It's good to see flowers. I like your compositions and to my eye it is pleasing to see the whole subject in focus.
Both images look a little dark to me, especially the rose. This may simply be a matter of personal taste and be exactly the way you intend them to look, in which case please ignore the next two paragraphs.
First thought, Are you using a calibrated screen? (If not your images may look dark to people who are using calibrated screens.)
Second thought, I wonder if your white logo is affecting the tonality of the images? For the rose image, the histogram is filled. However, if you cover over the logo with the colour of the background the histogram has a quite large gap at the top, which means a lot of the available dynamic range is not being used for the image (excluding the logo), and that would make the image lower in contrast and "flat looking", as well as overall looking rather dark. There is a similar but much lesser effect with the orchid. (I can't illustrate any of this because you have Edit My Images set to No. In case you are wondering, as image downloading is disabled for your Flickr account I used screenshots to examine the images. If you would prefer me not to take this sort of approach please say so.)
I'm interested that you used f/32 in order to not lose detail. It does mean you got lots in focus (which I like - I use very small apertures too, although mainly for invertebrates rather than flowers). However, although you do get deep depth of focus you also lose considerable fine detail because of diffraction. Have you tried stacking, which lets you have deep depth of field and maximum fine detail? Stacking would be particularly appropriate as you are, I assume, shooting indoors and so there would be no issues of subject movement. I use stacking for flowers, out of doors - I don't do any shooting indoors - and it is definitely useful. For some subjects. In my experience sometimes it works well and easily. Sometimes it works well, but with difficulty, and sometimes considerable time on an individual image. And sometimes it doesn't (or at least I can't get it to) work well enough for my tastes and preferences. But it can produce some rather nice results for flowers and other botanical subjects, some of which could not be achieved with single shots.
As to Graham's point about lack of punch, have you experimented with using natural light? I know it is often said that the best time to photograph flowers is on an overcast day as that brings the colours out well. Flash can be used to emulate that. However, overcast days produce a very flat and even light. If you photograph flowers out of doors in brighter conditions all manner of interesting effects come and go as the sun changes position, clouds come and go, and pools of light are formed by light filtering through foliage above, the pools moving and changing the illumination as the sun moves. And sometimes the illumination changes continuously if the light is coming down through foliage that is moving in even a slight breeze. And other effects like light coming through translucent petals and foliage can produce results that please my eye at least. And it isn't just a matter of the impact of illumination on the subject; light and colours in backgrounds can become varied too, complementing the subject in different ways. Of course you might want to stick with even lighting and plain backgrounds. I know a lot of people prefer that.
One thought about post processing. Again, the orchid image may be exactly as you want and like it, in which case please ignore the next question. Have you tried pulling the highlights down to produce more visible texture in the petals?
A Rose by dancook1982, on Flickr
Orchid
lrrose
thanks for your commitment to this thread!