My thoughts are slightly different from those above. First, this is not a shot for stock, for publication in National Geographic or Vanity Fair, or what have you. What is it? It is a shot taken at 10 am on a beautiful sunny day in LA that you were enjoying with your daughter (?). It's a shot to remind you of that moment. It is for your memory, not ours.
So what do the blown out parts of the picture remind you of? It was sunny! It was a beautiful day! In my opinion, the hedges on the right of the picture detract somewhat since I could have taken a similar picture here where we have had freakin' ice and snow for several days. Depending on what the rest of the background looked like, I might have moved right to get more of the beautiful sun in the background.
Look at some pro portraiture shots. In many cases, the pros use strobes to light up the backgrounds to purposely "make them pure white." Different from blowing them out, sure, but the effect is the same: separation the subject from the background. I like the blown highlights behind her, and think it adds to your picture of your daughter enjoying a bright sunny day.
As for the flash: The on-camera flash is naturally harsh because it is so small. The light does not wrap around her face in a pleasing manner. The light is straight-on, when you would prefer it coming from a different direction. Would you have gotten softer lighting by moving off camera and adjusting your shutter speed and aperture to underexpose the ambient and bring up your daughter to compensate? Maybe. Or just maybe your daughter would have just run off in the meantime to go play!
What I am trying to say is that not every image is meant to be a Pulitzer prize winner. You took a fine photo assuming it conveys the story you told when you posted it. It conveys sun. You can see your daughter (I do, however, think she is very slightly underexposed, but so what?) and she is the obvious focal point of the picture. Good work!
|