Nice idea, but portrayed badly. I have no idea what's going on in this picture. She walks around and sees a portal to Hell or another dimension or somewhere, then takes off her mask in the next panel. What exactly is happening?
For composition, the first panel's background is too small for the size of the character. The person should take up about 1/20th of the space in the panel, not 1/6th. It makes her look like a giant, since those buildings are too close together. The other panels are all okay, in terms of composition.
For the editing part, you did a great job making everything look neat, but you should have chosen a different color theme.
I found this piece in the popular feed and was drawn into Romantically Apocalyptic just today. Therefore, this is written from an outsider's point of view, and reflects an objective viewpoint. Also, I wanted to give a different opinion than the first critique of the piece.
The scope of the first panel is stunning. It introduces a character, and immediately the viewer unravels this character's story: nuclear winter- survivor against all odds- alone in a dark, barren world. At first the curvature of the buildings threw me off; but it's grown on me. Not only does it reproduce the characteristic distortion of a wide-angle camera lens and exaggerate the proportion of the figure against the cityscape, but it also creates an ever-so-slight discomfort. Something is wrong with this image, both on the conscious and subconscious level. (Conscious being the end of the world, and subconscious being- among other things- all sorts of wrong, awkward angles and curves.) I don't have any qualms with the first panel.
The second panel hones in on the figure. It's personal, no longer an objective snapshot. There is no facial expression, but in its place very effective body language. A feminine tilt of the head, the uncertain consideration of something foreign. Lifting the gun, the kind of measured caution that comes from living in a dead world. This survivor is seeing something, and we want to know what it is.
Panel 3. Excellent use of contrast between subjects, and very effective juxtaposition of focal points. I have a few notes here, though. First and foremost, I initially had some trouble understanding exactly what was behind the wall. The greenery is beautifully painted, but there isn't a lot of information for the eye to read and base a judgment on. Streaks of dark and light green and blue that after some studying reveal themselves to be a waterfall. Preferably, this process of comprehension should be a little quicker. The confusion could be remedied several ways, including but not limited to expanding the hole in the wall to show more of the landscape or using a more varied landscape to give the eye a few more clues. Even the introduction of a few extra colors could go a long way in identifying the landscape to the viewer.
My second and less important issue with the third panel is the ballistics of the hole in the wall. I really don't know much about ballistics so I'm probably wrong, but shouldn't the bricks missing support on three sides have fallen? Especially given the signs of age shown in the previous panels. (Anyone who knows better on this is welcome to correct me.)
The fourth panel is my favorite (new wallpaper, actually!). It is beautifully rendered and incredibly expressive, and I love the contrast of femininity to the masculinity of the clothing. The skin tones confuse me, however. Her skin seems very yellow given the blue lighting. While I acknowledge that the greenery beyond the wall would cast a reflection on her skin, I feel that the reflection is overdone and ends up making her skin seem sallow. Where she's standing in an overcast naturally lit environment, her face is colored as though it has been photographed under tungsten lights. I believe with more blue tones it would be much more natural in this setting.
Overall, this is a gorgeous piece and I'm completely enthralled with it. Minus some nitpicking, you've done an excellent job.