The second one is the more interesting of these two to me -- the first one is odd, since the house seems to be the subject, but it's largely hidden.
The second one has some good texture in the house and yard. However, the branches on the right, and the slight glare in the middle-right, are distracting. Also, the photo feels dark overall, except for the sky (which is blown out). That effect could be useful, but for now it just feels unpleasant to my eye.
Composition aside, the first lacks contrast. It's 'flat', tonally speaking. [An old reminder for those learning b&w enlarging was to check their final prints and see if they included a full black and a near-white.]
For the second, the house lacks detail. If I were printing from a negative, I'd hold it back a tad. Were I shooting this, I would return on a day when the sky was more interesting -- clouds would add a lot to the final picture.
Thanks for the feedback. I'm trying to learn how to do B&W in PE, so your comments are greatly appreciated, and helpful. (I agree these aren't the best composed photos; I just grabbed some "throwaways" to see how the B&W tools work.)
The first one, in my opinion, really has nothing going for it: too light, not a good composition, no contrast.
The second one might have possibilities if the sky were darkened, and the house and grass lightened. I'm not sure about the tree. Also, the house sort of cuts the pic in half.
Yet there's something about the image that holds my interest--just not sure what.