Your image is not quite 'done:'

Technically/objectively: You've left a dust-on-sensor spot approximately 1/5 of the way in on the right, just above the brightest section of cloud. Easy fix, so fix it. As well, as a result of whatever you've done in post, you've created the dreaded 1-2 pixel wide 'blank white space' between the ridge line and the sky (most noticeable on the right half of the image), and while most won't notice it, or comment on it, I will, and have. Another easy fix. Fix it and you'll improve the image.

Compositionally: The sliver of lake you included at the bottom is awkward. It neither anchors nor equals the tonally similar sky. Similarly, the bit of foreground foliage in the extreme bottom right, neither anchors or equals its opposite --the rising cloud in the upper left. Likewise, the forested island left of center seems more an afterthought than a photographic element. The fix? Eliminate the lake, the foliage and the island. In a human face, "beauty" is often considered symmetry. In a landscape --which to me is the 'face' of the land--, that symmetry can often be expressed as a symmetry in light and dark. In this instance, achieving a symmetry (in volume) between the darker treed area of the lower cliffs/middle ground and the space occupied by the sky would work toward that goal, and in the process, the somewhat overbearing cloud that occupies the top left third of the image would be less a draw for the eye.

Subjectively: A common response might include a revision of your image and add that to such a reply. I did a couple of revisions --in color and in b&w-- and both better please me. But I'm not you, and there's no reason for you to 'like' any revision I might make, nor would either necessarily achieve whatever intent you may have had in making your image.

Its difficult to comment on another's image. In this instance --and especially since you asked for comment-- and in past work you've contributed, you're clearly enough of a photographer that I believe you'd have come to these determinations on your own.

I don't have the expertise of Cany143 ... but resonated with his comments about cropping out some of the elements on the bottom of the image. My eye wishes there was more water or more foliage in a different place... but you didn't have that luxury when taking the picture. Those bright, rocky outcroppings (?) toward the right side, beyond the far edge of the water might provide foreground interest if the photo were cropped to bring in the right side and remove the water on the bottom altogether. I'm sure if that was done, there would be more taken off the left of the frame as well to balance. But... I found myself wondering how that would look (I didn't actually try it myself), as opposed to trying to show what your eye saw but not enough to enhance the overall vista in the available photo. It's frustrating when we've seen a place in person to remove beautiful elements we knew were there.

I'm kind of late to chime in. This is history now. ;-) If I keep reading, you might have an edited image you've posted.

I looked at what you suggested. You're right in that there wasn't any way of including more of the lake. There were restrictions on what was available to include in the frame. Cropping the right or left side isn't a problem, and I have thought of taking off the right side. It's easy to do by simply making it a 4:5 format instead of a 4:6 format. But the lake is key. It's the balance of the unblown volcano and the crater (lake) of the blown one that's the whole attraction of the place. But I do see your point. Thanks!