I do wish the fallen tree in the middle weren't there. My photoshop skills aren't at a level where I can remove this, though I might just for fun see what the "content aware" tool in Photoshop CS5 will do.
The fallen tree at the bottom has more character and does not interfere with the main part of the waterfall. Or, does it? Maybe it, too, is distracting?
I dislike having that first tree in the middle so much that I created a second crop where I was willing to nearly eliminate the bushier tree at the bottom just so I could at least move the top tree away from the center of the image and into the 1/3 position. I find it less distracting there.
Nevertheless, I haven't decided which of the two I like better. Note that the first image is a 3:2 aspect ratio image and the second one is 4:3, just a bit "square-er".
Either way, I do like the exposure. I haven't mastered the "soft" waterfall look mainly because I don't like tripods, and a very slow shutter speed is required. However, in this case, using shutter priority I set the camera at 1/15th second and held the camera on top of a wood railing on the bridge on which I was standing. Base ISO on this camera is 200 and the camera chose F22. If there had been any more light, I would have been out of luck as F22 is the smallest aperture on this lens. I do have a Neutral Density filter but not for the 67mm threads on this Olympus 14-54mm lens.
A neutral density filter would have allowed me to try an even slower speed, such as 1/8th. Thinking back to this scene, I should have tried 1/8th anyway. Though it would have resulted in a slightly overexposed image, the various adjustment sliders in Lightroom might have helped me pull back the exposure of the brightest areas.