>>3302080This one looks out of focus. The composition is passable and the blue hour lighting is nice, though.
>>3302082This one is pretty. It's a little grainy, though. Did you add grain in post? I find that grain can make the details look a bit sharper and less artificial, but the sky is grainy even at web resolution and you have so much sky in the photo, it just looks like the sky is full of ugly high ISO noise. You might want to run just a bit of noise reduction over the photo. You can also see the characteristic Canon red ISO color banding in the sky (coming through here in the purple channel), which you can clean up significantly by applying more noise reduction and by changing the tint of the purple channel to more of a blue. It's still pretty grainy even after noise reduction, though, so I'd crop out some of that sky; it's just taking up too much of the composition with grainy yuck. (Also, need to clone out the sensor dust)
>>3302084This is another one where the composition is nice, but it looks so soft at web resolution that it's as if you missed focus (although in this case, it's probably the fact that you shot at 1600 ISO that killed the detail). 1/4000 sec exposure on a cloudy day of slow moving windmills and a hill seems unnecessary.
