I feel like there a couple of consistent differences between the reference and your study. For the upper 4 studies (areas with a lot more moisture in the area), they are missing some of the atmospheric perspective that's caused by all the water in the air. It washes out a lot of the contrast on the further planes, whereas in your studies there's often times a lot of contrast still (notice what shapes you observe when squinting your eyes).
The bottom studies are good overall I'd say. A thing I noticed is that the shadows are bit bright across the board.