I Edited a Subscribers Photo and the Results Are...

[@OriginalWatchcow]

Lens was 85mm f1.8 AF-nikkor. This is about 1990 vintage before the D-types were released. It was about 94°F that day so all the models involved in this mixer were "glistening" a bit. Makeup was not working to compete with the heat and humidity. I was below the model on a concrete escarpment and erosion wall that protects the shore of this 100 year old lake, shooting upward to have the tree instead of just a blown out sky for backdrop. The dress is not black, it is navy, and a retro piece that was likely a prom dress 20-ish years ago. so the blue is expected. The tulle and lace over the top is black. The camera famous for soft images and a lens noted for CA rendered pretty much as expected. I had help to control contrast from an SB-800 on a bracket to get the light far enough off-axis to not cause blatant redeye, but that also introduced an opportunity for a phenomenon that exaggerates refections and looks like CA or coma around things like the hardware on the choker and earrings.

[@ZWadePhoto]

🙌🙌🙌🙌

[@ChrisSallis]

I don’t get it you said you need the raw file because the editing can be extensive then took it straight into luminar as a tif without doing anything at all with the raw data 😅 then edited the tif in Lightroom not using any of the raw data that could be done with a JPEG. Nice edit though 😊

[@ZWadePhoto]

@@ChrisSallis “Can be extensive” not “is going to be” Also, Tifs are fine.

[@OriginalWatchcow]

You don't really edit raw files, but to take a 14 bit raw file and convert to a TIFF file as an intermediate step does not lose information in the same way that an 8 bit per channel JPEG would.