>>3287109here's some random photo from my /p/ folder that i think did what you were trying to do, only much more successfully.
where yours is flat and lacks contrast, this has rich lighting. where yours lacks depth, this has strong diagonals and a sense of perspective. there are details up close and far away. everything in your first photo's foreground is roughly the same distance from the camera. there's no near-far relationship, which is what gives photos the feeling of "good composition" 90% of the time, rule of thirds be damned.
i'd really like to see your "contact" sheet or whatever. i want to see your thought process behind taking your photos and how long it took you to work the scene. my hunch, and feel free to prove me wrong, is that you took a bunch of one-off snapshots (without really exploring the scene or the idea) and applied some post hoc analysis back at your home base.
