P: Improving RAW + JPG Stacking

[kidago]

I've done some searching and I'm finding it hard to beleive that the clunkiness of organizing and editing RAW + JPG images has never really been improved over the years. Most users are just finding "workarounds" for LR shortcomings. When treating RAW + JPG as separate photos (which I am doing) why can't I have the pairs properly stacked? Auto stack by capture time (set to zero seconds) does not work because of burst shooting. Why can't there be an "Auto-Stack by File Name" or "Auto-Stack RAW + JPG"?

My preferred workflow sometimes for would be to sort/edit through a gallery of JPG's and have the RAW handy in the stack in case I need to pull more dynamic range or white balance on a specific shot. So far this isn't possible without manually creating your stacks, or fixing the stacked burst sequences. Seems like a simple thing that can be implemented. Even a simple check box in the already existing "Auto-Stack" dialoge for stacking JPG pairs would be so simple.

[Axel-M]

If you are interested on such function please create a feature requst. 

Here you'll find infos how to do that:

https://community.adobe.com/t5/lightroom-classic-ideas/how-do-i-write-a-feature-request/idi-p/123863...

I think if there is interest, Adobe will include the feature in one of the next releases

[kidago]

Thank you, but I read those instructions and that's literally what I did by creating this thread.

[TheDigitalDog]

You did place this in the right area or someone moved it, and others can 'up vote' if they agree with your ideas. Adobe does look over the votes to determine if a feature is worth consideration.

Shooting raw+JPEG is really bad for one reason: you're massively under exposing the raw. That said, I separate raws and JPEGs (not shot together) using a Smart Collection. No, they are not stacked. And there are additional reasons why they shouldn't be. But you might consider the downsides to shooting this way if in the end, the raw data is really important to you.

[kidago]

I appreciate the response, I'm a professional photographer who's fully aware of how raw files work. "Shooting raw+JPEG is really bad for one reason: you're massively under exposing the raw" has no basis in reality - at least with any camera I've ever used. Why state the EV would be any different shooting RAW vs RAW+JPG? It's madness.

I would like to know why you think stacking these images is a bad idea. For the workflow I described there is literally no better option than what I presented without an overhaul of the library module.

My workflow is 100% raw 100% of the time - this RAW + JPG request is for creating contact sheets as well as quickly processing personal shots of the family. 

[TheDigitalDog]

I'm a professional photographer who's fully aware of how raw files work. "Shooting raw+JPEG is really bad for one reason: you're massively under exposing the raw" has no basis in reality - at least with any camera I've ever used.
By @kidago

Sure it does, as outlined in multiple peer reviewed articles on exposure. The reality is:

http://schewephoto.com/ETTR/
https://luminous-landscape.com/the-optimum-digital-exposure/
http://digitaldog.net/files/ExposeForRaw.pdf

http://www.onezone.photos
https://www.fastrawviewer.com/blog/mystic-exposure-triangle
https://www.fastrawviewer.com/blog/red_flowers_photography_to-see-the-real-picture
https://www.rawdigger.com/howtouse/exposure-for-raw-or-for-jpegs
https://www.rawdigger.com/howtouse/beware-histogram
https://www.rawdigger.com/howtouse/calibrate-exposure-meter-to-improve-dynamic-range

Tell you what, upload a raw+JPEG, let one of us examine the raw in RawDigger so we can see an actual raw Histogram of which you don't see on the camera or in any Adobe product. Then we'll know (if you want to go there).

[kidago]

Ah yes. ETTR. All the rage circa 2010-2013 which is when all of these articles were written. Have you used a modern digital sensor like a Nikon D850 or Z9? Regardless, none of it makes your statement make any more sense. Your camera is spitting out a JPG preview no matter what is being written to your card - so shooting RAW + JPG isn't causing your RAW to be "massively underexposed". Yeah, every camera I've used in the past 15 years spit out RAW files that are a little underexposed. Who cares?  I'll take properly exposed highlights before the "recovered highlight" look any day. Pixel peeping non-existent issues thankfully isn't my hobby because it doesnt pay the bills. Expanding Lightroom functionality, which is what this post was about, actually does.

[TheDigitalDog]

No! Not ETTR, optimal exposure for raw data. This is photography 101; for film, negs, digital.

If you expose for JPEG, you're not optimally exposing for raw. Simple. Factual; some actual pro's* do care.

The JPEG preview is utterly useless for me; the exposure of raw isn't.

If you are OK under exposing your raws, OK with me. But to say exposing for a JPEG is optimally exposing for the raw data is simply not so, you could upload a raw for RawDigger but I don't think you're interested in proof of concept.

Enough said; your data, under expose it however you wish.

You know what would expand LR's functionality? Providing a true raw Histogram.

In the meantime, we'll both sit by and see how many up-votes gets generated. So far......

*"Professionalism is knowing how to do it, when to do it, and doing it."-Frank Tyger

[GoldingD]

So, after reading the arguments against, I was able, when I read your posting again, to clear up some of the cobwebs in my mind. So, let me see if I have this correctly;

• You shoot RAW + JPEG
• You import both the RAW and the JPEG into your catalog and into the same folder
• In /Preferences/General/Import Options/ you have checked " Treat JPEG files next to RAW files as separate Photos"
• You want to stack the matching JPEG and RAW Photos automatically with JPEG on top (not the other way around)
• You prefer to work on the JPEG first, then only work on RAW if necessary.

Ok, as to the problem/solution. One would think that indeed place the RAW and JPEG in the same folder. Select to auto stack on capture time, and make sure the time in between stacks is set to 0:00:00. But apparently your burst mode is creating multiple frames at the same capture time. So Adobe is not providing for that situation.

Hmmm, auto stack by file name might work, if LrC ignores the file extension, but thinking of the  "Treat JPEG files next to RAW files as separate Photos" that would have attached the JPEG file to the RAW file makes me think the software has a way to understand the two files go together, other than just file name, so instead of auto stack by file name, perhaps auto stack by association (this JPEG goes with this RAW) with an additional option to select what type goes on the top of the stack.

Note 1, I dissagree with the argument against shooting RAW + JPEG. I do all the time, I have no problem at all. I do so as to have the larger full size JPEG  in camera, in comparison to the itty bitty embeded JPEG within RAW, for my post shot peeping at image and histogram. Yes, that is not the full histogram, but better than the one based upon the embedded JPEG.

Note 2, my workflow is to work exclusivly on the RAW, If I import the JPEG, I will file them, tempoarily, into a seperate folder, just in case, then to be deleated when post processing is done.

[Jao vdL]

I would like an option to auto stack raw and jpeg on import too. Indeed the stack by time option often doesn't work because in bursts the capture times are often too identical for Lightroom to see the difference even when using zero as the time difference and it ends up stacking multiple shots in a burst. I almost never shoot raw plus jpeg anymore so not useful to me currently though but can see how this could be handy for event and sports people.