Post the softest shot you've taken (bit still like)

OK, so we have a 'post the sharpest shot' thread and we all recognize that sharpness isn't always everything. I know at the resolution here the shots might look OK, so maybe explain what went 'wrong'.

So post your shots that were not as sharp as you'd have liked, but still like for whatever reason - maybe they are just sentimental or mean something you you personally, or are great compositions.

I shall start with an OOF shot. Missed the eye focus and not a shot I would print, but I kept the RAW file.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

I actually printed the first one of these (8x11), taken with my f**ked up 17-40 (before I realized there was something very wrong with it) and might print it larger. the left side in the distance is very soft, but on this shot it doesn't destroy the image becasue the viewer is lead away by the cactus.

The second one is also soft on the left and the rocks in the sun are nasty looking. I might try printing it and seeing if I can do something with that part of the image.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

shot at an ungodly ISO in ridiculous light, then pushed to the breaking point in post. i like it, though.

IMAGE LINK: http://imgur.com/Y74Ju

mala mala game reserve, south africa. 1d mark III + 100-400L. hand held. iso 6400, 200mm, f5.6, 1/20s.

ejenner wrote in post #13745502
I actually printed the first one of these (8x11), taken with my f**ked up 17-40 (before I realized there was something very wrong with it) and might print it larger. the left side in the distance is very soft, but on this shot it doesn't destroy the image becasue the viewer is lead away by the cactus.

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Content warning: script

The second one is also soft on the left and the rocks in the sun are nasty looking. I might try printing it and seeing if I can do something with that part of the image.

only soft in full view right?
because i don't see much softness

I was doing some landscapes shots at iso 100 when this bird appeared, I rapidly switched to the 70-200 but I forgot to bump up the iso a bit so I shot at 1/320 and the result was obviously blurred.

This is the result after a lot of sharpening.

Approx 1/4 frame crop, soft as f..k (I was not having a good day ), but I like the pose....

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

I don't think this one counts as "soft"--it's mostly out of focus and lots of motion blur...
But here it is anyway (I'll leave it up to you if it should stay or not)

I was doing a photowalk around the neighborhood a while back and after review images on the lcd I accidentally pressed the shutter all the way (I half-press it to make the image go away). I had the camera pointed towards the ground while slowly walking (I know I probably shouldn't do that). This is what I came up w/ after processing...

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

ohata0 wrote in post #13747324
I don't think this one counts as "soft"--it's mostly out of focus and lots of motion blur...
But here it is anyway (I'll leave it up to you if it should stay or not)

Absolutely, it it's not intentional, it counts. Not going to be overly anal here anyway, anything not uber-sharp counts.

StructuredAmazing wrote in post #13746698
only soft in full view right?
because i don't see much softness

Yea, I realize that with the size limits here, many 'soft' images will look OK, specially with a bunch of sharpening. I can still see it fairly obviously in the posted shots, but I know were to look.

ed rader wrote in post #13745958
mala mala game reserve, south africa. 1d mark III + 100-400L. hand held. iso 6400, 200mm, f5.6, 1/20s.

ed rader

Nice. The mother doesn't look so bad, but clearly the subject is the calf.

Thanks to everyone who participates, I like the responses so far, the high ISO one worked out really well, possibly better than a 'clean' image for that subject.

The noisy shot reminded me of this one. On a decent sized monitor it looks quite blotchy, even with NR. Shot hand held with a Sony Cybershot becasue my T1i died after getting dampened by a geyser in Yellowstone - so I only had the .jpeg to work with. I just looked at the metadata and it says ISO 125 - I'm not sure how it got so much noise, I was expecting it to be 800-1600. I guess it is becasue I had to boost the shadows quite a bit and the $80 camera is a POS when it comes to IQ.

So I printed this at 8 1/2 x 11 and it looked really good - the blue in the left geyser (Fountain Geyser) came out really well and the noise was not really objectionable. Plus there is nothing in the image that needs to be super-sharp so I was able to hit it with NR more than I would otherwise.

One of those cases where the monitor image and printed image look very different (and the print much better).

Again, probably hard to see at the low res here, but it has a lot of chroma noise, particularly in the steam..

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

I am not opening this thread again, because my eyes get pain.

Wondered why only the center was in focus. Found the tilt on my lens was not on zero...

I really love this shot overall, but sadly it's a little blurred, so can't print it as large as I'd love to - either slight missed focus or a touch of motion blur. Probably the latter, considering I was standing on a zodiac and caught this framing out the corner of my eye, got a few shots off in a couple of orientations before it shifted 'out of frame'.

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/mattia_v/662695​8665/