand the quality (specular/diffuse), color (warm/cool), quantity (dark/light) and direction of the light source(s). Then I think, well if a soft, warm, bright light was placed "here" (emulating atmospheric conditions), my shadows/falloff/tonal values/etc. ... what would they be.
This can serve either as a purpose to enhance what the camera didn't deliver sooc, or as a "cross-check" to my creative play with an image. While creative play can be @ artistic liberty unlimited, I tend to believe that the more that liberty aligns with the plausibility of lighting, the more credibility it gives our image making.
I'm not saying it has to be a mere recording of "as seen", but that when/if we begin making changes, we should be careful to watch for the "tells". In this case the white spots behind the trees and the hot spot get compared to how we may have seen this in person ... and our minds can't resolve how you'd get both of those components in the scene under natural conditions. In this regard, it becomes incongruous to the viewer.
The smaller, forward most, bright face of snow on the mountain suggest an orientation that the source of illumination is above and to the right. As such, the trees aren't likely tot be backlit such that we see bright spots through the branches and the mountain be backlit with rim lighting simultaneously.
Note also, how your reflections don't reveal the same bright spots @ the trees. And why would the reflections of the trees be brighter than the trees themselves.
Nice scene and I'm diggin' the vibe of it, so don't think I'm being overly harsh/critical. I offer it up as being semi-educational. BTW, you're in very good company in two regards. I took my daughter to an Ansel Adams exhibit and we spent the day looking for his "tells". It took dad about three images and she began to see the tells also. Of course, that doesn't change the greatness of his images, particularly when we recognize that Ansel didn't have an "undo" button or opacity layers to work with.
AA was a technician to be certain ... but, in being a technician, many will present that his talent was in his ability to present the atmospheric conditions in a way that you "felt" them. This of course first required a study and understanding of them. Something like the bright spots behind the trees in a real time darkroom print would be something that is very understandable ... but, in today's "undo" button world, the "criticality" bar gets moved a bit. I figure if AA could spend the years advancing his critical perspectives as a technician to bring us his vision, we can too.
Not likely that any of us will ever supplant Adams place in history, but the two main things I took away from repeatedly studying his prints were the concept of understanding @ maximizing atmospheric conditions and minimizing tells with congruity. Certainly there is more to Adams work than these two things ... but, they are a couple of nuggets that I try to carry with me.
As to changes, I'd reverse the tonal values of the trees and their reflection so the reflection is darker and the trees are slightly lighter. Also, I'd decide if I want to present my lighting as backlit or oblique lit and then make a tonal value change(s) to either the sky behind the mountain or the brightest snow face to resolve them. It might help to review the ooc first though, so you can see what the lighting actually was before you make that decision.
Artistic and creative liberty rules all @ subjective preferences. So if you like it a given way, or that's what you want to present to your viewers, go for it however you want as either an artisan or technician ... Adams did both.
BTW, curious @ ooc and colors (which can help tell about time of day/atmospheric).