Lightroom is capable to convert JPGs into DNG. The DNG Converter unfortunately currently is not. Please add JPG support to the Adobe DNG Converter. Thank you very much for considering!
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.
Author “Color Management for Photographers" & "Photoshop CC Color Management/pluralsight"
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.
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.
Author “Color Management for Photographers" & "Photoshop CC Color Management/pluralsight"
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
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.
Author “Color Management for Photographers" & "Photoshop CC Color Management/pluralsight"
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.
andrew@acerte.co.uk: may I ask you to open up another thread for things that don't belong to my topic, thanks.
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.
Author “Color Management for Photographers" & "Photoshop CC Color Management/pluralsight"
LR and ACR cannot be batch operated to do so. I'm not going to discuss this topic any further with you, since you don't seem to understand my point - and honestly - you don't need to also. My intention opening this thread was to reach someone at Adobe.
Gunther, this really is a lost cause after 3 years, we've told you why.
This reminds me of one of my favorite Bruce Fraser quotes: You can do all sorts of things that are fiendishly clever, then fall in love with them because they're fiendishly clever, while overlooking the fact that they take a great deal more work to obtain results that stupid people get in half the time. As someone who has created a lot of fiendishly clever but ultimately useless techniques in his day, I'd say this sounds like an example.
You are absolutely correct about this, I fully admit:
since you don't seem to understand my point - and honestly - you don't need to also
Are you certain Adobe doesn't seem to understand your point too.
Author “Color Management for Photographers" & "Photoshop CC Color Management/pluralsight"
Nice technical battle between experts. Unfortuneately a little off track in the meantime. I am a dumb customer. The question is not if I need a special feature. I just want it. I am the customer. I pay for all this. And I want a certain feature. It helps me doing things the way I like. @Adobe please add this feature !
Yeah! Me and a bunch of dreamers are customers and we ask this and that, like having Photoshop under Linux. Who cares? Not Adobe. Doesn't matter we pay. Still, what is the gain?
Here we go again. The person requesting this for a large group of photographers is a developer who has created the gold standard software for timelapse production. Where is Adobe?
And I understand you
wanting Adobe to undertake the development of this, but we've all wanted
Adobe to develop this or that for us, and if we really want it in a
timely fashion, with the features we want, we often need to find a 3rd
party developer willing to do it for a very reasonable price. Why? Well,
because they specialize in that. They're not busy trying to keep several hundred (and more) features working and squashing the inevitable bugs that arise when they add or alter just about anything to an enormous app.
One of the things you pay Adobe to be is an app that plays well with other apps—Adobe's apps provide a way for lots of different 3rd party developers to make a living providing specialized features for those who need those features. Believe it or not, there are several image editing apps out there who either don't support 3rd party extensions, scripts, and plug-ins, or who do a particularly bad job of it.
Further, the relationship between Adobe and 3rd party developers has to be at least a bit mutual—Adobe doesn't have to provide absolutely every feature known to man at a highly professional level even if 70% of the features are never used by most of the customers, and 3rd party developers don't get their lunch stolen by Adobe the minute someone here says "I want this, and I want Adobe to be the provider."
It's not that a lot of people here don't understand your asking , and many are even voting for it. We all do some asking and some voting. But you seem very unwilling to look into other sources for something you seem to think is vital enough, Adobe should have done it already. Ask away, but if this is for a large group of photographers from a developer who has created the gold stand for any type of software, perhaps a proper and official proposal to Adobe management ought to be considered. That might speed things up.
Here it's just part of a wish list a mile long from every type of customer. Enough votes, it might make it to the top of the list, but patience is usually required to wait for features that don't broadly apply to most users.
Sorry to be the Devil's advocate here, but remember the premises: "Lightroom is capable to convert JPGs into DNG. The DNG Converter unfortunately currently is not.". Seemingly, it is not about some new space travel or new brain surgery technique, it's just about adding some existing feature (e.g. already implemented) to an existing tool. A tool that had it and is more than related to DNG itself! A tool that has a more than 300MB installer for one format!
Well, you never know. If it's quick and easy enough, they might surprise us. If it's really critical to your workflow, though, it might be easier on you to get someone to write a script or an extension, or add on to the open source DNG converter itself, than get angry and frustrated because Adobe takes so long to get around to some of these things. There are a lot of "these things" for Adobe to get around to.
DNG, typo from my iPhone. Sorry. Again, DNG and TIFF are incredibly similar; DNG is based on TIFF, both of which Adobe owns and controls. There isn't anything a DNG offers a TIFF doesn't in terms of rendered image data. It's like opening up a TIFF and then using the Save As command and saving it as a TIFF again! When DNG first appeared, it could only store raw data hence it's name. Then Adobe allowed JPEG and other rendered data to be placed into this container which only served to confuse a lot of people about the format as we've seen here. And that's why, after the request was made THREE years ago, nothing has happened. Nor will it. So yeah, be useful if this entire post disappeared.
Author “Color Management for Photographers" & "Photoshop CC Color Management/pluralsight"
173
Replies
AdChoices
