P: DNG Converter: Enable JPG conversion

Get'r done please!

<<I should not have taken part to this discussion. >>

I don't see why not. I enjoy learning about other people's workflow, what they need, what they think they don't need. As you've noticed, I'm not very familiar with PSE. They keep upgrading it, and since I don't have any need for it, I don't keep up with what they've upgraded vs what they haven't.

My interest in the JPEG to DNG conversion is obviously that I am a Topaz user, and I approach it from the standpoint of one. Because Studio has a free, extremely basic editor, a LOT of their customers are quite obviously new to image editing, and they very likely don't own all of Topaz products. The three main image enhancing AI products they've brought out are AI Clear, AI Gigapixel, and just now, AI JPEG to Raw, all seeming to share some aspects of the same AI.

I can't fault Topaz on their efforts to create plugins that use AI to find and preserve detail, eliminate significant noise, while not destroying the rest of the image with smudges, smears, and artifacts. And that is possibly why I'm a bit underwhelmed by AI JPEG to Raw. I've compared to working with their Studio products and can't find a difference between the TIFF-16bit exported from that, and the DNG from AI JPEG. Using the exact same numbers in CR to further edit each of these, I have the exact same dynamic range within one point from another when working with highlights and shadows, clarity, etc., if that much.

<<I am not sure that the software will be successful (same price as Elements)? >>

Well, my underwhelm doesn't mean this standalone won't sell very well. What if you didn't buy AI Clear? You've basically got it in AI JPEG, and you get the DNG file out of it. What if you had no need for Gigapixel, but wanted the fine detail it recognizes? It would seem that's in AI JPEG. And it's a standalone, does batch (slowly), so what if you are using another editor, such as PSE? Maybe that's what you'll buy (they're all expensive, relatively speaking), if you work with JPEG and don't want to do a lot of post.

I would use Adobe's Shake Reduction before even trying Topaz if I had a significant amount of blurring in a photo. I've used it on some very old photos I didn't take, but were irreplaceable, and been astonished by how much I could rescue. Not turning a sow's ear into a silk purse, or even good quality polyester, but enough for the memories people want to preserve. From unusable to usable if you don't look too closely. However, I could say that while I don't need the JPEG to Raw converter in Adobe, I wouldn't mind some an improvement along those lines in Shake Reduction—for "free with subscription," of course. '-}

Workflows are all important, you see, and mine isn't yours or anyone else's, but it's why I'm interested in them. It makes a difference as to just what is important to someone.

Cristen Gillespie

• 1512 Posts
• 453 Reply Likes

Learn something new every day. I didn't know PSE didn't allow the same JPEG (and TIFF)  into the Raw editor that PS/LR does. And no filter access to the "raw" editor either? I did know that the raw editor isn't as complete, but apparently gets more so all the time, like masking, but why don't they just let PSE users open JPEGs the way PS users can?  <BG>

To be precise, the 'crippled' ACR version of Elements is excellent for me. It's the best of the three tools with the pixel editor and the organizer. Elements users can open jpegs, psd or tiffs in the ACR editor, even batches at the same time. Most missing tools are present in the pixel editor if needed.
What is missing is precisely that there is no option to open files in the ACR editor from the organizer. Also, if you have opened and saved jpegs in ACR from the editor, the next time you open it from the organizer it will open necessarily in ACR.
The DNG conversion would only be a better workaround.

Because there has to be some reason to upgrade? I'd say there are still quite a few. I doubt that's what makes PSE users jump to the Photography plan.  I know a lot who did, but I never heard it was to get their JPEGs into a raw editor.

True. In the Elements forum we also see a lot of LR and PS users downgrading to PSE. You bet why... For them it's like having to learn a new software.

I'm having to assume that the reason why you say the workflow itself is desirable, even if it does nothing but put JPEG into a DNG wrapper, is the ability to open that JPEG in a raw editor?

You probably did not read the workflow reason I gave in the beginning of the discussion, which I detailed a little more in my previous answer. I can't speak for the special need of the original poster. The Elements organizer workfow issue does not add weight to the current request, on the contrary. Market segmentation. No competition with LR. I am relatively happy with the workaround and few users do care. However I am a bit sad to see that experts in this forum suppose everybody uses LR. I also have the CC subscription but never use it for my own needs (95% of unnecessary features for me).
I should not have taken part to this discussion.

Yeah, Elements version of ACR has been 'crippled' for years and years. It's Elements after all. 

Learn something new every day. I didn't know PSE didn't allow the same JPEG (and TIFF)  into the Raw editor that PS/LR does. And no filter access to the "raw" editor either? I did know that the raw editor isn't as complete, but apparently gets more so all the time, like masking, but why don't they just let PSE users open JPEGs the way PS users can? Because there has to be some reason to upgrade? I'd say there are still quite a few. I doubt that's what makes PSE users jump to the Photography plan.  I know a lot who did, but I never heard it was to get their JPEGs into a raw editor. <BG>

It might be easier on them to open that feature up than provide JPEG batch conversion through the DNG converter, but that would be for them to decide. One or the other seems reasonable enough since you're well within the Adobe family here, so they could profit while making life easier on their customers.

Yes, it's still JPEG data. Bundled with editing parameters in a single container. 

As one can do with a TIFF. There's no difference. 
You're asking for a batch convert in a free product and there's a pay for product that does this. 
That some lame company is selling a product and lying about what it does that also batch converts JPEGs to DNG is utterly off topic expect to point out a company that's completely lying about what their for profit, you pay for it software does. 

Doesn't LR batch convert to JPEG to DNG? NOT that there is a reason to do so; it's still JPEG data.

Yes, it's still JPEG data. Bundled with editing parameters in a single container. The same container is used with the same tools and interface as in ACR or LR. As I said before, LR users don't care, that makes no real difference to them. Elements and its organizer users may care as I do. Most my photos are raw, a lot of older photos are jpegs as well as many from smartphones or from friends. I am happy to be able to shoot in (real raw) DNG with my new smartphone. So, an editing session will handle raw, DNG and jpegs. The workflow issue is to manage editing jpegs from the organizer. The organizer manages all formats but it has no option to open jpegs in camera raw. In older versions, John R Ellis had a nice add-on for that:  'Open in ACR'. So, we have to edit in the pixel editor. We are losing: 
- the ease of using the same interface and tools for jpegs as well as DNG/raws.
- the superior and faster edition in ACR (I do edit all my jpegs in ACR from the editor (Open in ACR option). 90% of my shots don't need further editing in the pixel editor.
- The ability to open a batch of files in ACR and to apply common edits to many files.  That will shorten editing time more than you think.
- there are other minor drawbacks to edit jpegs from the 'Open in ACR' command of the editor...

A batch conversion ( "wrapping in DNG container") before an editing session would make a tremendous simplification.

The present workaround for me is to open a reasonable batch of jpegs with the above "Open in ACR" command from the editor and "Save" as DNG. Only then importing the DNGs into the organizer catalog. If you are not dealing with a new batch of downloaded jpegs, you don't have the confort of choosing your jpegs for the batch editing from the catalog. A bit akward, but as a whole, the workaround does what some are wanting: batch "wrapping" to DNG.

Okay. I didn't look at that, but was going by their sponsored YouTube presentation when I could swear (honestly<G>) I heard the presenter saying it wasn't all out raw when it came to highlight recovery, which squares up for what I've seen (as in nothing there in my images). Claimed more for shadow recovery than I have seen in my images, but it seemed a fairly honest description that said it didn't go quite as far as genuine raw, but was maybe the next best thing to it if all you had was the original JPEG.

However, what I said in this thread, I still feel—it's right to critique software so those who have less understanding don't feel duped by marketing. I've said the same about Adobe's marketing, and pretty much anyone else, so I'm not being a hypocrite when I say that. '-}

Technically, they're within the law when they say "convert to high-quality RAW." Raw is "high-quality" and DNG is Raw. Where's the emoji with tongue sticking out being silly when you need it? LOL  And I can't say that they haven't done more to make it "high-quality." They didn't simply wrap it in a DNG file.

What I  don't think it does particularly well is remove compression artifacts. Some, but if you need a heavier hand, and with older iPhone images, you're likely going to, you won't get it from this. You'll have to rerun it in other software and then mask back where overdone. And as I said, I can't tell that it's enhancing dynamic range. It's converting it to 16 bits—wait, my Bridge metadata says 17 bits? So technically, again. . .  legal?

"Topaz quite honestly says isn't really raw, but their claim is that it approaches raw for dynamic range. "

Yeah, they do!


Convert JPEG to raw; rubbish!