I agree with Jeep Daddy. The JPG is pre-processed (by the camera which is whatever the manu has decided is the best way to process it). When you shoot in RAW, the camera has not manipulated the image at all and presents all the "raw" information. This allows the photographer to do the processing the way he thinks it should be. I also use Lightroom and have just purchased Elements, but don't know much about it yet.

An example of one of the things that is taken care of in Lightroom and probably the camera jpg shot is lens correction. Each lens affects the appearance or skew, for lack of better wording, of the image. Without correcting this, the picture won't quite look like what your eye sees. If you want an image that accurately depicts what your eye sees, this must be a step which won't make it perfect, but will bring it closer. The same can be said for tonal balance, contrast, shadows, etc.

Occasionally, I try to process an image for some artistic effect, but generally, my goal is to make people look at the image and think of the place, not how the picture looks.

I agree with all the great comments except I think the "cloning traces" that Bill Houghton referred to may just be marks on the concrete sidewalk in the distance. It would be better if that weren't there because it does look a little odd.

The time of day could have solved this easily, early morning or around sunset. Also with a black dress, it is more difficult to see contrast on the dress especially when trying to balance for other extreme lighting conditions.

Overall, #2 is better since it doesn't have quite the extreme balance problem and the lighting on the subjects faces is a better, doesn't look like a direct fill flash.

#2 looks good. Don't see artifacts, relics, or anything.

Re-post some of your adjusted shots. I (and others) would like to see the difference. If you don't change the levels, it is still a good shot. Okay, at least remove the sensor spot and the artifacts if that is possible.

Great shot! I like the composition fine. Aside from what was said regarding the sensor spot and artifacts, I might be inclined to pull out (brighten) the mountains some. The contrast would then be the sky and distant land on the right. Don't know how much to pull it, but I would play around with it.

I'm impressed though, to get the moon right and still have a foreground is usually difficult. The moon is usually so bright, that to get it right, the rest is just silhouette at best.

This is what I have, mentioned earlier.

http://joby.com/gorillapod/slrzoom

I have a big tripod at home and I have strapped it to my backpack and taken it many places, but now days, if I am backpacking or even day hiking, I carry a Joby Zoom DSLR tripod. This works very well, very light, small and can attach to almost anything with its jointed wrapping legs. No, you can't get the height of a normal tripod, but you can also attach it to many surfaces including trees, rocks, posts, etc. Carried it with me on an 80 miler last summer and used it almost daily.

My neurotic dog doesn't like cameras either. I don't usually use a flash, just walking in with the camera in the bag I keep it in will make her nervous. Usually the bag is in the room she would be in and if I open the bag without her noticing and turn on the camera, not take it out, but just turn it on, she will come over to me shaking, tell me of her disapproval and leave.

Agnesm, your bookcase is about identical to one my parents have except theirs have two more shelves. About to move it into my house with all its old books.

Thank you, Laskalass. The last shot, like some of the others is a WWI vehicle, I'm pretty sure.

Thank you, Patography.

Here are a few assorted pictures of antiques or things that remind me of age.

Antique drafting set

(Download)

WWI vehicle

(Download)

Old razor, worn soap

(Download)

Another WWI vehicle (HDR)

(Download)

I use LR and really like it though I went through MANY tutorials before I could really use it efficiently and I still know there is a lot I am not using. I am probably about to purchase Elements and Elements Premiere (they come bundled). LR will not do labels or integrate pics and vid into a show. LR will also not do cut and paste type applications. I guess that is the same as a layers operation which others have mentioned.

I don't intend to purchase Photoshop because I can't afford it and would probably never learn to use it enough to make it worth the purchase. I do have GIMP which is the poor man's Photoshop. I don't use it that much, but it can do a lot if you know how to use it, not that I do know how to use it, but there are tutorials out there for it as well.

LR was definitely worth my purchase and I expect that Elements will be too.

Thanks for sharing. That would be far better and easier than trying to darken the background through Photoshop or the like.

Enjoy the richness of the colors and details. How did you obtain such dark backgrounds, if you don't mind me asking?