I cannot really see the harsh shadows on the legs and all the light was natural daylight.
Nobody said anything about "harsh". I said "hard-edged"; which is not necessarily a bad thing. Hard light is far more difficult to manage than soft light, yet can be very attractive. View black and white movies from the 30s and 40s to see hard light used to great artistic effect.
The upper figure's inside left thigh has a shadow that does not appear to be a shadow from the direct sunlight that dapples her shin. It looks like a shadow from a flash at a distance or the shiny side of a reflector. The source angle for the direct sunlight on her left shin and torso does not match the thigh shadow. Hence the conclusion that some "artificial" lighting was done, whether by flash or reflector. In other words, there are two
sources lighting this image. This same source appears to be lighting the lower figure, as her right leg casts a similar shadow on her left leg. Also, the tree trunk appears to cast a non-sunlight shadow on the ground.
The lower figure's (composited) head is too small for the body size.
The tree branches in the upper right compete with the figures in detail and especially in brightness - more so at the edges of the frame. This is seldom good.
The sunlight patch above the lower figure's left breast is unflattering.
The bottom 10% of the image seems unnaturally bright. I would darken it at least a stop.
This image represents both a challenging subject and a relatively difficult location. It took substantial courage for all involved to attempt this shoot.
"Day exterior is the hardest":
Hollywood Director of Photography Michael Chapman.