Now that's a good explanation - but I'll add one possible tip: if you shoot in RAW format (which may not even be possible on that camera) you may be able to rescue over-exposed areas to some extent in RAW format processing tools. Massively over exposed areas are probably not going to work very well - the colour balance of the rescued image tends to go wrong, for instance - and you may need to use some moderately advanced editing facilities.
I'd suggest working out what you like about the photo (e.g. lines converging to the middle right), and see if there's ways to emphasise that for other viewers (e.g. cropping).
I'd also consider brightening the picture, either overall, or messing around with a luminance histogram tool, but that's dependent on your goals (which is where RAW format is your friend!).
Perhaps it could be cropped a little closer - for instance, to me, the far left of the photo is getting so blurred it's ceases being a good backdrop.
Also, bear in mind there's no rule that says the centre of the focus (or indeed, centre of interest) has to be in the exact centre of the photo. Indeed, there's an "The Rule of Thirds" suggesting the centre of the photo is entirely the wrong place for the centre of interest. Personally, I let my personal taste guide me in balancing the composition, for better or worse, neither always centring, yet not always avoiding it.
The best camera is the camera you have with you - and this is both mildly interesting in its own right (so thanks for the share), and perhaps more importantly, tells you a lot about how to take the photo you want to take.
That's the way to avoid aperture issues - flat subjects :)
Though I suppose an irritating person might argue that if you had an even smaller depth of field the rather cluttered background would be softened further, emphasising the subject!
On RAW format - it is an interesting format, if you've got something that can process it. Very very very loosely, it contains the photon counts, rather than a JPEG which puts the counts into a set of 256 buckets and tells you the bucket numbers. As such, changing things can be done with much more precision. It also has a far better chance of recovery from overblown or underexposed photos. You also get the picture before computed sharpening and mosaic removal. That said, you must be using something to understand Canon' RAW format! You might want to check it for additional facilities! In passing, the information in RAW format transfers pretty closely to TIFF format. And finally, RAW format files are huge - be warned!
On the F number - yes, though I'm a little surprised you can't choose to have a smaller aperture, depending on the lens you have. A kit lens for that camera is EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6, but perhaps you have something different.
Alas, DPP4 serves my purposes so well for all the processing I want to do, and also being on Windows 11, I've not looked at alternatives.
I should have been more careful with my jargon, on rereading my comment.
And I'd guess you are seeing two F numbers because of something to do with a "crop" APS-C sensor, so there's the whole "Actual F number" vs. "Effective F number if had a full sensor".
And do try RAW shots - I'm guessing you have access to Canon's Digital Photo Professional for free, and that will allow playing with the RAW format image (lots more info in those) and saving to JPG.
But anyway, higher F numbers soften the sharpness of the "best" parts of the photo, in exchange for "OK" focus over a greater depth, and loss of brightness. You may well try the experiment and decide you've gained nothing by it, but experiments are a good way to learn. I have to admit to usually forgetting to consider if I should change the aperture in my shots (with the excuse that I take wild bird photos, so loss of light is usually really bad news).
Perhaps play with the "Shadow" settings of any luminance histogram tool you have to get a little definition (pupil vs. retina) in Stellar's left eye - e.g. to match the definition of her right (will work best on RAW mode photos).
Given the distance you're taking this at, it's unsurprising Stellar's right eye, etc. is drifting out of focus due to "Depth of Field" issues, but you could try going to a much higher aperture for more depth of field (e.g. perhaps you are at around F4 try seeing what happens at F20 - though you may run into lighting/ISO issues.
When you actually get the device manuals, the suppliers are remarkably coy about what "water-resistant" actually means and when it applies, beyond "less prone to water damage than those that are not". So just be aware what you might mean by the term may well not be what the supplier means - and second hand items may have lost some resistance as well.
Also, if you are in rain or drizzle, you're probably not going to be taking the best photos regardless of kit!
Now that's a good explanation - but I'll add one possible tip: if you shoot in RAW format (which may not even be possible on that camera) you may be able to rescue over-exposed areas to some extent in RAW format processing tools. Massively over exposed areas are probably not going to work very well - the colour balance of the rescued image tends to go wrong, for instance - and you may need to use some moderately advanced editing facilities.