Alphamalex, you posted in a critique forum asking for feedback, so it's a bit, well, perplexing to see you reacting with a little less grace than one would expect from someone who in the first post appeared eager to learn. Try not to take critique so personally; critique is not a critique of you as a person, it's just about your photo. I know it's not the easiest thing to do, but in the creative world, it's important to be able to emotionally distance yourself enough from your work in order to be able to take other peoples' feedback and advice on board. It's really the only way to develop creatively in your chosen medium. Don't see negative feedback as some kind of failure, see it as an opportunity to learn and grow. We all go through this, nobody starts out as an awesome photographer right off the cuff.
Personally I tend to agree with Numenorean on this one. Your photos are a little too over-processed, with no real motivation for it. Forgive me for being so blunt, but it's almost as if you're going really overboard with the processing to make up for any real interest in the shot. Whether or not that's actually the case is something only you know for sure, but that's my honest reaction to your photos posted in this thread.
You like landscapes and clouds? Great! The world around us provides endless opportunities for incredible imagery, so you've got plenty to work with. But there's more to capturing evocative and compelling imagery than simply pointing your camera to the sky, shooting and then massively processing your shots. Processing should ideally serve to enhance the mood already inherent in the image, and therefore works best when there's something particularly striking about the original scene to begin with. In other words, try to avoid using processing as the main drive of your image; first and foremost, the key to a great photo is a great shot. This means a combination of beautiful scenery with a strong composition.
In your first photo, the composition is quite weak. The road on the left adds nothing to the image, in fact it actually disrupts the composition by introducing a shape in the lower corner which leads nowhere. Roads are great when they meander through a scene, leading the eye into the picture, but in your case the road doesn't. It's just there, distracting the eye. If anything, instead of leading the eye into the picture, the diagonal line actually leads the eye out of the picture at the bottom. And this is the opposite of what you want as a photographer.
There's nothing particularly striking about the landscape itself. Big sky shots tend to work best when there's a dramatic meeting between the sky and the land; for example, a dead straight horizon, or some unusual or interesting geographic features - essentially, you're looking for a view where there's some kind of compelling tension between sky and land. The trees in this shot don't really create anything of particular interest, as there's nothing dramatic about the transition from land to sky. It's just a row of trees with no remarkable drama.
Landscape photography is all about finding interesting patterns, shapes and lines in a scene and using them to enhance the composition. Enjoying the world around us through our own eyes is one thing; creating a photo that serves as a snapshot of that beauty is something else though. Remember, a photo stands alone as a purely visual memory of something beautiful. There's no other sensory input to enhance it - what I'm saying is that this is why you can be standing somewhere which really moves you and compels you to take a photo, but that doesn't always mean the photo will really capture the experience of being there. Sometimes you can be in the most incredible location, and yet any photos you take can come out totally flat and boring, and you realise that this is because the visual aspect alone may not necessarily have been what was so amazing about the place. For this reason, it's important to look for a good composition when taking a photo, as opposed to simply shooting what you see. A good photographer has a developed eye for identifying points of interest and using them to strengthen the composition.
And composition isn't just about shapes. It's also about colour and the distribution of tonal values throughout the image. In your case, the tonal distribution is quite unbalanced; the result is that, at a glance, the photo doesn't have any distinct focus. You don't really know where to look, and if you look through the clouds, there's no particularly interesting shapes within them, they're just a mass of indistinct dark shapes which lead the eye nowhere in particular. When you have very dominant tones in an image (in this case the very dark of the clouds), then you need to have something interesting in there because those dominant tones are going to pull the eye there. You can't lead the eye to nothing; there has to be a payoff somewhere. Do you know what I mean?
In terms of colour, I have to be blunt again and say the colours of this image don't really work too well. Of course colour has its own world of subjectivity to go with it but there are also certain artistic principles about colour which work for a reason and are always worth bearing in mind. Looking for colours which complement one another or contrast each other are going to work better than colours which just kinda exist in isolation within an image. The main colours in your image are black, blue, pink and yellow. These colours don't really go very well together because they're neither complementary nor contrast well against each other. You called the image "Apocalyptic" - colours traditionally associated with this theme would be in the warm ranges, so we're talking about reds, oranges, blacks contrasted with yellows. I'm not suggesting that these are the only colours to consider, but they're the ones that are going to resonate most strongly with the apocalyptic theme. They're also colours which go harmoniously together to create an attractive colour palette for an image. I'd suggest you have a look at some colour wheels to better understand the relationships that colours have with one another and which ones can be used to complement others.
These are the sorts of considerations which are important when creating memorable and evocative imagery. Everyone sees the sky everyday, so photos of the sky need to be particularly spectacular for them to really stand out.
Lastly, don't rush into processing your images. I'm not anti processing like a lot of purists, but at the same time I do feel that processing should, as I mentioned earlier, serve to enhance qualities that are already present in the image. Try to avoid the temptation to totally replace colours in your photos unless there's strong artistic motivation to do so, in which case, if you're going to introduce artificial colouring, then you should do so using colours which work very well together. Replacing the colours present in the original with colours that don't work together seems to defeat the point of replacing them in the first place.
I guess the best advice I can give you in summing up is to stop going through your folder of image and processing them to try and get something better, and instead to go grab your camera, go out somewhere, and try to get some better shots with stronger composition first. Read some books or websites (there's loads of info online about this stuff), and then try to put it in practice through your lens. And again, I have to stress that this post hasn't been a critique of you, it's a critique of your images, and I've posted this not to put you down or disparage your efforts, but in a hopeful attempt at providing a bit of food for thought and guidance for your future work. Good luck.
