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.

[AxelMatt]

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.

[ANTHONY341073921mzq]

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. 

[yamato7]

There is no dedicated function to switch between RAW and JPEG, but it is possible to do so by using "stack".
It's written in Japanese, but try translating it with Google.

https://tokyophotostudio.hatenablog.jp/entry/2023/01/08/000000

[John R Ellis]

[This post contains formatting and embedded images that don't appear in email. View the post in your Web browser.]

Many others have also asked for improved handling of raw/JPEG pairs. 

"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."

The Any Source plugin's Auto Stack command will stack photos by file name, giving you the option to put raws or JPEGs on top:

You'll have to run this after each import.

[John R Ellis]

Moderators, @Rikk Flohr: Photography, please merge with this overlapping Idea:

https://community.adobe.com/t5/lightroom-classic-ideas/p-improving-raw-jpg-stacking/idi-p/12729242

[ANTHONY341073921mzq]

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. 

[odedia]

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.

[John R Ellis]

@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#M... 

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.

[odedia]

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!

[John R Ellis]

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