I was talking about the overall sharpness of the image. The rocks in the foreground are not in perfect focus, and the waves have no detail. At 1/800 sec your waves should have some detail. I don't understand what happened if you were using a tripod at 1/800 sec. Was your DOF too shallow? Was your ISO really high. That can mess with sharpness. That is my biggest problem with the photo. As Jgordon said, it is an exceptionally nice shot of a shoreline. It just needs a point of interest and sharpness.

Let's please stick to critiquing the image. The OP has posted in the Critique section. We owe it to him to give an honest evaluation. If it helps, here are some of the elements you may use as a guideline to evaluate the image.

1. IMPACT
2. TECHNICAL EXCELLENCE
3. CREATIVITY
4. STYLE
5. COMPOSITION
6. PRESENTATION
7. COLOR BALANCE
8. CENTER OF INTEREST
9. LIGHTING
10. SUBJECT MATTER
11. TECHNIQUE
12. STORY TELLING

Nice impact. The image depicts the rocky beach ravaged by the storm. The image could be sharper. Was this hand held? Creativity is lacking. There are many great beach shots. What makes this one interesting? It's nice to have some sort of subject in these types of shots that gives interest to the photo. I think you have done well with exposure and color.

I love beach scenes when I see them in person. The vastness of the ocean, the expanse of shore, the meeting of water and sky can stunning.

When I try and squeeze those scenes into the frame of a photograph, I am often disappointed. The vastness just doesn't seem to fit very well into the relatively small two dimensional representation. So, I am often unsatisfied in my own photos of such scenes.

TonyB did a nice job with his effort. I like the curl of the coastline and the rocky texture in the shore. But the puzzle of these kind of shots is still there. In a photo, my eye wants a clear point of first reference. In my own photos, I often find that missing in beach scenes. In TonyB's shot the rocks out in the water seem to supply such a focal point. But they are not located in the most interesting place in the photo (they are pretty much smack dab in the center) and I don't find them all that interesting.

I would have tried to take this photograph. Then I would have looked at it and been a tad disappointed in my work. TonyB's effort might be better than the one I might have attempted, but it still leaves me a little dissatisfied.

The composition is fine and there is not much you can do to make the color stronger, the lighting and weather are what they are.

There is a bit of a problem with the rendition of the slopes to the right - they lack texture or detail and look like a watercolor.

This seems to have been cropped from a 16MP image down to about 7MP, so you may have sacrificed some of the camera's potential. The recorded focal length is about 4mm (equivalent to 24mm for full frame). Once you realize how much you might wan to crop it, you are better off doing that in the camera.

For landscapes you will want to go as low as possible with the ISO and close down the aperture as much as you can (in your case maybe f/8) so long as your shutter speed is not too slow for the focal length - or use a tripod.

There is some fringing along the horizon and the top of the hills to the right. This may have come from post-processing.