Okay, I'll give it a shot.
First off, it looks as if your main light is 90° (side lighting) to the model and only slightly higher than the model and full on to the middle third of the frame. This leaves her face underexposed and the prevalent shadow on the wall. This is a portrait, correct? The first rule of portraits is that it's all about the mask.... the face. However, your lighting is accentuating the other parts rather than her face. To further that, the black dress is underexposed because there is little, if any, definition to her dress and footwear. The lighting position also makes her arm and hand the brighter parts of the shot, which is where the eye will naturally go to first. I do like the lighting ratio. Next time consider using the 45x45 lighting position. That is 45° off camera axis and 45° above the model.
As far as composition, your choice has left the hand, front leg, etc to be to foremost element..... not the face. Females should not have the hand position square to the camera as this is a masculine position. Bring your subject 6-10 feet from the background. this is especially true here because the block wall is non-essential. Use a larger aperture to separate the subject from the background to isolate them... pop.
While the fishnet stockings and continuing bare skin can be sensual, the camera position makes the bottom end look BUDONKUOLUS (thanks Crystal)... I have no idea what that means, but it seems appropriate. One of the issues with these types of shots is that a longer lens will help much more than a 35mm lens to compress features and give a more pleasing result.
Not too bad, but just a few things that came to mind. Thanks for sharing.
as for the exposure, i wanted to keep it slightly moody, which led me to underexposure by a wee bit. not sure it came across that way...
![[No title]](/data/xfmg/thumbnail/31/31033-d583468208439e9103b8a87a7eccb965.jpg?1734159132)
