I could do that... or I could just post one of my relatively few current decent ones, and one from my gazillions of current drossy ones.

Interesting to note the male/female difference, John, and of course no one would be surprised that there's the occasional prodigy.

I was just picking up on the OP's "I don't think I've got it" comment. It would be a terrible shame if someone bought a camera, took a few pictures, concluded from the results that he (or she!) didn't have the eye, and gave up.

As you say, most of us have to work harder than that.

I don't believe (except possibly with rare exceptions) that people either 'have' or 'don't have' the eye for it.

I think most people develop it, if they're motivated, and work hard at learning from their mistakes. Some will develop quicker than others, as with other things in life, but as with those things, effort plays a big part.

Even recognising that your pictures are crap is a good start, and I'd put money on it being the place most of us were at, at one time.

Welcome!

It's hilarious. I found it so, even though I only read about a tenth of the comments.

It may be, of course, that the cyclist was going round and round, and the photographer only got him in the gap on the 27th attempt.

But I suspect not. Maybe that's why they all want 10fps these days.

Well, yes.

Obviously, there is a slight delay between the pre-flash, and the exposure.

There's not much you can do about that aspect of the way it works.

The interval between the flashes is plenty long enough for some people and animals to blink, so that when the shutter opens, the eyes are half shut. It's a pain.

If this is troublesome, there's not much alternative to using the flash in its own automatic mode.

Maybe it is a little, but then...

I did try reading through the OP's original densely packed paragraph, trying to sort out the issues, but then my eyes started to glaze over..... zzzzzz!

So what's with the dark line down her face and shoulder?

I like it apart from that, but the line seems intrusive and pointless.

Is it a real consequence of the lighting, or something drawn in?

You're noted for attention to detail, so I can't imagine it's an accident either way. Why's it there?

The trouble with taking photographs of people we're close to, is that our mental image of them is a composite of thousands of their facial expressions, all of which have meaning in the context we shared with them as observers.

So it's possible to see the composite, in almost any photograph we take.

This is not true of someone that only sees the one image.

To evaluate a single photo, it becomes necessary to see in a brutal way, to dissociate yourself from all that history, and see only the image at hand.

As one that has no knowledge of the child in question, and one of limited imagination, sadly I see mostly the teeth in this one.

Completely agree with this.

And this. Good choice of shutter speed too.

Long live subjectivity