Is this too soft?

TheRightLight wrote in post #14884982
Fair enough. Thanks for the help.

However, I'd like to ask: What do you think of the end result? Is this usable?

It absolutely is usable.

Of course its useable. But if the missed focus really bothers you, there are tools like Lens Blur and Focus Magic and creative masking that can be used to shift the focus to the singer.

TheRightLight wrote in post #14884982
Fair enough. Thanks for the help.

However, I'd like to ask: What do you think of the end result? Is this usable?

seems perfectly sharp to me...

maybe the performer moved between when you focused and when you took the shot causing the focus to be off a slight bit. I have taken softer pics and used them so it's not a big deal IMO. Here's one of them:

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by FLICKR

Thanks for the support guys. I'm going to attempt to print a 20 x 30 just to see what happens. If it's a bit soft "nose-up," but remains sharp even just a few steps away, I'll be satisfied.

If that doesn't work out, I wouldn't be too upset with a 16 x 20 under the same criteria.

It looks sharp enough to me. The color shot looks sharper but it is smaller. Is it possible some sharpness was lost in post?

Hey right light, it does look sharp enough to print. 20x30 is going to be pushing it depending on how far away you're viewing it from.

As was suggested earlier, I would add some blur and noise to the elements that aren't meant to be the subject. The eye doesn't really care how sharp something is (obviously sharper is better) but the difference between peak sharpness and minimum sharpness can be really important to draw viewer focus.

So by bluring the guitar and mic a little bit the eye will naturally fall to the face first as it is bright, contrasty and sharp.

NotBlake wrote in post #14889699
Hey right light, it does look sharp enough to print. 20x30 is going to be pushing it depending on how far away you're viewing it from.

As was suggested earlier, I would add some blur and noise to the elements that aren't meant to be the subject. The eye doesn't really care how sharp something is (obviously sharper is better) but the difference between peak sharpness and minimum sharpness can be really important to draw viewer focus.

So by bluring the guitar and mic a little bit the eye will naturally fall to the face first as it is bright, contrasty and sharp.

On Thursday, I will be able to print a 20 x 30. I'll see how that works out first before I do any more work on it.

Looks just fine. I'm not a fan of tack-sharp portraits anyway. Especially with women.

Have your tried a noise removal software? This image looks underexposed to me. I may have used spot metering and bracketed the shot. You also have iso noise removal set to standard and not high according to the exif. I prob would have set that to high running at iso 800 just to be safe.

A lot of folks are claiming underexposure...

I'm not seeing that on my calibrated IPS Dell monitor.

TheRightLight wrote in post #14892431
A lot of folks are claiming underexposure...

I'm not seeing that on my calibrated IPS Dell monitor.

I also have a calibrated Dell IPS monitor and agree with you. I think what people are mistaking for underexposure is a somewhat even, flat contrast you have to her face due to having shot this in the shade. There is certainly nothing wrong with a shade shot.

sapearl wrote in post #14892506
I also have a calibrated Dell IPS monitor and agree with you. I think what people are mistaking for underexposure is a somewhat even, flat contrast you have to her face due to having shot this in the shade. There is certainly nothing wrong with a shade shot.

Bingo.