I think I understand what is confusing people. You have a beautiful scene. I see why you took the photo, but... You need to make a choice. What is most important here, the sky, the rocks, or the ocean? The nearby rocks helps with giving depth, but the light green patch draws our eyes there. The ocean has some reflection of light and a few waves hit the shore, but again they are "negative space" helping us again with depth. Then we have a darkened shore line and an expanse of colored sky. Notice what the far shore line is doing. That is your horizon line and it divides the image in half. Unfortunately it does divide the image almost 50/50. So our eyes spend equal time on both halves, we do not see the image as one unit. My eyes go to the rocks, look up for several seconds at all that water, then drift up to the sky. What do you want us to look at land, sea or sky?
My point is, do not have your horizon in the middle. If you want to show that beautiful sky then get us focused quickly on that sky.
Try right here scrolling down until the middle line of rocks and a bit of the breaking wave is close to the bottom of the frame. Suddenly you have a lot more attention on the sky.
Now try scrolling upwards, you lose the pink clouds, but now more of our attention is on the rocks in front and the shore and the reflecting ocean.
Which of the halves do you want to emphasize the most?
Brfarris1, I just read your comment again. Your wide angle lens was forcing you to do just what I wanted you to do! Choose between sky and shore. Emphasize one or the other instead of trying to include it all in one shot!!!!
Okay, you say, you want it all. Well, what if you had gotten down at a lower angle, right up close and personal to the big rocks in front so that they appear even bigger. Now the space between the rocks and the far shore would also appear closer because there would be a lot less of the ocean. The effect would be to bounce our eyes up much quicker to the sky which is a good thing to look at. Right?
I hope no one notices the influence of the "rule of thirds" in my comments.