I want to take a look at this comparison again to assess the impact of Photoshopping.

In the bottom file the kid's face and eyes are transfixed on the starburst-like candle and so are ours as our eye bounces back and forth between them then around the picture following the curve of the vignetted blur and darkened corners staying within the picture all the time; the sign of a successful composition.

In the top file, which is the original shot by my wife with a point-n-shoot camera, it's almost like the cake was in the way covering up the baby. Both files started from this original capture. Yes, starting with a better capture, such as with a Nikon D5 will most likely get better results for both versions all things being equal, but, by how much, and by how much does it matter? For example, the noise was bad but, it is just one in a list of things able to be manipulated. Knowing what needs to be photoshopped, what doesn't, and what way it needs to be done to do it best probably comes a lot from experience among other things. Mostly my goal is to keep it photographic looking. Don't miss sight of what the big picture is when you STAND BACK and look at it also.

I see a parallel to the CO2 we are chasing in the atmosphere. Sure, the CO2 has increased upwards of 50% lately, but CO2 in general, only makes up 0.04% of the atmosphere.