No, they're not 'too' contrasty. If anything, they might not be (highly selectively) not contrasty enout. More saliently, the first is --compositionally, though ever so slightly, but sufficiently so that there's an un-balanced aspect overall-- a lack of balance (compositionally, tonally, 'weight-wise', in the image that doesn't do it justice. Beyond that, if anything could have been 'improved', an increased amount of detail (as Bob mentioned above, but selectively, and locally, in the blacks/whites as well) in the trees (and elsewhere) would conceivably have 'bettered' the image.

Granted, this is little more than a (my) subjective response, and I recognize that (my) 'subjective' may likely be counter to or relative to whatever intents I might 'want' or 'expect' or 'hope' to see in an image -vs- the same intenty you may have in yours, but either way, they're subjective all the same.

You should 'do' what YOUR subjective intents are/may've been. Mine are simply academic.

No, they're not 'too' contrasty. If anything, the first is --compositionally so, though ever so slightly, but sufficiently so that there's an overall un-balanced aspect-- im-balancement in the image. Beyond that, if anything could have been 'improved', an increased amount of detail (as Bob mentioned above, --or more accurately, better separation between -- in the blacks/whites, too) in the trees would conceivably have 'bettered' the image.

Granted, this is little more than a subjective response, and I recognize that 'subjective' is relative to whatever intents I might 'want' or 'expect' or 'hope' to see in an image -vs- those of yours, but they're subjective all the same.

You should 'do' what YOUR subjective intents are/may've been. Mine are merely academic.