Thank you for the comments.

The tin is makeup - eye shadow to be specific. Urban Decay is a brand of makeup. http://www.urbandecay.com/

Obviously I really missed the mark on this one, but I'll explain the thoughts I had when I took the photograph.

First of all the brand of makeup is Urban Decay, I didn't write the name on the lid. It is their brand. Next is a personal view of society and how the fashion/cosmetic industry contributes to the moral decay of society by telling us (especially women) that we need to look, act, and behave in a certain way.

Finally is the obvious signs of decay in the peeling paint and crumbling wood on the windowsill. The smears of paint which are trying to hide that decay is a metaphor to how we 'paint' ourselves with makeup to hide our aging and flaws.

I didn't really think people would get all that, but had hoped some would get the relevance. I'll take my lumps and go for something more traditional next time! What I'd REALLY like to know is why composition, technique and quality are rated so low with suggestions on improvement.

As I said in my first comment, I think you photographed it well. Your explanation of the various metaphors helps to make it a stronger image for me, but as a guy, I had no hope of recognizing either the object or the brand name without your words.

Hmmm. I am surpirsed to hear that you were rated low on composition technique and quality. In fact, I rated you average to high on these areas, particularly on technique and quality, as I like the way you used DOF and as far as I can tell, this image is abaout as clean and free of artifacts etc. as it gets.

I think what happens, is that in many cases, when people rate...and especially when they are "speed rating" in order to put up their next image....if they didn;t like it in terms of relevance or impact....their dislike "bleeds over" into the other ratings criteria. That is really unfortunate.

I try to make sure I look at all the criteria independently...as if each is the ONLY criteria I am using to rate it. As a result, even if I thought something missed the boat on relevance, there is no reason why the very same image can't also have extremely high image quality. Image quality is unrelated to relevance so there is no reason for low relevance scores to drag it down....yet...and I have ovserved thi son my own submissions as well.....they always seem to.

Don't feel bad uncommondepth. Don't be more traditional, I might have gotten the point you were making if I understood it was makeup (never heard of the brand and it looks like wax). Maybe like something used to apply that make up would have made that relation. The image is little dark which is why I rated quality lower than the others. I stick by what I said earlier, I love it.

Thanks for the comments. I'd probably be the first one to say that if you have to explain the image, you failed. I knew this was taking a risk to post and didn't expect people to really get it. Sometimes you just have to take risks though.

@gorin-images: That is a little bit of a perplexing phenomenom. I try to do as you do, so find it disappointing when people aren't objective on the different categories.