Is the shadow area to dominant? I'm afraid that it was a very high contrast scene and if I had exposed any more for the shadows then I would have blown out a lot of the other areas.
If there is any detail in the shadows, then I'd be inclined to try and show it, albeit dark, in the print. Some shots suit a black/light contrast but this needs just a little detail, I feel, to give it depth.
If the black is an unknown such as beyond some pillars in a recent gallery shot, it's fine but here the viewer knows that it's rock and expects to see just a little detail.
It's an impressive shot and has even more to give than it currently does
If you don't mind me saying, you have used Pan F which is a high contrast film, with a limited exposure latitude. Great film as it is, but it's not suitable for this kind of contrast.
I would have used FP4 down rated to 50 ASA with suitably reduced development, or even better, a faster 400 asa film such as Kodak TRI X down rated to 200 ASA with reduced development.
This technique will give you softer negs which will record more detail in the shadows and should retain detail in the highlights too.
Quality is all about a sharp image and control of contrast.
Practice makes perfect!.
Thanks for the comments, Pan F+ was the only film I had other than some IR film and after developing that it has go more details than the Pan F in the shadows which quite surprised me.