I just had this photo session. http://blog.usagani.com/2011/12/bridget-and-rob-winter-family-photos-at.html
I missed focus because I wasnt on the right focusing mode. They suddenly ran toward me. I was going to delete it but I just cant. I love the photo too much. So does the content of this photo trumps the softness?

Here is a link to high resolution so you can see how soft it is.
http://usagani.com/img/s9/v14/p104502094.jpg

I really feel that even if this was printed on a large media, it is still a strong piece. What do you guys think?

It tells a great story and serves as a sweet memento. Not every image must be an award winner to be worthwhile.

Nice capture ... definitely not trash.

Threw some additional blur at the background and put a canvas texture to it. A little levels/curves adjustment.

Here's a version with USM at 16. 60, 0 applied to the whole image to bump mid-tone contrast and some smart sharpen applied to just the subject:

Hey.. nice edits all. I included it to what I delivered. This is the only one that is soft.

Yeah, nice edits.
I like the canvas idea.
And the contrast/sharpness boost per Karen.

Back to the original: totally cute expressions, well-framed, nice shot low to the ground, excellent choice on the shallow DOF and BW.

Scott

It's a great candid capture.. What I did below is to dupe the background layer, sharpen the copy, then selectively blend it it only on the foreground subject...

nice edit cgardner. I almost never sharpen my photos.. maybe I should. I usually just trash them if it is not sharp SOOC.

Given the nature of the RGB matrix on the sensor and how the camera interprets it into RGB pixels on a monitor some amount of USM is needed on any digital image simply to make the reproduction on screen and print match the impression of the scene content seen by eye.

The first thing to fall victim to the image processing are the specular highlights. This is seen in photos of animals with fur and feathers which get their 3D texture visually from the specular highlights of direct sunlight or non-diffused artificial reflecting off the tiny flat facets of the hairs and feathers. An OOC shot will render them flat and matted. USM will restore them to something closer to what is seen in person. Often in shots of animals or water sparkling on a river scene I will dupe the photo and apply overall sharpening to the base layer, then oversharpen the top layer, blending it the additional "sparkle" the USM creates selectively where I want to emphasize 3D texture.

Post what you consider a sharp OOC shot and I'll edit it to show you the difference with the judicious application of USM.

+1 @ ooc can only achieve very good/mediocrity at it's best.

The camera applies a "global" sharpening to compensate for the "global" blurring that the AA filter imparts to the image. Additionally, the camera doesn't change the TYPE of sharpening being applied (to match the scene) but only the AMOUNT of sharpening. Anything OOC will NEVER be at its best that it is capable of. It might be very good, really good, pretty good, good enough for average use, etc. ... but NEVER it's best that it is capable of.

Camera mfr's really never bother to explain that to consumers ... leaving us poor souls to chase our tails and scratch our heads why we can't get an "awesome shot" like others do ooc (with the faulty assumption that theirs were truly sooc also) ... it isn't the camera or the photographer that's the problem ... it's the fact that they failed to to tell you that there is another step involved in the process.

SOOC provides this post-capture step using the "global" processing of the tiny computer in the camera rather than the powerful & selective processing that YOU can apply outside the camera. SOOC is more convenient by far, but it comes at a price. For some, that is a fair price, for others ... not so much.

For me, the camera only produces a "negative" ... then it's simply a matter of do you take the "negative" to the "one hour lab" at the drugstore (akin to sooc) ... or do you take that same "negative" to a professional lab/finisher/printer (akin to PP). The images that come from the pro lab and the drugstore may come from the same "negative" ... but the final product will be vastly different. One might be "Oh, that's nice", while the other is transformed into a "WOW !!! That's fabulous". They were both YOU'RE CAPTURE ... but significanltly different outcomes, due to using significantly different levels of finishing.

So it is with the convenience of the "one hour lab" and "sooc" ... it can be quite nice and certainly more than "good enough" for many applications, but it will never be it's best ... and "throw away's" are much more salvagable (with limits) than one might otherwise first consider. Lots of people (you or others) can provide/improve/alter/correct finishing ... but no one can replicate the capture of a moment such as you did here ... which btw is priceless.

As always S&P to taste.

My .02 ... HTH

Ok, here is one that I consider sharp. BTW, what is USM?

USM = UnSharpen Mask
Yes, it sounds like an oxymoron ... but it is used for sharpening.

Here's a screen shot of 100% crop from your large file. The inset box is showing the lip/teeth before USM was applied.

The Amount slider tells how strong to apply the USM
The Radius slider tells how far to consider it's neighboring pixels
The Threshold tells how much difference there must be between the neighboring pixels for it to apply the amount.

In the case of your image ... i.e. skin (or skies) I apply a threshold to keep from sharpening those areas that have smooth transitions, yet still applying sharpening to those that have more contrasty transitions (eyes/lips/etc.).

In the second crop ... I've used a different sharpening approach which probably wouldn't work well for the girls face, but you can see the difference in the thread/button.

So, when it comes to sharpening, there are decisions to be made relative to your subject/scene as to how you may want to approach it. That's why sooc can only get you so far ... it has to play it safe because it doesn't really have the ability to judge which area of the image is the more important area ... that you'll make your sharpening decisions based on.

Just like contrast, saturation, etc. sharpening is a tool that requires judicious/selective utilization to achieve your best ... rather than global sooc which can still be really good, but never BEST. And, just like all aspects of editing ... S&P to taste.

Many ways to go about sharpening ... and it is certainly possible to oversharpen as well as under sharpen. Toss on the fact that your output size has a factor on your sharpening strategy and you can begin to see why sooc sharpening isn't the way to achieve BEST.

HTH

The term "unsharp masking" (USM) originated back in the days when color separations where done on process cameras and and later on drum scanners. Been there, done that, in the days before Photoshop.

What it does is change the contrast at tonal boundaries. These are 800% screen shots before and after USM was applied...

+1 @ oversharpen, fade to taste (also at layers/opacity/blend)
+1 @ sharpen in L channel of LAB, K channel of CMYK or Luminosity mode @ RGB

Ok , I will read it slowly at home. Nice edit.