Sand, Wind, Dust

This has the same effect as fog -- it greatly reduces the contrast or range of tones throughout the frame.  But a portion of the foreground still has some stronger contrast because its closeness to the camera makes it less susceptible to the effects of the dust, and that's what I personally like to see in photographs of fog as well. 

I wonder about placing the left edge close to the point where the distant mountains intersect with the slope.  That area to the left seems like it has been orphaned -- it's just there with nothing to hang onto, it trails off and ends randomly, it's relatively featureless, and it is unlike the rest of that slope that has a distant range of mountains above it.  Maybe this would look better in a square frame or a 4:5 ratio.

This is a pretty subtle image for me. I have been trying to have a "lighter touch" here and there. A few years ago I would have probably made this darker and more dramatic...just cause thats what I did all of the time. The more frequent attempts at the lighter touch come from looking at my nieghbor, Mary Randlett's many splendid landscapes.

Square image?!  Thanks for the suggestion. I have always had some problem with square photographs for some reason. Perhaps some trauma as a child that I can't remember related to a square. I do see what you are saying though, but to my eye the image is balanced with the left top edge of the dune and the right top edge of the mountains in the background. Also by keeping the left part of the image, there is more of a comlete flow from left to right at mid frame. It all still works for me with a bit of the left cropped...just don't see it as square. Thanks for your thoughts as always.

Do you have any idea what Barsoom is?

Actually Stephen, I see lots of square images that I love...I just can't seem to produce one of my own, if that makes any sense.

My eye goes from the foreground to the distant background much more easily than it goes from left to right (or right to left).  The lines  as well as the composition are the reasons.  I see this as a front to back photograph more than a side to side (or middle to sides) photograph.  That's why, mentally, I can crop the left without losing anything, and it eliminates the portion that is not contributing to that front-to-back composition.

 Barsoom!

That is damn interesting ! That is why I can't see it as square. Its a left to right, then back thing for me. Brains are funny things.

amazing image, regards

Therein lies the answer as to why we would crop it differently.  Whether we see this primarily from side to side or front to back is pretty fundamental.  It also is probably subconscious, and we just accept our basic view of the image without question.  I think this applies to all photographs when something is accepted at a subconscious level -- it can be hard to understand why others have a different opinion on something that just seems to be a given.  I like to use the description of "intuitively obvious" when words fail to offer an adequate explanation.  That doesn't work, however, because we have different intuitions.  Such is the nature of interpretations of art.

Essential&perfect!