Here's a simple subject but I wanted to play with night "light" with a heavy overcast. The result is interesting, I believe:
In my opinion you're getting a tad carried away here, it's not your best work. The light on the clouds looks like just city light...the more I see it the uglier it looks to me (kind of like "pepto bismal" or something...a dirty pink color). The easiest thing in the world to shoot at night is this sort of light, since most people live near a city.
I do like the leaves in the foreground though. Looks like you used some kind of yellow fill light, which at least goes along with the other light in the background. Glad to see you enjoy that lens so much, Dustin.
Carl, with all due respect (and you and I have interacted in many positive ways), it seems that you are often far more likely to share your criticisms than you are your own work. It's not that being critical is wrong; we all grow as artists through constructive criticism and rarely through "rah-rah" kind of praise. The problem is that your criticism is rarely constructive; it tends towards abuse and disdain.
I understand that you probably didn't click through and look at the image on Flickr. If you had, you would have discovered from my description that the whole point of this image was to try to execute a concept in suboptimal conditions (rainy, overcast sky) and try to make something creative using the light pollution from the city as well as some light painting in the foreground. You're right in that this kind of night scene is one of the easiest for many to have access to, which is exactly the point. I'm trying to inspire some people that look to me for inspiration to get out and shoot in the environment they have, even if it isn't the Grand Tetons. The response I've had from the image in multiple venues tells me that I have accomplished my goal.
But that leads me to my final point, and the real reason that I am writing a response. Because you didn't bother to do any further research and just spouted criticism, your criticism lacks any validity because it is, frankly, uninformed.
Keep criticizing (I have no problem with that), but if you are going to use phrases like, "...the more I see it, the uglier it gets...", you probably should expect that 1) you aren't going to make many friends and 2) you had better have the creative and artistic chops to back it up with your own work.
What did you use for the light painting? An incandescent, or something whiter with a yellow filter on it? That part certainly worked. I'm not trying to ruffle your feathers Dustin, and I did try to be constructive. You are very much in error when you say my criticism is "rarely constructive". That's just the way you are taking it. I think you're a talented photographer, especially much of your portraiture (not that I'm an expert on portraiture obviously). That's why this one bothered me a bit. I really don't see it, as one of your more serious works, yet you are acting like it is. I mean, it's just a ladder by itself...perhaps it was supposed to be more humorous than I took it? It's stark out there by itself, not really humorous, not really serious either. So it just doesn't work as well as an image. It just seemed like it wasn't really worthy of posting for others to look at, as much as a lot of your others are...which are usually quite good. And I do post my own work. I may not be as interested in posting selfies as some people, but that's not really my thing. I'm not so narcissistic, perhaps I should be though...I don't know. Do you have to love yourself a lot to be a creative and productive artist? Do you have to incessantly and shamelessly pat yourself on the back a lot, in order to be a success? I just don't feel the need to toot my own horn so much, where my photo work is concerned. And admittedly I'm not a nationally known photographer, I'm not a bigshot...but that doesn't invalidate my criticisms. I have life experience and education as an artist, at least to a degree. I'm sorry I didn't do further research on your image, but again, this particular one does not inspire me at all, and I stand by that. If it is being found inspirational by others, I question their own artistic perspective. We all can see things differently, and I'm sure your friends would be happy to tell me how invalid my criticism is, but it's valid...and the sky is rather grotesque. Because light pollution is grotesque. If you don't think it is, that's your opinion. Doesn't invalidate mine, though. If making friends with you means I have to be one of your yes men, then I guess we can't be friends. But yes men aren't real friends anyway. Bottom line, this shot we are discussing, is not worthy to stand with your other work. I have plenty of shots that aren't worthy of my better shots, but I don't post those, nor do I even waste time looking at them much. For this image Dustin, the emperor has no clothes...If an image needs to be explained, then by its very nature (and by even the name of your photo company), it fails. If you had simply explained this briefly when you posted the picture, then I would have taken it for what it is. But instead you implied that it was a serious work. I call them like I see them, as do you. Not going to your flickr for further explanation, is not my fault though. I come to canonrumors to learn and to share, not to be redirected elsewhere to for long-winded philosophical indoctrinations...(no offense, not trying to be harsh with that, it just came out that way, and I like the way it sounds.)