P: DNG Converter: Enable JPG conversion

The request in this thread is to wrap a JPG into a DNG. Yes, and at the end, I will be ectracting a JPG again, but this time a preview with the XMP edits applied.

All possible. 

Adobe, please give us the option to wrap JPGs into DNGs the same way like it's already possible in Lightroom.

Not going to happen; no need too. No more than you'll find a Print command in this product like you find in LR. You want to wrap a JPEG into a DNG; use ACR or LR. Or another product (I believe some non Adobe products can do this). 

but it's a fast and reliable way to get developed previews.

The developed JPEG previews are IN the DNG FROM LR/ACR.
The DNG converter isn't a developer. It's a data format converter.
There's nothing it does, other than create a JPEG preview that deals with rendering the raw data. So how can it produce developed previews other than what it currently does? 

You have developed DNGs, you can extract the JPEG that matches it OR export a JPEG. 
You don't have developed DNGs, you just created them in the free DNG converter, nothing has been developed expect a JPEG preview which you could extract at this time. Or just use the right tool designed for the job: LR or ACR. 

The idea that the DNG Converter has to embed an existing, separate and rendered JPEG into a DNG alone, makes zero sense.
The idea you need to extract some kind of JPEG from a DNG, rendered by the DNG Converter as a preview OR edited as you could and would in ACR/LR already exists in those tools. It's pointless to do that anywhere else IF possible. 

That a large group doesn’t understand or accept these facts doesn't change the facts. 

The request in this thread is to wrap a JPG into a DNG. Yes, and at the end, I will be ectracting a JPG again, but this time a preview with the XMP edits applied.

I'm using this technique since years in LRTimelapse to extract low resolution previews from RAW+XMP data. The only thing that doesn't work, is using this trick on JPGs. Because the DNG Converter does not allow JPGs to be wrapped to DNG and therefore I cannot extract the developed preview for those files.

So again - this was the one and only purpose of my request in this thread and I'm happy to repeat it once more:

@Adobe, please give us the option to wrap JPGs into DNGs the same way like it's already possible in Lightroom. I know, this usage not the originalted purpose of the DNG converter, but it's a fast and reliable way to get developed previews.
The timelapse community using LRTimelapse is ten thousands of users - most of them Lightroom users as well. So we have a huge common user base and LRTimelapse is driving lots of new users to Lightroom as well, since it's the market leading softwar for time lapse editing.

@712389: may I ask you to open up another thread for things that don't belong to my topic, thanks.

Oh, the JPEG is untagged! So Assign sRGB and off you go. 

What you wish to do, convert a DNG to a JPEG is possible today! 

Open DNG converter, set preferences for the size of embedded JPEG you wish (probably Full Size).
Convert to DNG. 
Extract the JPEG from the DNG using this free utility on Mac or Windows:
http://michaeltapesdesign.com/instant-jpeg-from-raw.html

Thanks to some new data from Thomas Knoll, it's clear that the DNG converter produces it's own JPEG from the raw which is ideal. It uses a default but it's still a high quality, high resolution JPEG:
https://feedback.photoshop.com/photoshop_family/topics/dng-converter-preview-ignores-image-orientati...

I just tested this with a virgin CR2. Converted, used large preview for JPEG and extracted that JPEG from the DNG. From a old Canon 5D, got a 4K sized JPEG on the long axis!

The DNG converter can already create a full sized JPEG using it's default settings to do so and that JPEG can quickly and easily be extracted! You just need the right (free) tools to do so: DNG converter and IJFW from Mr. Tapes. 

For me, true non destructive editing is creating virgin RGB pixels from raw data with parametric instructions. From there, editing those RGB values high bit (what some call 16-bit) editing, with layers or parametrically. There's still data loss with more than enough data so the damage isn't visible. So it's not really non destructive. But the data loss is moot. That isn't the case when you edit a JPEG. 

One issue is we don't know the qualities of even web output in the future. There was just a 10K video cabling standard shown this week on the web. It is entirely possible that the color gamut, resolution, dynamic range of web output in the foreseeable future will be more demanding than output to print today. When possible capture raw. Encode in the biggest color gamut, highest bit depth, highest resolution you can. Move on from there unless there's a very compelling reason to re-render and start again (some much better raw converter?). 

I consider a JPEG an output specific file format. For the web and mobile devices will all it's warts (8-bit encoding, usually sRGB yuck). So my answer isn't to use ACR on JPEGs although I think that's a great tool IF you must. My answer is to create JPEGs from raw/edited data and post them: done. 

Andrew, I know that very well. You know, I have been following your posts and your site with great interest many years ago and I never miss an opportunity to refer posters on the Elements and other forums to your site.
I think that with all the excellent advice you are giving to beginners as well as pros, you can understand that there is a very wide market of serious amateurs who don't want or need to go to the LR plus Photoshop plan. I don't mind having a software for which I only use 20% of the features but really, I only need or use no more than 2 or 3% of the CC plan features. The missing features (for me) are precisely available via hundreds of external scripts or free third party software. And yes, I also had LR since version 3 and Adobe offers me LR and PS for free as an ACP. I don't use them otherwise than to guide other Elements users to use Elements tools.

So, please look at the millions of users like me who are using both SLR or advanced raw capable cameras... and which are true, genuine photographers because they also use small size cameras or smartphones not to miss the "instant décisif".
The pictures from my recent smartphone are technically very good, even in low light.
They are aout-of-camera jpegs, and that is the original format.

So, non-destructive for me means both keeping the original out-of-camera jpeg and storing the parametric editing settings, in the jpeg header, in an xmp file or in an ACR database.
That's precisely because the best you can get technically from an 8-bits file is to process it in a 16-bits software like ACR, you know why. That's enough for me to avoid any kind of posterization. The processed files can be opened, edited and saved in other 16-bits formats. 90% of my jpegs don't need ulterior editing in the pixel editor.

Something I like very much in your teaching is how you insist on what the eye can really see and how the theoretical color models have been created based on statistical perception studies of real persons. So, if I want to tease a little...
What's the workflow to achieve the best photo editing with realistic 'serious amateur' conditions today:
- most output to the Web, no comment...
- only a few large prints on home computer (my 6-inks HP is good enough for me and does better than sRGB)
- book printing mostly on sites which accept only jpegs and sRGB.
- editing on serious displays with low-cost hardware calibration; yes, not wide gamut...
- editing in Elements with only sRGB or aRBG available.

My answer is to use the ACR module even with jpegs. Anyway, in my workflow, the ACR editing, the further editing in 16-bits in the editor will only produce 'temporary' tiff files... which will be :
- printed in aRBG mode on my 8-bits printer
- sent as... jpegs final output files.

Editing a JPEG in ACR isn't non destructive. There is no free lunch here altering numbers in an 8-bit per color compressed document. Yes, the original is untouched and the same could be said of using layers on a JPEG in PS and saving off a new JPEG. The edited JPEG was destructively edited! But yes, doing this kind of work in ACR has many advantages including the high bit processing path (which gets knocked down to produce that JPEG), edits applied in best processing order (not necessarily by the user), a very wide gamut processing color space and some unique tools. But non destructive isn't in the mix; if you don't want to degrade pixels, don't edit them, or edit in high bit. Not possible with JPEG. 

Yes, that's the need of Gunther Wegner, the original poster.
If you read my post at the beginning of the discussion, the need to convert jpegs to DNG was different. To simplify that was to find a workaround to the limitation of the organizer which can't open selected jpegs directly in the ACR module. Only the editor can open in ACR. There are huge advantages in opening jpegs as well as raws in the ACR: not only quality, but to enable powerful and fast non-destructive batch editing. In recent Elements editor versions, the ACR module can open a big number of files, jpegs or raws. The limitation of the organizer does not exist with LR, Bridge, PS...
It's understandable that Adobe is reluctant to offer the ability to open jpegs in ACR in the organizer not to compete with LR; same for the DNGconverter ability to convert jpegs to DNG which would solve the problem. Note that I convert all my files, jpegs as raws in ACR.

I don't know anything about scripting, but I assume Elements can be scripted, since a number of add-ons like Elements+ or OnOne are managed via scripts. Elements+ even has scripts to edit layers in ACR or to restore full ACR options like HSL or lens correction which are not present in the limited version of Elements ACR.

Elements might be scripted, at least in the past (Pixel Genius had an Automate plug-in for Elements using scripts years ago). No idea if it can still do so, PG stopped supporting Elements a good 6-8 years ago. 

Can Elements be scripted, Michel? The underlying need is to automate the process.