Too blurry for use?

I know this shot is soft. That isn't up for debate. What is up for debate is whether or not it is useable to give a bride? I am asking because this particular bride would print something less than stellar so I want to avoid giving her something I wouldn't want displayed and I am torn on this image. This was from a family wedding freebie, please keep in mind this is not my forte, but also give me honest feedback. Thanks.

I would use it because it is a tender moment. yes it is a bit soft but personally I think it works for this image

But if you are not comfortable with the image being seen then I would not put it out. Its all about you at this point she hasnt seen it.

Looks too gray/monotone, I don't really see B&W there. Would it work better in sepia maybe?? - might make for a softer look.

If it would be a moment that was significant to the family, I don't know - it may not represent you at your best as a photographer, but it was a favor for family, so if it's a photo they'd value, maybe...

Or could you do this one as a small sized print, maybe that would make the lack of sharpness less noticeable. Since it was done gratis, even if they want it in digital format, it's not like they're customers that you are committed to providing a specific package of prints, CD etc. So maybe this wouldn't be one to include on a CD but give them a couple of 4x6s or something.

Since it's soft, make it work for you. First I would bump up the contrast a hair, then duplicate the layer and run the "Diffuse Glow" filter on it and adjust opacity to taste. Make it dreamy. I would finish with a slight vignette to center the viewers attention. I would also consider a square crop.

I agree with Sharon.

Shadowfixer1 wrote: Since it's soft, make it work for you. First I would bump up the contrast a hair, then duplicate the layer and run the "Diffuse Glow" filter on it and adjust opacity to taste. Make it dreamy. I would finish with a slight vignette to center the viewers attention. I would also consider a square crop.

Not sure about this exact technique but it does need bumping up with a dreamy look

Both Sharon and Shadowfixer have good suggestions. But you are publishing (even though to a small circle) an image which you say is not to the standards you place on your work. Can you live with that? I recently had a similar situation. in which I expended a lot (too much) of time making a substandard image from The Met "more" presentable. I was justly criticized for it on PT, and I reshot it and reposted it. That seems to me the best solution.

John Landolfi wrote: Both Sharon and Shadowfixer have good suggestions. But you are publishing (even though to a small circle) an image which you say is not to the standards you place on your work. Can you live with that? I recently had a similar situation. in which I expended a lot (too much) of time making a substandard image from The Met "more" presentable. I was justly criticized for it on PT, and I reshot it and reposted it. That seems to me the best solution.

John- why do you have to hit the nail on the head? I am not sure I could re-shoot as it's from a wedding.

Thanks for the suggestions everyone- I am off to make it super dreamy so it looks like I meant for it to happen And if that fails, well it was an exercise in processing and my recycle bin will appreciate it.

OK here it is...



So now I must ask, have I over cooked it?

Doesn't come up to the standard of your work, in my opinion.

mj~shutterbugg wrote:

John Landolfi wrote: Both Sharon and Shadowfixer have good suggestions. But you are publishing (even though to a small circle) an image which you say is not to the standards you place on your work. Can you live with that? I recently had a similar situation. in which I expended a lot (too much) of time making a substandard image from The Met "more" presentable. I was justly criticized for it on PT, and I reshot it and reposted it. That seems to me the best solution.

John- why do you have to hit the nail on the head? I am not sure I could re-shoot as it's from a wedding.

Thanks for the suggestions everyone- I am off to make it super dreamy so it looks like I meant for it to happen And if that fails, well it was an exercise in processing and my recycle bin will appreciate it.

OK here it is...

So now I must ask, have I over cooked it?

Sorry. That doesn't work at all. I don't want to be harsh, but that's my opinion on the second image. I think the image would be nice with a dreamy high-key look and not really just trying to make something presentable. It should only take 5 or 10 minutes at the most to do it. Now that I think about it, try the "Orton Technique" on it. That should get you something nice.

Generally speaking, if you think there's a problem, there's a problem.

John Landolfi wrote: Doesn't come up to the standard of your work, in my opinion.

gjtoth wrote: Generally speaking, if you think there's a problem, there's a problem.

I think you gentleman are right. I did try one final edit, but honestly don't feel that it saves it, I think I just puttered in photoshop. If you can't tell I am not super talented at Photoshop Here it is for CC,

Don't be so hard on yourself. Some images are just too compromised to justify the effort

Well, it was a good effort but sometimes lemons are just lemons. Everyone has those. Some of us more than others. I throw out my fair share but I love getting lemonade out of lemons sometimes. Better luck next time.