The first is my favourite. I feel like the boots fit in naturally on the porch and the house adds interest, it makes me think about a simpler life of a farmer coming home from a long day in the field and airing his boots out on the porch.
I like what you were tryin in no 2 but i didnt even see the boots till i went back and looked for them.
The rest of them i find the boots random and their locations confusing, i was just thinking why are these boots on a railway track?
great exercise and as a disclaimer i have no experience in the non digital world
I like this first one ok, though I'm not sure about the composition. Maybe the boots are too small in the whole image? And the wheel being there while the boots are in the center makes it feel odd. Also, I feel like the paint on the house probably has a lot of texture, but the whites are so bright that I can't see most of it.
The others, as Einstein said, seem kind of random. Boots on a porch, that's perfectly normal. But boots behind a sign, on a railroad track, and on the side of the road - why?
So it was a story that I was trying to tell. The boots represent a person who is living in poverty (house), then turns to panhandling, then just wandering off the usual path (tracks), realized life had come to a dead end (sign), and finally about to jump. In the originals there is more detail in the house picture and you can almost feel the texture of the peeling paint.
Thats actually a really cool idea. However, like many people said, without that explanation the boots are out of place. I cant really say WHAT would have made em better... The lighting seems a little flat though, and in black and white the highlights and shadows create all the interest.
I agree that the lighting is flat. You were closest with the first image, but the boot on the train track especially, as well as the others, need some contrast. I also can't say that I would have understood the story without your explanation. It is an interesting idea, but I don't think the images told that story. You might have tried to be too literal with it.