>>2713217you're trying to look for something interesting with the water droplets on the flower petals. that's good. everyone here though will shit all over it and say something about flower phase, etc. technically it looks ok but i guess it lacks an interesting subject and it's been done millions of times. don't post ones like this here and expect any favorable comments.
>>2713218this one is pretty bad because it's the back of a head, underexposed, and doesn't really say much. if this were taken wider or you were further back where the dark subject didn't take up most of the frame and the light were behind you, then it may be a nice photo if properly done.
keep practicing and lurk and try to understand what makes photos interesting enough to get other people to want to look at them. the ones you posted are interesting to you because you're learning or playing with the new camera. now apply what you find interesting in someone else's photos to your own.
