Hi again!
IMO, each one has some neat elements... some cool colors here, a bit of neat texture there, but generally they mostly look like experimentation with a method more than a particular framed and well composed subject. Sorry, that probably sounds like a repeat from me from your other thread.
I guess the thing to consider is what you are trying to show/say/make us feel/etc. What about the thing you were looking at was interesting to you, and how are you going to carry that from a 3-dimensional multi-sensual world into a 2-dimensional and very narrow-view photograph?
A lot of it has to do with looking for cool angles, interesting light, cool repeating patterns, bringing out particular details and accentuating them via proximity, focal point, depth of field, etc. Having things at multiple depths in the frame, using angled lines, using subject matter to drag the viewer through the frame or into it, etc.
Sometimes, though, a subject just is going to be dull... like I really don't know if you could pull something interesting out of a wheelbarrow and a tree... but there is SO much you can pull out of a busy night-time scene... it can often be like photographic cheating.
Personal opinion, btw... I think you probably want to get over the anti-photoshop thing at least a LITTLE. I'm not a crazy processor and I don't like heavy PP and big time cheating... HDRs kinda drive me buggy to some degree, etc. but some basic amount of what you do in photoshop was also fairly commonplace in the darkroom... and some of what you do in photoshop (like sharpening) is an almost necessary counter to some of the negative effects of digital photography (all digital images are soft).
Just some more to think about.
Pick one!
