I'm a lousy critic, but it doesn't seem anyone else wants to do it, so here goes.
First two don't have any particular subject of interest other than the play of light which isn't compelling enough in these shots. Had you put a dog, or even a big hunk of ice, in the foreground they would be more interesting. Also, the first one is too centered horizontally. Usually off centered images have more visual tension which makes them more interesting. But you didn't make the usual beginners mistake of centering them vertically, so two points in your favor.
I kind of like the third one of the ice. Here the large hunk of wood or rock (upper right of center) and the large hunk of ice (lower left of center) are off centered, and yet nicely balanced. The other piece of ice in the lower right corner is distracting though. I might like this shot better if the lens hadn't been tilted up. This makes for a fairly strong keystoning effect, which sometimes works, but I'm not so sure it does here. Conversely, a fisheye view of this might have been more interesting, but then there is no accounting for my weired sense of taste. Also, I would have lightened the shot just a bit and moved the color balance to be less blue. You can do both of these changes in your computer.
The forth shot is compositionally better than the first two because it has a road carving a nice angle in the foreground. Too bad it is so dark. You could probably lighten the lower parts with some software tricks, but it would have been better to use a graduated neutral density filter to bring some balance. The same effect could have been achieved by shooting it twice, once like this, then shot again with increased exposure, and then merging the two images in Photoshop. (Photoshop CS3 can do this type of merge automatically.) Actually, this image could be improved a bit by just lightening the whole thing some. I think I would have increased exposure some when it was shot to lighten the bottom more, but there is nothing like using a graduated split or neutral density filter for scenes like this.
Thak you for your input, I love the way nature plays with light in Alaska so I shoot it but I am new up here (I still take pictures of mountians,I almost have enough) Here is another angle of the first one, people may like better.
I do not have real good editing software but I would like to buy some if you have some suggestions. It was hard not to tilt the lens up since the rock you are looking at was approximately 30 ft straight above me, this is a rockface along the Seward Hwy people were climbing while I was there (they destroyed some nice ice formations I would have liked to shoot). I see what you mean about a fisheye lens for this, I am going to look into buying one. I have a Nikon D40X is there a good not too expensive lens you would recommend?
What is a "a graduated neutral density filter" and how much do they cost?
AKDUKHNT, talk with Mike at Stewart's Photo in Anchorage. he can give you some tips for filters, and it's nice to buy local. As for the D40X, I believe you are limited as regards lenses due to AF issues - I believe the D40X will autofocus and meter only with DX AFS lenses. What this means is that you can use a lot of the older lenses that are less expensive to purchase, but you'll have to manually focus (which is not a problem for landscape pictures anyway). I bought a used 20mm f/2.8 here in town from Stewarts, and I'm tickled to death with it. However, you need to drop down to 16mm or less to get a "fisheye" lense, and my research has found them to be SPENDY.
If you haven't found it yet, go to www.nikonians.com for all things dealing with Nikon - it is a phenomenal resource site for Nikon users. I've learned so much over the past few months - and am learning more every day. Keep up the good work,
Neutral Grads are filters that are gray on the top and clear on the bottom. You line up the graduated area of transition where the scene goes from light to dark. This darkens the sky and allows you to increase exposure for the dark foreground. The exposure is handled automatically in your camera, although as always, you may want to tweak it a bit anyway. They come in several flavors (hard line or soft transition) and colors besides gray, and are put out by several companies. Cokin is probably the cheapest and have the wildest selection of worthless colors. You want to get the rectangular type and add the appropriate mount and lens filter size adapter for it. This way you can slide the filter up or down, tilt it, or whatever, to match your horizon line.
Fisheyes are indeed expensive. You can get a 16mm Zenitar for under $150, but 16mm fisheyes are designed for full frame cameras and don't do much for small sensor cameras like your D40X. Nikon makes a very nice 10.5mm fisheye that is a great lens, but grossly expensive. I just bought a Tokina 10-17 fisheye zoom (works on both small frame and full frame bodies) It is normally over $500, but I found a slightly used one on eBay. I love fisheye images, but honestly, most people tire of them rather quickly, and find they are not worth the cost. Unless you are possessed with a very wide angle obsession I wouldn't bother buying one. They are fun though.