Guess I need to elaborate upon my response coming home late last night since, in retrospect, the comments appear well meaning, despite trashing some 25 years of work in a most inappropriate way. Suffice to say that by putting 'work' - although it can hardly be called that, more 'labours of love' - in the public domain criticism comes as part of the contract. If you can't stand the heat etc..... Perhaps the more important issue raised here - for you, that is - is the automatic assumption that I am incompetent, and, hence, all I have to do is follow the remedy of the 'expert' (you, of course) and all will be fine. Needless to say I had no idea - obviously - that you are a professional photographer. I'd like to see some of your work. Might learn something. I've certainly learned a great deal from the likes of Ken and Mr Cane's use of light, amongst others, although whether I've been able to put it into practice is a moot point.
For the record I am well aware that the viewing of images on-line is dependent upon the monitor. Again, for the record, I check my images, after posting, upon any selection of monitors at work, whilst the Mam C (who incidentally possesses a BA in Fine Art) keeps tabs from Wales. I also have an aunt living in Colorado, a professional author, who takes an active interest, amongst others. This needs to be balanced against some members negative experiences. Thankfully I don't own, or have access to, a laptop, or any other of the 'devices' which exist nowadays. My images are taken specifically for 6x4 prints since I regard the classic photo album as still the best way to truly appreciate a landscape image. My posts are significantly reduced in quality to comply with TMA requirements.
It has always seemed to me that there are two main groups of landscape photographers; those who wish to record exactly what they see and those who want to try and capture a mood, a feeling. I am very much in the latter camp, not by any means a 'higher calling', just a different take, the results often an acquired taste since I am by definition attempting to capture something that does not physically exist, furthermore limited to two dimensions without sound, smell, the physical effect of wind, rain etc. I am aware that many will not and do not get what I am doing, but I think trying to challenge perceptions is important. Hence I like to focus upon extremes of weather whenever possible, conditions thankfully all too prevalent upon the UK's uplands in particular. I want to try and, somehow, get across the human experience I feel at these sites. I really do not care that much nowadays that so-and-so has 8 stones. I care about trying to work out why it exists, why it is in that spot, the landscape context. The sky above is the integral component of that.
For me the sky is everything - like Scubi, whose work I also admire greatly - I expose to ensure the sky retains detail, even if this at the expense of landscape detail. Depends on your point of view. There are no rules, just a feeling. Sometimes obtaining a balance is impossible, the contrast too high, which is where the grad grey and neutral density filters of old came into play for film. For me the greatest sin a landscape photographer can commit - aside from displaying arrogance - is to present a 'burnt out' sky. But, again, depends on your point of view.
So, no, I won't be replacing any images, although I will seek out further opinion going forward. The Eds have a policy whereby new images of a site agreed to be more representative should supersede existing pictures. I am sure they know what they are doing.
