OK - some good and some areas needing attention. The overall exposure is good and the separation from the blurred background is good. I think the light is a bit hard and the flash is too low. That catchlight in her eye is around the 9 or 9:30 position when we generally want it closer to 10:30-11. You can see that in the second image where the nose shadow is pretty sharp (hard light).

The lighting is also a bit too flat (even). Shadows give definition to the face, so we usually want to light in a way that gives us brighter and darker areas of the face.

Those things do not make it a bad image, just some things to consider in the future.

IMO, the biggest error is shooting into a bare shoulder. That shoulder has MORE area than her face and is lit just as bright. I do lots of high senior portraits and many are girls. I am very clear that I do not want to see more than one bare shoulder top. It is too bright, too large, and closer to the camera.
When I do shoot that top, I make it a 3/4 or full-length composition to minimize the percentage of the photo that is the upper arm.

I realize you many have had no input to clothing selection, but if you start doing professional work, you have to take control of EVERYTHING. If they do show up with sleeveless tops, adjust the poses to minimize those upper arms.

As usual, your lines tell us nothing. They are meaningless.

No, they do not.

That is exactly what I have done and it proves perspective never ever changes with focal length. You have read this far and still do no get it?

Sorry, you are still wrong. These little lines are not perspective, they are some fantasy of yours. Perspective is the change in the spatial relationship of objects. Something your little lines ignore. In the history of photography the ONLY thing that changes perspective is movement. I learned that in the 60's and physics, trigonometry, geometry and physiognomy have not changed. Again, feel free to wallow in ignorance. You're doin' great.
If you actually LOOK at my images, you will see that the relationship of the tree branches to objects in the image change not one bit was one zooms in closer. THAT is perspective. Not silly lines.

Bob, Bob, Bob. If you actually knew how to measure a change in perspective instead of drawing little lines you would know that focal length does ZERO to change perspective.

Look closely at the images I posted an look at the RELATIONSHIP of objects in the image. The relationship to one another changes not one iota. Your lines prove nothing...except that you are unwilling to abandon a losing idea. You are alone.

NO sir. Never. Ever. The ONLY thing that changes perspective is to move. Simply changing focal length will not change perspective. It cannot, since your relationship with the objects around you has not changed. If you are going to make me prove it, I will.

You are free to wallow in your ignorance of science. Sad. If I cared, I would spend some time showing how one actually measures perspective.

Real photographers have known that ONLY movement affects perspective since....well...forever.

Now, to prove that moving DOES change perspective, here are three images all taken at 35mm. Note the area circled in image #1 and see how the relationship of the objects (perspective) changes.

Case closed.

Nope. Same camera-to-subject distance will yield ZERO perspective change. It simply is not possible. You can do all the lens/focal length changing you want and it will not change physics.

Here are four images taken at 70, ,105,145, and 200mm. Note the relationship of objects to one another and note that as I zoom in, those relationships (perspective) do not change. Focal length NEVER EVER affects perspective.

Yeah, the perception may change, but it is a visual lie. That compression is nothing more than an "optical cropping" of the scene. Take two images from the same place - one at say 200mm and one at 35mm. Crop the 35mm image to the same angle of view as the 200 and.....NO DIFFERENCE!

A discussion of how perspective works in composition is good. Using focal length to demonstrate it is incorrect. That is my only point.

Be careful about using a lens to show perspective. While an ultra-wide lens does tend to emphasize the near-far appearance. the ONLY thing that changes perspective is the camera-to-subject distance. Change lenses (focal length) never changes perspective. MOVING the camera always changes perspective.

Yeah...I am with Ronz. You need to get a bit more light on her face. Since her complexion really is that way, we need to light her with that in mind. For a portrait, we want to make people look the way we want them to look, not the way they DO look. So a bit more light from a reflector or small flash (maybe with a grid or snoot to get the light JUST on the face).

The pose in #2 is just...I dunno...I have to ask why anyone would do that. That is just a personal thing.

Whitewall, Bay Photo, American Color Imaging, Black River Imaging...cannot go wrong with them...and several more. A 24x36 is not all that big. As Gene indicated, just saying 50MB Tiff does not mean much.

The toilet paper thing cuts down on the specular reflection of the light, but does not really soften it. The ONLY way to soften a flash is to use something that makes the light source larger. Toilet paper does not do that. It is just physics.