Thoughts? Little girls

I'd suggest a re-shoot. She looks angry in #1. She needs light in her eyes in #2 (fill flash).
But, if you had to work on these, crop out the blown area at the top of #1 and clone out the black dead weed behind her.
In #2 I'd try lightening shadows in her eyes and I'd crop for a vertical to eliminate most of the right oof flowers.

#1 is exposed too high. She looks angry, as Qbx said. (Tensed lips, eyebrows drawn down and together(?), nostril flared.)
#2 is showing the overcast day; shoot at a better time.

What's wrong with a stern expression? It's a valid portrait. Why should we only have portraits of people smiling?

#1 is OK.

In #2 the flower is competing and getting in the way.

Lighting is OK.

Thanks for the feedback

for what it's worth, the most distracting thing to me is the extreme magenta cast to the girl's face (and a bit on her arm) in #1. It makes her look like she's holding her breath.

Alveric wrote in post #18422878
What's wrong with a stern expression? It's a valid portrait. Why should we only have portraits of people smiling?

#1 is OK.

In #2 the flower is competing and getting in the way.

Lighting is OK.

Indeed a stern people portrait is valid. I've done some myself. But a little girl in a field of flowers somehow doesn't comport with anger or sternness to me. An old geezer sitting in a bar holding an empty glass -- yeah! Another thing about this one is that lens flare on her left arm.

icor1031 wrote in post #18422838
#1 is exposed too high. She looks angry, as Qbx said. (Tensed lips, eyebrows drawn down and together(?), nostril flared.)
#2 is showing the overcast day; shoot at a better time.

Wouldn't it be always better overcast vs bright sunny day?

Go black and white and blow the highlights. I've just coverted them and, to me, they look quite good.