It seems that you have a fairly complete artistic vision here, so I am going to assume that everything I see is deliberate and that you're not looking for any feedback that takes the form of helping you "improve" your work. I beg your indulgence should anything I write below appear otherwise! I will endeavor to critique in the sense of analysis and understanding, not in the sense of
First of all you're doing an interesting thing with these strongly vertical, strongly centered images. The compositions are strong, but virtually every one violates some canonical "rule" or another (mostly, everything is centered! But horizons appear centered, or near the bottom of the frame, etc etc -- you're as aware as I am of these details). It completely works, I think, but it's an interesting thing to notice. I'm on the fence about whether it's a powerful unifying visual motif, or if it's visually exhausting and repetitive. With four images, I think I lean toward powerful visual motif. At, say, ten images I think it might become overwhelming and repetitive.
EDIT: The "powerful unifying visual motif" cited here is the centering of everything. Re-reading, I realize that I kind of fell of the rails in this paragraph, and then circled back to the beginning without actually saying so. Sorry about that.
Secondly, your treatment of the light is fascinating. Let me digress a moment on the subject of processing, digitally or otherwise. My personal taste is that an image is perfectly handled if the processing is invisible to the casual look, if the photograph looks superficially "real". Ansel Adams is my canonical example of a fellow who could shovel ridiculous amounts of processing into an image without quite crossing the line to "not real" looking. This is not to say that there's no place for what I consider over processed photographs, there's certainly an idea of digital art where the processing, while obvious, becomes part of the image.
What I find really interesting here is that your processing is not obvious at all, and yet the images don't look real. You're treading, to my eye, a very very narrow line that falls between "real" looking and "obviously processed" which lands these images in a sort of surrealist space. Clearly these are heavily processed (unless you're fanatically devoted to waiting for that one decisive moment when the sun breaks through enough to illuminate that one perfect spot?) but the processing does not stand out, the surrealism does.
I admit that I'm not sure I like it, but I respect the fine attention to detail that's required to hit that line.
Also, if you had more pixels, I think these would be totally way better.