Nice, but why is the sun not reflecting in the water? There is also a bit of sun halo sticking out under the mountain and there is a rather poor job to hide it under a rectangle. And why is the kayak's bow out of the very calm water?

Thankyou Wallace and ofnuts. I have tried to address your feedback, here's my attempt.

here's my xcf

Perhaps a little ripple on the water surface?

That's nice RJKD. Very serene.

definitely better, but the weird rectangle is even more visible, and the kayak could have a reflection.

Given the perspective, it's a little ripple at the bottom of the picture, but a tsunami in the back

I like RJKD's original version best. As a composition it was perfect.
The image creates a very powerful mood.
It looks almost vector-drawn and reminds me for some reason of the movie Tron.

What ofnuts calls the sun, is a moon in my opinion and im not sure, the lightsource would be visible in the lake.

I think the added ripples make it too busy and steal the attention from the serene mood it had in its original state.

I'm with you. When you look at a reflection in a lake, you are looking down at the scene as if you were looking up at the real scene. The angle is a lot different to the angle you view the real scene so the details you see will be different. In this case the moon may be hidden. There should however be some indication of it's light at the edge of the mountain.

True for close objects, but not for the ones far away(*). Clue: the reflections of the mountains at the back of the fjord are exactly symmetrical. Why should the moon be different?

(*) more accurately, the difference is too small to be seen. Assuming the end of the fjord is 10km away, the reflection of the moon shows the moon as sen from there, but the difference of angle for 10km over the moon's 300.000km orbit is well under the eye separation power.

Hmmm, my observation skills have been dampened by too much dishwashing! I don't think the mountains are that far away otherwise we would not see a reflection due to the curve of the Earth. I'm trying to imagine this from the perspective of my eye level. I'm about six foot tall (you'll have to do your own metric conversion) If my eyes were nearly six foot under the ground looking up at the real mountain, would I still see the moon?

Question of distance of the obstacle. Assume the moon is roughly 45° above the horizon. If you are near your garden hedge, you can see the moon over the hedge, but in the puddle at your feet all you will see is the hedge. Move back 12 feet (twice your height), in the puddle which is half-way between you and the hedge you'll see half the moon. For something which is D=1km away, and an individual who is h=1.8m tall, the difference of angle is:

Compare to the moon's angle with is roughly .5° (in the art, it appears much bigger than this... but then it could be a picture assuming a telescope). So assuming the closer rocks in the back are 1km away (which I find awfully close, especially with the telescope hypothesis), the moon would disappear in the reflection only if its top third was showing. And if these rocks in the back are that close, then the reflection of the mountains behind them wouldn't be so symmetrical either. And if the reflection of the moon isn't showing, it's because the part of the water that could reflect the moon is in the shadow of the rocks, but the drawing doesn't show any shadow on the water...

To get an idea of how big the moon really is: https://petapixel.com/2013/08/22/this-e ... t-shopped/

I'll take your word for it. You seem to know the mathematics well.