Did I "save" this dark, blurry photo?

[dlaf]

Greetings,

Below is a photo I quickly took of a little girl, that is cute, but technically a mess!

Below are links to a couple of different versions along with my questions which are:

1. As you can see from the original, the inside of their front door did not make for a nice background, so I removed it all.

Does the "pose" look better with the floor or without the floor?

2. Did my using "unsharp" in psp (set for "Edge Glow") sharpen it in a way that, combined with the umph it gave, makes the effect seem "on purpose?"


BEFORE:
<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/daybeezho/2334341227/" title="orig by daybeezho, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2057/2334341227_26732098b2.jpg" width="375" height="500" alt="orig" /></a>


AFTER PP with floor:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3041/2335144666_cec50671a4_b.jpg

AFTER PP without floor:
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2002/2335144302_0d3c8060a7_b.jpg

There are several other versions in my DPS Posts set that I made using the Time Machine feature in PaintShop Pro XI. Please tell me if any of them make the photo look like it was meant to be that way, or if it just looks like I took a blurry, dark photo and gunked it up.

Any and all input is appreciated! Thank you!

Debbie

p.s. I wanted it to look processed and a bit ethereal, but not sure if that's the correct word.

[Major_Small]

Those look very overly processed to me. Unfortunately, that much blur isn't really something that can be fixed in post. Was there a reason you shot this in night mode? That's the primary reason this came out the way it did - the camera's flash threw the white balance off, and the slow shutter speed blurred the image.

This type of scene would have been better in portrait or auto modes.

[Nathan deGargoyle]

I think you've gon a bit heavy-handed with the sharpening and I'm sorry bit I hate that pink frame. I had a go myself. Hope you like it.

http://i20.photobucket.com/albums/b209/IanGM/DPS/dlafsgirl.jpg

I know there are bits of the masking/shadow that don't work but this was a quick go for an example.

[commongrackle]

Uh, yeah...I don't like that pink frame, either. Nathan deG's retouch is pretty good, tho. Keep playing with Paintshop Pro.

[GEli]

That didn't work. I'm sorry. Even without the added floor or horrifying pink frame, the sharpening doesn't really remove the blur so much as make it neon red/green/blue and rather effectively highlight it in the frame. Even in Nathan's excellent edit there's still quite a big hit to quality, and unless this moment is truly irreplaceable to you I'd just scrap this shot and move on. If it is irreplaceable, Nathan's edit would be quite useable in small prints - do what he did.

[Jesta]

perhaps you photographed a ghost? whoooOOOOOoooooo :)

[dlaf]

Thank you, all, for your input.

Major Small, I had to laugh at your wondering why my settings were what they were. I am quite the newbie and have just, in the last few months, started taking my bridge camera off auto. I was in a panic to take a quick photo (kids never stay in one place too long!) and kept thinking, okay, it's dark in here, night mode... ah, no flash, I don't want her overexposed... Dials and buttons were all over the place in my unorganized frenzy to take a photograph. Should have kept it on auto! The overprocessing comes from a preset mode in PSP unsharp mask. Thought it might look "hip." Guess not.

Nathan, I was amazed at how good your edit turned out. I will play around, but probably take the advice of ...

GEli, Pink? Horrifying? Come now. Let's agree to disagree. ;) You're suggestion of scrapping the shot set my mind at ease. It wasn't an irreplaceable moment, I just thought it was exceptionally cute and there's more cuteness where that came from.

Thanks again!

[jiminyClickit]

dlaf,

Not ethereal, but maybe you can use this to go there. It's a little sharper, has a cleaner background, and composition's even. Layers and masks work on most anything.

<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/47146451@N00/2357021241/" title="EtherealX by jiminyClickit, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2017/2357021241_566fef9496_o.jpg" width="430" height="600" alt="EtherealX" /></a>

The face is not that blurred:

<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/47146451@N00/2359335937/" title="EtherealX(face) by jiminyClickit, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2022/2359335937_ca69e53407.jpg" width="403" height="500" alt="EtherealX(face)" /></a>


Larger: http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2017/2357021241_79b1699824_o.jpg

[windrider86]

Sometimes what I will do with a picture like this that is just too out of focus to save but is too close to the heart to toss, is to turn it into a painting. That way the slight blur does not matter

[Saralonde]

Debbie, I don't think your pink frame is "horrifying", just distracting. You want eyes directed to the subject and to linger there. The brighter frame draws your eye to it before it has spent much time studying the picture itself. Windrider's idea of turning it into a painting might be worth a try. PSP has some things in the Effects section that might be fun to use.

[murfam]

Hello dlaf, You said that you were trying to get an ethereal look to your photo. I gave it a try in photoshop. I'm not sure if this fits the bill but it's my best effort. I hope that you don't mind my taking the liberty. If you want the details of what I did, P/M me and I will reply.

<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/murfam/2360478243/" title="ethereal girl by D.J.Murphy, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2175/2360478243_1ee750bcbc_o.jpg" width="324" height="600" alt="ethereal girl" /></a>