Roberto
Nobody seems to be commenting anymore, so I'll have another go. I think everyone's attention has been diverted to Andrea's postings.
These last two pictures do not have the strength of the first frames you posted, at least in my opinion. Although they are infra-red, the effect is not so striking - but this is one of the problems with IR, in that you can't see what is happening until you get home, develop the film (or in your case convert the RAW to B/W), and actually see the result. Which makes the whole thing something of a guessing game. The second problem is an interesting one, and nothing to do with technique as such. The inclusion of a figure in both of them makes the image look like a snapshot or tourist picture, rather than a formal landscape. I think that must be because the figure is not actually posed in an interesting way, and therefore definitely a subject, but on the other hand the inclusion of the woman is not spontaneous and informal either. So this seems awkward and falls between two stools.
The other thing that strikes me, which relates to my first point, is that you actually had the makings of a brilliant picture in the first frame, but you missed it. Look at what is happening on the left-hand side of the frame - the luminous trees and their reflections in the lake. Magical. Black sky, glowing trees, reflections - you should have swung the camera to the left! But of course you could not see what would happen with the IR effect in the viewfinder.
So I still think that the very first two IR pictures that you posted were the best. My test for this is pretty simple - have they stuck in my mind? Can I remember what they looked like without having to open the post? And with the first two frames, the answer to that is yes.
John
