What can I do?

[annc]

This photo is obviously out of focus. Any suggestions as to how I can improve it sufficiently to use in a full colour magazine? The original is a decent size, and the others submitted are of good quality. I think it's a combination of low light and slight movement causing the problem.

[iamback]

This photo is obviously out of focus. Any suggestions as to how I can improve it sufficiently to use in a full colour magazine? The original is a decent size, and the others submitted are of good quality. I think it's a combination of low light and slight movement causing the problem.
Not much you can do - the motion blur is just too obvious. You could manually retouch that away on the edges but you'd never be able to get the wood "into focus" that way. But it would help to do that on as large a size as possible, giving you more pixels to work with.

I didn't attempt that but I played a bit with histograms (luminance only to increase contrast) and curves (adding a bit more yellow), followed by a bit of sharpening but the result isn't really good for publication - unless maybe at a very small size (possibly sharpened a bit more after reduction). If it's for a series of illustrations you'd also have to consider how it "fits in" in terms of lighting, contrast and saturation. Playing with those in a single image may just make it stand out from the rest while only marginally improving the image itself.

I'd just chuck it. :)

[LoisWakeman]

Looks like camera shake to me too: a classic case of when a tripod would have been useful. I don't think you can rescue this.

Someone once gave me this tip which sort of worked for a much less blurred image: "bring it into photoshop, make a second layer and choose emboss. adjust it so the shadows line up with the shadows here. choose the default 3 pixels. then choose soft light, overlay hardlight etc, in the layers choices. this will sharpen it up a bit, just don't over do it. it's my method of fixing hand shake."

Make what you will of that!

[Mike]

I tried converting it to LAB and sharpening the lightness channel with unsharp mask set at around 100 - 125%. It looked rather oversharpened but doing something similar on a larger file might work better.

[annc]

I'd just chuck it. :)Wish I could! But it's crucial to the story, which is about computers in education - on Nauru! The idea is to contrast the 'make-do-with-what-we-can-scrounge' situation there with the sophisticated computer labs in exclusive private schools in Queensland. Maybe the poor quality photo will shame one of those into supplying a decent digital camera (with a flash) to the school.

Thanks for the suggestions and example. Your version is certainly an improvement on the original.

[annc]

Thanks, Lois. I'll give that technique a try.

[annc]

I tried converting it to LAB and sharpening the lightness channel with unsharp mask set at around 100 - 125%. It looked rather oversharpened but doing something similar on a larger file might work better.Thanks, Mike. I did have a bit of a fiddle with unsharp mask, but not with the lightness channel. I'll try that one.

[Robin Springall]

Can't they just retake the photo, only this time do it properly?

[annc]

Can't they just retake the photo, only this time do it properly?No – the person who took the photo on Nauru is now back in Queensland. And the magazine is already past deadline. So I'm stuck with what I have. I'll just follow the advice in here, I think, choose the one that gives me the best result, and print it as small as possible. The final size is something I do have control over!

[PeterArnel]

If you think that its important that your readers see the picture then print it normal size <if you are worried put a caption underneath it>. If you are using it to fill a hole - then thats a mater of judgement I would leave it out
Peter

[annc]

If you think that its important that your readers see the picture then print it normal size <if you are worried put a caption underneath it>. If you are using it to fill a hole - then thats a mater of judgement I would leave it out
PeterThe article's author definitely wants it in, Peter, and it does illustrate the theme very well. She has even told me what to put in the pull quotes (and knows the term) so I'm not game to leave it out.

[Michael Rowley]

Ann:

She has even told me what to put in the pull quotes

Well, that'll be a novelty: 'pull quotes' that mean something.

[ktinkel]

No – the person who took the photo on Nauru is now back in Queensland. And the magazine is already past deadline. So I'm stuck… So make the best of it. Viewers (especially fans) will see what it is important to see.

Perfection is great, but sometimes good enough is, er, good enough!

(So long as you are not talking about type, of course! <g>)

[annc]

So make the best of it. Viewers (especially fans) will see what it is important to see.

Perfection is great, but sometimes good enough is, er, good enough!
Yeah, that's my conclusion. It has to go in, so I'll do my best with it, using the techniques people have suggested here, and that will just have to do.

[annc]

Ann:

She has even told me what to put in the pull quotes

Well, that'll be a novelty: 'pull quotes' that mean something.Hmmm, I put a lot of thought into pull quotes when I do them. ;)

[Michael Rowley]

Ann:

I put a lot of thought into pull quotes when I do them

I'm sure you do, but have you ever thought, 'Why should I have pull quotes?'

[Stephen Owades]

This photo is obviously out of focus. Any suggestions as to how I can improve it sufficiently to use in a full colour magazine? The original is a decent size, and the others submitted are of good quality. I think it's a combination of low light and slight movement causing the problem.Photoshop CS2 has a smart sharpen filter with a motion blur option, that seems to be a good approach for this image. I used pretty high values--100%, 6 pixels, and minus 16 degrees angle. Once that's been applied, a bit of gaussian blur (say 0.3 pixels radius) will knock down the overly-crisp edges. Attached is the result. You'd probably want to work with the tonalities and color as well, which I didn't touch.

[annc]

Photoshop CS2 has a smart sharpen filter with a motion blur option, that seems to be a good approach for this image. I used pretty high values--100%, 6 pixels, and minus 16 degrees angle. Once that's been applied, a bit of gaussian blur (say 0.3 pixels radius) will knock down the overly-crisp edges. Attached is the result. You'd probably want to work with the tonalities and color as well, which I didn't touch.Thanks, Stephen – that looks pretty good, doesn't it? Unfortunately, I'm still on Photoshop 7, and lacking the funds to upgrade at this stage. :(

I tried Marjolein's method, and the photo looked good enough to use at a fairly small size. I've allowed InDesign to scale it down, which has helped sharpen it somewhat. The story it's to illustrate has a suitable spot early on, and I've used the other photos at larger size around it, so with any luck none of the readers will notice the poor quality.

[Mike]

Just saw a pointer to this:

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0511/05112206refocuscamera.asp

on Snarkish. If we could only get that combined with an anti-shake device life would be so much easier.