P: Improving RAW + JPG Stacking

@johnrellis You just seem to be making everything a person could ever want in Lightroom haha Thank you for your service, you indeed are a legend

@v!v: "Hello everybody, aren't there any answer yet to this very question?"

Adobe hasn't made any changes to LR regarding this. They've made very few changes to Library in the past many years.

However, there is an answer to the original question, 'Why can't there be an "Auto-Stack by File Name"'. You can use the Auto Stack plugin's Auto Stack command to stack by file name:

https://community.adobe.com/t5/lightroom-classic-ideas/p-improving-raw-jpg-stacking/idc-p/14284343#M20729 

It's a plugin, so not as convenient as having it built-in, just like using the Syncomatic plugin isn't as convenient as having it built-in. It would definitely be a smoother workflow if Adobe revisited these use cases and made consequent improvements in LR.

This is still a burdon for me. Raws and Jpegs need a more intelligent management system in Lightroom. I've already stated what I'd prefer in the past, but let me reiterate. 

Do a version of stacking for raw and jpeg. They are stacked by default and you can choose whether you show the raws or jpeg at any given time for any given album. Also, you can switch individual photos from jpeg to raw for more advanced processing. This would allow us to cull all our pictures easily at once and switch some photos to raw when necessary. 

This may be a conflict of interest for Adobe because they are a raw processor and they do not want you to be happy with your out of camera jpegs. They'd like to force you to pick raw by making jpegs a pain to work with simultaneously, but sooner or later an app will allow this feature and at that point I will jump ship most likely. So get ahead of it Adobe before another company forces you to. 

Hello everybody, aren't there any answer yet to this very question?
I do have the same issue. I'm using Fujifilm cameras, which produce gorgeous JPG, although I always shoot RAW+JPG. 
Up to now, I've always imported both, then culled the JPG only (adding flags, stars and keywords) and then using the "Syncomatic" plug-in to synchronise these "tags" betwen JPGs and RAWs. This allows me to delete at once both RAWs and JPGs that were rejected, and having the stars and keywords already applied to both versions (RAW+JPG) and each picture.  Personally, I use the star rating for my level of preference, and I only use the white flag for JPGs that I believe could become better by processing the RAW file correctly (typically not-so-well exposed JPG or photo with too big dynamic). All pictures that I like (3 to 5 stars) with no flag will be kept in JPG, while flagged pictures will be processed in RAW.  This saves a lot of time!  But it's still painful to have to use a plug-in to sync the flags/stars/keywords between RAWs & JPGs.  Stacking them or having any sort of automatic syncronisation would just be a dream!

Oh, I didn't remember that restriction on conversion of Photos libraries. It converts the edits of Aperture libraries.

Thanks, I tried Avalence but it only migrates crops at the current version for Apple Photos so it's not very helpful.

I'll try anysource instead.

Thanks!

@odedia, "I want to use this feature to better migrate from Apple Photos to Lightroom.... I already have so many images I edited over the years in Apple Photos and I don't want to lose those edits. ... create a smart album of all the "edited RAW files",  export all originals from Apple Photos and then export the modified photos as JPEGs. I would then import all those images into Lightroom and have them stacked with JPEG first."

While waiting for Adobe to implement better stacking (if ever), a couple options:

1. Use the Any Source plugin to stack with the JPEGs on top:

https://community.adobe.com/t5/lightroom-classic-ideas/p-improving-raw-jpg-stacking/idc-p/14284343#M20729 

2. Use the Avalanche program to migrate your entire Photos library into LR, preserving the edits:

https://cyme.io/avalanche-photo-conversion/

Many people have reported good results with it.

I'd like to add another use case for this feature, and this one I think Adobe would really love:

I want to use this feature to better migrate from Apple Photos to Lightroom.

I prefer Lightroom for RAW processing, but I already have so many images I edited over the years in Apple Photos and I don't want to lose those edits.

The best option I could come up with is to create a smart album of all the "edited RAW files",  export all originals from Apple Photos and then export the modified photos as JPEGs.

I would then import all those images into Lightroom and have them stacked with JPEG first. If I ever need to reedit them, I have the original RAW file ready to go.

Thanks. I do feel like Adobe will impliment this feature eventually. A part of me thinks that they didn't want their old color profiles to be compared to the camera's jpeg engine, lest people complain about how different LRC's interpretation is from the camera. For some of my older cameras, the color profile in LRC is unusable... even Apple Photos does a better job sadly. Some of their newer profiles really nail it though. The Sony ones are getting better. 

In DXO Photolab, you can toggle RGB images on/off while browsing the folder. There's another idea Adobe! Just put a couple of tiny "jpeg" and "raw" buttons in the filter bar to show either or both or switch. But still count them as the same photo so you know how many pictures you actually took. 

This is an easy fix that would be extremely useful for everybody. 

Hi, I am not asking for something radical. It's a feature that's been around since Apple's iPhoto and Aperture. I am stunned that it's 2023 and it's still awkward to work with both raw and jpeg in Lightroom Classic. My issue is that I have to choose between jpegs being ignored by LRC or being treated as seperate files. 

The raw and jpeg files need to be connected in a different way. They are the same photo with the same file number. 

For those of you who never used Aperture, let me explain. You imported raw+jpeg and Aperture showed the jpeg by default and you could right-click and choose "show raw" to switch to raw viewing/editing. If you wanted to see both, side-by-side, you would make a virtual copy and make one the jpeg and the other the raw. This is useful to see how you've improved the image compared to the jpeg. 

I have some cameras that take very nice jpegs and sometimes I nail the exposure and white balance, but LRC doesn't even give me a way to export the jpeg unless I treat them as seperate files. I have to view them in the Mac finder and browse like I don't even have a DAM app for that. I mean, am I the only person who shoots raw+jpeg and would like the option to just use the jpeg sometimes? 

You could say, "just use treat jpegs as separate files" but then I have to do math every time I look at a folder to see how many pictures I actually have. This doubles your file count and makes it so that you have to hit the arrow twice every time you navigate to the next photo. You might say "just use stacking to stack the raws and jpegs while you're browsing". The problem with that is that I sometimes use high speed bursts and many of my cameras only record the hour, minute and second. So pictures taken in the same second will be stacked. 

With LRC, I feel like my jpegs are just stored away like system files unless I want to open the finder and arrow through them. I don't think it's right that they must be excluded from my workflow unless treated as separate files. Literally, apps from 15 years ago did this better.  

Lightroom knows the jpegs are there and already treats them as the same photo by default. We know this because when we do a batch rename, it also renames the jpegs as it should.

What I'm asking for is a menu option to "show jpeg". This would switch the file shown in LRC to the jpeg version. The user could select all and "show jpeg" to browse their jpegs, then switch some to raw for editing. There could be two useful options. It could be a sub-menu: "Show jpeg>"instead of raw" OR "next to raw".

The user could do this one photo at a time or on multiple selected photos. There could be an option in the preferences to "show raw by default" or "show jpeg by default". That way, those with Fuji or Canon or any camera that makes nice jpegs, could quickly select the pictures that are good to go and then edit others in raw. 

Raw is clearly superior to jpeg for the ultimate quality, but there's not enough time to edit hundreds of thousands of pictures like I have. And frankly, the color profiles for some of my older raw files are not great and would take a long time to edit and make acceptable. There must be photographers at Adobe that actually shoot pictures and know what I mean. 

Thanks for reading. Please take it seriously.