There are two (obvious) things that made this photo stand out to me; the girl, and the name plate. One of the reasons that this combination is so outstanding is because Charlie is clearly a horse, and not the girl, but the irony of her being labeled as this "Charlie, Stable girl" is hard to miss. I think it's clever.
The expression on the girl's face is great. She is beautiful, but more than that, in this photo her eyes really speak to you. They don't tell you much, as in they're not PARTICULARLY expressive but they are approachable and there's an honesty about them. The red lipstick is also a great addition. It adds a certain allure that emphasises the welcoming expression of her eyes.
I love how she's playing with her hair idly and it just flows down to the name plate which immediately brings the viewer's eye down to that, making the two elements of the photograph solid and inseparable.
There's something a little bit off with the cropping of the photo, and I'm not entirely sure what it is. I think it's partly that the point of her elbow is poking into the sides of the frame which feels a little awkward. Her right hand also looks little bit cut off from the position she has it in and it feels a little awkward in the photo.
Exposure is perfect. I spend a lot of time in stables and farms and your lighting really does capture the atmosphere that you get in those places. Depth of field is also effective.
You asked me what I thought of your critique and I will stand by what I have said to you before in the note that I sent you; whilst I truly appreciate your efforts for providing an in depth critique, and whilst you have chosen some excellent adjectives, you need to get your critiques proof-read before sending them to the artist. It is difficult to follow, and it's a shame that the essence of your critique is lost in that. (as I said before, I'm happy to proof read for your).
I did not finish reading the critique because the grammatical errors makes it incredibly hard to follow.
Unlike your other two critiques that you have asked me to review, I find this one rather unfair. Here, you are critiquing not the work of the artist - in terms of their originality, the technique (you did a little bit, talking about the lighting capturing the sparkles and the lines on the fingers, but it is minimal). I feel like you are criticising the concept of the artist in a subjective way; you critiqued it on the basis that it's about Valentine's day, and you don't like the day being a holiday.
I'm interested to know why you even wanted to critique it? When I critique a work it is because I see something special in it, something worth talking about. Ultimately, the critique facility on DA is designed to provide an artist feedback in order to improve their work - to make it that little bit better than it already was. If you point-blank do not enjoy the work, it is impossible to provide pointers for improvement, and you end up with a critique that merely tells the artist that you didn't like their concept and that they should change it completely. Which is what I feel this critique is.
I also disagree with what you said about how an established artist in one medium should not experiment with other kinds. To many (if not all) artists, experimentation is what keeps art alive. And to be and feel alive is why we do what we do as artist. Maybe as you said, you are not an artist, so you don't really understand that. If that is the case then it's very hard for me to accept your opinions as you do not understand the topic you are forming thoughts about.
I appreciate you asking for my opinions on your critique - that shows me that you are honestly willing and interested in writing them. So, the offer of sending me your critiques for proof reading prior to publishing them still stands. However, I must say that I do not enjoy reading these published critiques when they are written with so many errors - I do not think it is fair on the artist.