Really good 'environmental portraits' - nice to see life carrying on around you without you intruding in any obvious way.

No 2 is very strong with its inside / outside views - this would have been a classic shot to apply some manual flash, lowering the exposure for the outdoors but lighting the inside with some fill flash, but this would have taken valuable time I'm sure and you may have missed your man there

One lower-tech way, but fairly reliable, would be to burn DVDs of your originals each night, have some postage pre-paid card envelopes all ready, and just drop a disc or two into a postbox each day - sending them home or to someone for safe keeping. At least you know they are somewhere else should disaster strike you or the car.

Lucky you to have that choice! I had to go to work

That may be the problem then - you are not actually saving new JPEGs from the RAW converter (ACR). As I wondered before, you may just be saving new versions of the DNG files. If you do not specify .jpg then the default is DNG ... this will update the original camera file with any adjustments you made in ACR and re-create the tiny JPEG preview image embedded within the DNG, reflecting your adjustments.

Its not 100% clear yet, but it is possible that you are somehow sending the JPEG previews to the online printing services - these would be massively too small in size and resolution to print. The 'noise' you referred to - is it like blocky 'pixellated' texture? If so then it is just the result of the tiny image being enlarged on your screen.

Try this - (I'm the expert now as David above reminded me to actually look at ACR again before spouting off ) ... after finishing the adjustments to the photo, click on 'save' - this will open a box, and in the middle is a drop down box which should have .DNG as the default. Drop this down and choose .jpg - then you will see options below for quality. Choose Maximum (number 12), then OK. Your new JPEG version of your shot should appear in the chosen save folder, and it should have the full dimensions and resolution as shot by the camera, and be at a good file size for quality printing, probably around about 8-12 megabytes.

Try this to see if it resolves the problem.

Sorry, yes, I see now. Its not something I ever do, but I see you choose JPEG and set the quality level. Is this the process you're using Garybaldbee, to save straight to JPEG from within ACR? If so, are you choosing the .jpg extension and setting the maximum quality (12)?

I still wonder if you're only updating the file metadata and the embedded preview, not creating a new full sized version, and then uploading only that? The preview would show the photo OK in the organiser, and maybe it would even display OK in Windows etc.

Can you check the properties of the files and tell us the file size, dimensions and resolution figures?

No, I can't say anything about those shots of yours either, this is not about them ... I've no doubt that there are certain subjects and locations where flat and dull lighting can work - macro in a forest perhaps .

But really, those situations where poor weather offers special opportunities are usually when you get that late break in the clouds, a streaking beam of sunshine through dark clouds, that sort of thing. Its not common with uniformly grey skys and with the entire ground in shadow that you'll get anything that interesting.

Anyway, I don't have anything negative to say about the actual skills of the photographer here - not compositions, exposure and technique - I applaud all of that. But I disagree that it was worth the effort.

Double layer DVDs are not so time consuming, and BlueRays will be even better. Disc storage is an important part of a 'balanced diet' of backup I think - its a good idea to spread your data across different media types, certainly if they are stored in the same location - eg your home .... something might affect one type of media (eg water ingress) but may not affect another.

Correctly stored discs, combined with a 'verification' and duplication regime as I spoke about above, gives higher data security and longer term reliability than hard drives could be expected to.

What you say nicely highlights the opposing views on this David ... you say we have to make the best of what we are given. I agree if it's the only chance you'll ever get to record the location if that is your aim.

But I think we have to be realistic about the elements that need to come together to produce an attractive and inviting image - and some sort of decent quality of light is a key requirement here - without it (as in these shots) I would say its not worth it.

Just a quick question - you said you used ACR to 'convert to JPEG' ... I don't believe this is actually possible? I understand from ACR you need to send the adjusted file into Photoshop (or Elements) via the 'open' button - then you have to 'save as' a JPEG in photoshop.

If you are not actually bringing them into photoshop and saving the JPEGs I wonder if you are in fact only saving the adjustments in ACR (thats stored in a metadata file somewhere) and then only uploading the thumbnail previews (tiny files) stored in Elements Organiser?? Its a possibility .....

Complete waste of time in my opinion ... I am not wanting to be disrepectful to the photographer and I do understand the point of view that says 'this is what it looked like, there's a certain atmosphere to the location in this weather thats worth recording', and on this level then the photographer has done an admirable job.

My point is wider than just these shots. Whilst they may meet those aims of recording I referred to above, I don't think they are 'good photographs' on the basis of the poor light. I feel they are an example of photographs that should not be taken - not at that time anyway.