>>4490589I'm quite new to this as well, so take my advice well-salted, but something I've been trying to do in my own post-processing that I think yours could use more of is crushing the dynamic range down a bit to make details more visible, specifically in the highlights/whites. Even if the whites don't happen to be blown out and there's still technically differences in the pixels, if they're extremely close to being the same values, then one might not be able to tell just by looking at it.
For example: in this lego photo, the specular highlights in the blonde female's hair, or the specular highlights in the sitting female's shoulder. Those regions are so bright that there's almost no contrast with the actual specular reflections of the light source.
>>4489033 is my edit, and while I wouldn't confidently say my version is some great example to look to, I will at least point out that I tried to preserve all of the contrasting details in the image. Every specular reflection is a small detail, rather than large regions being extremely bright and basically white. I like that yours is brighter overall, but I feel like reigning in the exposure a bit will help keep details visible. I think of bright specular reflections almost like stars in the sky, and you want less light pollution so that the stars are more visible. If that makes sense..
I think I like your edit of my cows the most, but I might just be biased :)