Show Us Your RAW Conversions, BEFORE And AFTER

Adams would undoubtedly use digital cameras and shoot RAW. He was very open to new developments in cameras - he worked with Polaroid to introduce new instant films.

I'd like to thank everyone who has contributed to this thread. The before and After comparisons are amazing and it's convinced me not only the potential of editing in raw, but the need to just shoot raw from now on! I'm definitely going to buy Lighroom three after seeing the photos posted up and I hope i can contribute in the near future

Tony, did you see this article in the NY times about Lightroom.
http://gadgetwise.blog​s.nytimes.com …-editing-tips-from-a-pro/

I feel like he didn't do a good job convincing people why to use Jpeg. It says in the column that the adjustments are for photos in RAW, but his first advice is to "boost" the blacks to 5. In RAW they start there. Either that was a typo or he was using a Jpeg.

The comments are hilariously snobby and purist. Someone even said that changing the photo ruins the artistic moment. Other people chimed in by saying adding a vignette defeats the purpose of a thousand dollar lens. I think your example of Ansel Adams in the darkroom is a very good rebuttal to these people.

Before

Silver, your images don't show up for me -- is anyonw else having a problem? I see my internet connection is a bit slow today.

Yep

better?

Mikeroscope wrote in post #10894159
Tony, did you see this article in the NY times about Lightroom.
http://gadgetwise.blog​s.nytimes.com …-editing-tips-from-a-pro/

I feel like he didn't do a good job convincing people why to use Jpeg. It says in the column that the adjustments are for photos in RAW, but his first advice is to "boost" the blacks to 5. In RAW they start there. Either that was a typo or he was using a Jpeg.

The comments are hilariously snobby and purist. Someone even said that changing the photo ruins the artistic moment. Other people chimed in by saying adding a vignette defeats the purpose of a thousand dollar lens. I think your example of Ansel Adams in the darkroom is a very good rebuttal to these people.

Hey Mike, thanks for that article! It was, well, entertaining!

Of course, the article was aimed at beginners, like "Ten quick and easy things to try to add some snap to your photos if you are new to Lightroom and Raw processing!". I don't have a problem with that so much, it's interesting that the NYT would have an article like that at all!

But of course, the article completely bypasses the important things: what is Raw processing all about? They mention shooting Raw, but give no clue as to why on earth a newbie would be shooting Raw and using Lightroom in the first place, instead of happily shooting jpegs and using Elements or Picasa, or just uploading jpegs to PhotoBucket and using their cool online editor for your Web photos (by the way, I just saw the PhotoBucket editor a couple nights ago and it's not bad for the Facebook/MySpace crowd)!

So, at the end he should have pointed people to a good book/site on Raw, Raw processing, an then pointed them to this thread so that they could reallyget a taste! Quick, someone, log in there and leave a comment!!!

But wow, the responses were kind of wild -- kind of like a combination of our photo C&C on a pretty rough day, one of our debates between "get it right in-camera" and "post-processing is part of good photography", some journalistic critique, and some actually helpful contributions to the topic...boy, if I was a newbie I'd probably walk away with my head spinning!

Anyway, I'm really thankful that this thread has such a positive tone and has had so much great stuff contributed by you all! I think we can be proud of the work that everyone has done here to make it what it is -- it's kind of cool when you think "hey, these people ought to come check this thread out!"!

silversldr wrote in post #10896166
better?

Not yet for me. Are you using the "new" way that Flickr is set up for imbedding images? You right-click on the first photo, pick a size, then on the next page there are options for linking an IMG URL. You have to make sure that the URL has a .jpg extension.

Hey, I just got it!!! Great stuff, Silver! Beautiful colors and great capture of foreground detail!

I had them on there fine, but then I went and set them to private on flickr, which changed the web address.

Before they changed there settings, I was able to post on here and keep the pictures hidden on Flickr. may need to rethink how i post my pics.

Thank you BTW

Well, maybe the changes they have made affected things, but they show up now and, like I said, nice work there!

Hey All!

I don't know about the rest of you but I occasionally end up going back over this thread and "refreshing" myself on all the great work that is posted here! After a year and a half, so much of this thread is still presenting some fine work from you all!

I actually have one of my PBase galleries dedicated to my contributions here, because, well, it just seems meaningful:

http://www.pbase.com …w_conversion_be​fore_after

Very cool picture