Is that motion blur or PS? Somehow I feel the image would be stronger without the PSed whirly effect. I would really love to see clearly the reflection in the sunglasses as well as the strong horizontal lines presented by the headgear. The frame of the sunglasses is broken as well by the effect. I'm also getting a headache after prolonged study of the image.
IMHO, the effect doesn't contribute to the image at all, but of course you may have a particular effect in mind.
It is just me that the '2 black holes' on the sunglasses don't look like coffee cup to me. First impression is a 'black hair' dark skin lady in white walking pass... (view from a video cam angle):dunno:
Once I looked at a friend's photos. Because of my peculiar eyesight, I took off my glasses and peered at the images something like 6 inches from my faces. My friend mistook my gesture for overscrutinising his images - for looking at the details. He understood when I explained.
But the point was also made. Why are we scrutinising images to find faults? There are few images that are "perfect" (what is it anyway?) But there are many many images that just tell wonderful stories. So what if the shadows have little details? So what if the composition is slightly off? Why are we looking at the little faults instead of the story the image is trying to tell? I have just returned from Tuscany. Did not take the usual stuff. Yes, made many sharp images, but also tried to purposely make things out of focus. Next I will try to shake my camera! Or put the shutter at 5 seconds and then do a tap dance whilemaking the photograph!
But coming to this image. I like it because it goes well with the culture. With the times. The people. The mood.
And that is all I care. I don't care what the "holes" mean. They do not detract from the story.