It's not an offence to have noisy images at all! Why would you presume I thought that?
To elaborate a little more on my last comment, pictures 1 and more specifically 3 look rather blotchy, particularity in the sky, the image quality seems quite low and there are patches where the sky looks muddy and (unintentionally) scalded. In image 3 on the left hand side, there looks to be a swarm of bees in the distance which has been caused by however it is you've processed the image.
Also, the burning on the third image leaves it looking a little like it's been embossed, it goes all the way around the right and top side where the sky meets the edge of the photograph, on the left edge it begins to go down but stops seemingly randomly about one inch above the tree, I can't see this being intentional. I don't like the halo around the tree tops, it looks like bad technique, saying that - some people like it.
There is no noise in the sky on image two, the quality of the image itself is generally better than the other two.
Well observed on my signature, but there's a slight difference between strange looking noise and natural film grain which adds depth to images. Out of interest, have you ever cross processed film? I've never had a roll of cross processed film come out of the dark room looking like your pics, they look like IR images?
