Try shooting from under a roof or umbrella.

In the days of film one put more forethought into their work, if for nothing else than the expense of film.
Even then, a good photograph for me was the product of a happy accident. It worked best for me to take a lot of them and discard all but the best. Since digital technology removed the film cost that is probably the best way..take a bunch of them, try different angles and exposures and erase all but the best. Christina, you are doing it the right way, thinking about it, asking questions and building an understanding.
You ask about crisp photos. Study the work of Ansel Adams for that...He used large format cameras and small apertures. His large negative size helped a lot. and I think that with the effort that was involved in taking one of his photos, he probably put considerable forethought into it.

I would also crop it at the pole. One problem is that there is a very different color balance in the two sections of this photo. Light in the flower stand is strongly orange which contrasts strongly with the blue shifted indirect daylight.

the flower vendor is enjoying you taking his photo. The bald guy in the shorts is just as well better blurred out as he does not add much to the theme of your photo. There is something to the right of him which is cut in half by the edge of the frame. Avoid that when possible. It can,however, always be eliminated later.

Your show window photo is nicely done. Your own image contributes much bringing it from a photo of shoes to a story of a stunning young woman's interest.
I suggest taking more than one picture as distracting things like cars can suddenly pop into one's photo and are as quickly gone. Another way to get rid of moving objects is a very long exposure in which their own movement removes them.

I like the clouds which show in your photo. They would not show up as well if you had exposed for more moon detail.

Cameras are complex, but they are easily fooled and are quite rigid in their logic. Manual settings may be outside what the camera senses as "proper" so you have to find ways around it. Neutral density filters are the only solution if the camera meters through its lens. But if it has a sensor that you can cover with tape, that may be another option. but you may have to also disable or cover its flash.

Thanks for explaining the banding. I've seen it and wondered.

Stunning dragonfly,Tony Cooper.

As their flight path is quick and "random" you might locate an aiming object in the scene, put your camera on a tripod and wait until the dragonfly nears the aiming object. Then fire a burst and hope for the best. Small quick moving objects are very difficult to photograph.

Try a slower insect or one which can be baited.

{The dragonfly is properly focused, but it may take more pixels to get an image that you can enlarge and crop }

The images are good. Particularly the 3rd. You mentioned a polarizing filter, it has an effect somewhat like what you want but it is an iffy thing. Still worth the try. I like the subdued background as the boards add little.

I think the structures are known as sporangia, spores are within them. Thus giving ferns the general term sporophyte or spore bearing plant, Of course all other big plants are sporophytes also. No I've not seen this particular fern before, but I rarely look at them and I'm a botanist.

Mike,I understand your feeling as I want to be in control of my computer and am loathe to let it run doing what someone else wants even if I have not asked for it. That is, in part, why I'm a Linux user.

good contrast in the B&W but the color photo is really nice

Nicely stated and to the point.

My mother was incapable of operating an Argus C3 so it became mine when I was 14. ( Dad's approach was,"I bought it, that is my part now you make pictures with it, that is your part." It taught me a lot. My earlier brownie was defective from the factory..a crushing blow to a 9 year old getting his first developed film returned blank.. It was repaired to work. Be absolutely sure her first photos work.