>>2827315Take this constructively, these are bad so I'm trying to help.
>obscured by blurry shit in front of subject instead of behindThis is bad. Particularly the bottom half, is that non-blurry big flat tan thing an ugly leaf? It doesn't even match the other foreground elements because it's not blurred, makes it look like her left arm is elephantitis mutated.
No eyes and lips hidden both make it less glamorous and more difficult to connect with. A problem when her and some blurry bush are all that's in the photo.
>>2827322Gross. Her elbow looks as wide as her head because of perspective and is posed horribly.
If the right (viewer) elbow was to the side off frame she could still have a hand in her hair without that terrible shape (Is the huge elbow size also from a wide angle lens? Portraits should be shot with 70mm+ usually, for safety from extremely ugly distortions of body size that wide angle makes)
The hair itself in this shot isn't styled or posed pleasantly. It's just flat and tons of forehead showing, and a hand and a lifeless bunch of hair being held off the side.
Her facial expression is just boredom. It's not anger, not grief, not some shy or teasing or anything interesting in this one. The light on her face is completely flat and 2d, since you haven't applied any directional light successfully and you haven't gotten ample fill either.
Her waist is one of the only areas hit by interesting light, but her shirt isn't a smooth curve there or something, it's just rumpled. Then no information for 80% of her chest.
A lifeless bland shot might be fine for historical photojournalism, but this photo doesn't seem to document any event whatsoever other than "hey look this way and grab your hair"
When you've got a very plain geometry subject to work with, you're going to need good poses, expressions and lighting to give some interest.
>>2827340less horrible. solid 4/10 maybe. Pose isn't completely destructive. Lighting isn't bad. Foreground better than #1
