Some aesthetic comments:
*signs of winter* is well-seen but too contrasty for my taste; the only reasonable detail is in the core background—the leaves burn out and the corners (burned?) are distractingly dark so the only texture in them pops out white.
*Falling leaf...* has the sort of tonality I
really like—that rich grey (that’s how we spell it in Australia) B/G with plenty of texture to keep the eye busy. I'd like to see a bit more richness and detail in the leaf though ...
*path* is a
little too grey and therefore a bit dull for me; I also find it a touch over-sharpened.
*Paris* is much too
soot-and-whitewash. The burned-put details on the buildings and the solid shadows of the people and their brollies do not provide sufficient detail to keep my eye on them. I find it pleasing only in the wet pavement.
BTW, I made my first BW print in 1969, so I do have some experience, and I have taught the Zone System.
The old BW adage of “expose for the shadows and develop for the highlights” is
inverted with digital shooting.
Digital is more like colour transparency film, where exposure is based on keeping the highlights from breaking and letting the shadows fall where they may (possibly using reflectors and lights to help—look at any pro movie shoot and there are lights/reflectors everywhere to make the shot look *natural*).
A question; are you using RAW or JPEG? If you use RAW you have
much more control over tonal range when converting.
Interesting
link about pulling detail from extreme under-exposure.