I read the first two when working on my MA, but haven't read the third. Of the two I'm familiar with, I found "The Landscape of History" the more useful because it helped me learn to see the study of history as something more than just having a head full of names, dates, and places (which was something I was still struggling with at that point). It kind of drove home the point that what I was looking for was narrative threads and how they fit together into a bigger story and the view he takes of parallels between studying some of the "softer" sciences helped me become more careful of my methodologies so that I knew I was doing the best work I could. Here's a review of the book I think you might find useful. (Note that the review isn't from a scholarly source, but I still think it gets to the heart of the book.)

I wasn't a huge fan of Carr's book, but I think that was more on me than him. I agree with a lot of his ideas, but I found the execution lacking and couldn't wait to finish the book because it just didn't speak to me in any meaningful way. Here's a review of that one that might help more than I can, since I don't actually remember a lot of the book other than I found it a bit off-putting for some reason.

Aside from those two, I would also recommend "In Defence of History" by Richard J. Evans and any of the Routledge "Historiography Readers" that cover areas you're particularly interested in. "In Defence of History" is an interesting look at what trained historians are trying to accomplish with their work. Evans does a good job of breaking down the various aspects of "doing history" and tries to point out what works and what doesn't. I don't agree with all his conclusions, but I still think the work has a lot of value just for its look at the inner workings of the study of history and an earnest view of its importance to society.

It's worth noting, though, that this book is fairly controversial because Evans takes a conservative view of how we should be studying and interpreting history. If you go here, you can read a critical review of the book that lays out the problems many people have with it (and at the bottom of that page there are links to various pieces of an entire conversation surrounding the book). I'm pointing this out because even though I found the book to be a valuable addition to my knowledge, there are definitely good arguments against Evans' take.

The Routledge readers are collections of essays on various topics (we used "The Modern Historiography Reader: Western Sources" in my historiography classes) that have been placed into context. Each part of the book deals with a different topic (the one I read has topics such as "The historian's task" and "History from within: trauma and memory") in which the essays are grouped and introduced in such a way that you can see the bigger story that can be found in them.

Routledge readers are an excellent source for beginning to understand how to look at specific sources within the larger context of the time and place they belong to and the overarching narrative they're a part of. Understanding how to contextualize the things you read is a key part of drawing solid conclusions and making good arguments. I will warn you, however, that these books are more on the "proper academic" side and can be a bit tedious if you're not particularly interested in a given topic.

Those are some good books to start with. The book by E.H. Carr isn't as widely used or read in Europe, but it's a staple within many Universities in the United States and the United Kingdom. It's widely seen as a revolutionary book within the English countries, but it has been less influential outside of those regions. Historiography within European universities focuses more on the impact of the Annales school in the early twentieth century and on the contributions of French, German or Dutch philosophers. There's also a focus on the influence of impactful figures within complementary sciences such as sociology or anthropology. Still, "What Is History?" is a good book to start with and some of the arguments made by Carr are mirrored by evolutions within the historiography of Europe.

That brings me to your last book. Marc Bloch is actually one of the historians behind the Annales school. That book is a bit older, but I wouldn't call it outdated. While it may lack some of the more recent developments within historiography, it's a great book to get a grasp on some of the basic concepts and the history behind the theory of history. It's a bit denser and less prosaic, but very much worth the read. I'm actually surprised it was translated to English, I've had issues finding English translations of specific books on historiography.

I would say that "The Landscape of History" is by far the most accessible book. It's also the most recent one. It's less theoretical and more educational, which has its merits and its flaws. So I'd say that this is probably the best book to start with if you want something a bit less dense and less theoretical. When it comes to other books you could read, it depends on what your native language is? Do you speak French or Dutch? Most of the textbooks we use in our courses sadly aren't translated to English. I'd say that "Historiography in the Twentieth Century: From Scientific Objectivity to the Postmodern Challenge" by George G. Iggers is quite informative and exhaustive. So if you are looking for just a basic overview of the evolution of historiography, I would pick up that book. It's also a relatively recent work. It's very dry though, so know what you are getting into.

I do have two personal recommendations, both highly praised and respected works within historical circles. The first one is "Logics of History: Social Theory and Social Transformation" by William H. Sewell. It takes some of the most influential theories within history and sociology to try and sketch a theoretical framework for both history and sociology. It's one of the best books on social theory in my opinion and I thought that it was a very smooth read. The second one is "Orientalism" by Edward Said. This is an extremely influential book within historiography and it analyzes our personal frame of mind and how it expresses itself through our research or writings. It's a superb read.