>>2994730>>2994733These are technically fine (if the shallow depth of field was on purpose, if not read up about f-stops). They're the kind of thing most of us took when we started out, stuff that looks sort of pretty but without a huge amount of thought behind them. If you're just starting out there's nothing wrong with that. It's good practice to get the basic techniques.
Something that helped me was "tell a story". Anyone can get a flower head in focus and press the shutter button, but there's not much to engage the viewer, it's just a flower in the center of the frame. Some of the best photos have technical flaws but are very well composed and have interesting subjects.
So, the flower. It's dead centre with everything else out of focus (except for two stalks on the right, I'm assuming that's not intentional). Where is the viewer's eye supposed to go? There's no incentive to look around the frame, because the subject is right in the middle with everything around it not being of interest. Is there anything special about that flower? We've all seen a flower like it, there's nothing to keep us engaged.
I'd say the photo to the left an example of a very strong subject, it's a Syrian soldier seeing his father's shop for the first time in 4 years as it was in a rebel-occupied zone. I think it's a powerful photo that tells an instantly arresting story about family, war, and Aleppo in particular.
Obviously you're not going to be a war photographer off the bat, it's just an example of how a subject draws one into a photo. More so than something that looks sort of nice but has been done by everyone and doesn't have a story to tell.
