What's your Camera RAW (LrC "Develop") workflow for NON-RAW file formats (like JPGs)?

[Dochartaigh]

I have TONS of old camera .JPG files (many cameras back then couldn't even save files as Camera RAW!). I want to edit those solely in Camera RAW, and develop a proper LOSSLESS workflow way to do this... but can't quite figure it out.

On my newer cameras, which I shoot in Camera RAW, it's quite easy to have a lossless workflow: I edit the RAW files in the Develop Panel of Lightroom Classic (LrC) - which is powered by Camera RAW. I enable "Automatically write changes to XMP" in LrC, so no matter what happens (to my previously many, many-times corrupted LrC Catalog), I have those Sidecar .XMP files as a definitive backup of my edits. This workflow lets me ALWAYS keep the original file untouched (i.e. lossless), since I can turn on/off those RAW edits at will. It also keeps the file size WAY down as they're not converted to Photoshop/.PSD files or TIFF's or anything.

NOTE: I WILL NOT USE LIGHTROOM CLASSIC'S CATALOG FUNCTION!!!

So that brings us back to the JPG's. It is true LrC can also "Develop" these, and the Camera RAW edits seem to be saved INSIDE the JPG container, but I don't quite trust this for the long-run... already ran into issues when I send these to (non designer) people they ONLY see the non-edited/original version... and don't know if how Adobe does this will be "industry standard" and if programs (including non-Adobe programs) in 10, 20 years from now will be able to properly read it WITH the Camera RAW edits...

What I've started to do is convert those JPG's (in Adobe Bridge or LrC) to .DNG files. Adobe created the open source Digital Negative/DNG format as a "standardized and backward-compatible universal file format for digital image preservation/archiving"... but upon reading more, it seems like nobody but them really started using this... (definitely not Canon, Sony, or Nikon...) so again, don't know what will be best for the long run. I know I DO like how LrC and Photoshop's Camera RAW dialog window seem to treat the .DNG as a verified Camera RAW file... which is why I've been using it.

One thing/workflow I do NOT want to do (which is how I used to do everything back in the day) is the Smart Object route. This is how I used to do my 'lossless' workflow – by either converting the Background layer (i.e. the original image) to a smart object, or "Open as Smart Object", then apply your Camera RAW as a Smart Filter... but then you lose the ability to purely use Camera RAW, and it HAS to be opened and edited in Photoshop (to see all your layers). This also makes the file size like 400% right off the bat... (versus a Camera RAW file + .XMP sidecar file) as soon as you save it as a .PSD or .TIF.

Thoughts? Ideas? What's your lossless workflow for images like this?

 

[OldMacs4Me]

Not sure there would be any advantage to converting them to RAW as you would simply be interpolating anything beyond 8-bits per channel. You could open and save them in PSD, or whatever your go-to software uses as its native format. Uncompressed TIF is another possibility.

 

[Dochartaigh]

Not sure there would be any advantage to converting them to RAW as you would simply be interpolating anything beyond 8-bits per channel. You could open and save them in PSD, or whatever your go-to software uses as its native format. Uncompressed TIF is another possibility.

So I just checked. Converting the .dng DOES change it to 16-bit... but that's just a number, it truly seems to NOT do any actual processing from what I can see - the file size confirms this as well. Just converted one of these 8-bit 6.7MB JPG's to an 8-bit TIF and saved it: 32 megs... Changed it to 16-bit and it's 72MB! ...on the flip side the 8-bit JPG is 6.7MB and the 16-bit JPG>DNG is 6.9MB (the 0.2mb different is probably the Camera RAW xmp/database as part of that .DNG + JPG thumbnail DNG's create).

That leads me into my other point: .PSD isn't a good option. Since I HAVE to have them lossless (which the .DNG file format gives me), I need the same for the JPG converted to the PSD. That means using "Open as Smart Layer" in Photoshop - so that smart layer is your ORIGINAL un-touched file you can go back to whenever, thus lossless. Add a VERY simple Camera Raw smart layer (in a quick test adjusted like 5-7 random sliders), and it balloons to 103.6MB right off the bat! ... literally 15 times larger! Multiply that by... oh, like 6,000+ images and there goes my 10 TB drive all filled up lol.

^^ the above is why I'm trying to see what will work, what will be storage and memory efficient. The .DNG still seems to be the best IF it'll be a rock-solid format moving forward through the decades (like JPG's and TIF's have shown to be so far).

 

[r.harris1]

I have TONS of old camera .JPG files (many cameras back then couldn't even save files as Camera RAW!). I want to edit those solely in Camera RAW, and develop a proper LOSSLESS workflow way to do this... but can't quite figure it out.

On my newer cameras, which I shoot in Camera RAW, it's quite easy to have a lossless workflow: I edit the RAW files in the Develop Panel of Lightroom Classic (LrC) - which is powered by Camera RAW. I enable "Automatically write changes to XMP" in LrC, so no matter what happens (to my previously many, many-times corrupted LrC Catalog), I have those Sidecar .XMP files as a definitive backup of my edits. This workflow lets me ALWAYS keep the original file untouched (i.e. lossless), since I can turn on/off those RAW edits at will. It also keeps the file size WAY down as they're not converted to Photoshop/.PSD files or TIFF's or anything.

NOTE: I WILL NOT USE LIGHTROOM CLASSIC'S CATALOG FUNCTION!!!

So that brings us back to the JPG's. It is true LrC can also "Develop" these, and the Camera RAW edits seem to be saved INSIDE the JPG container, but I don't quite trust this for the long-run... already ran into issues when I send these to (non designer) people they ONLY see the non-edited/original version... and don't know if how Adobe does this will be "industry standard" and if programs (including non-Adobe programs) in 10, 20 years from now will be able to properly read it WITH the Camera RAW edits...

What I've started to do is convert those JPG's (in Adobe Bridge or LrC) to .DNG files. Adobe created the open source Digital Negative/DNG format as a "standardized and backward-compatible universal file format for digital image preservation/archiving"... but upon reading more, it seems like nobody but them really started using this... (definitely not Canon, Sony, or Nikon...) so again, don't know what will be best for the long run. I know I DO like how LrC and Photoshop's Camera RAW dialog window seem to treat the .DNG as a verified Camera RAW file... which is why I've been using it.

One thing/workflow I do NOT want to do (which is how I used to do everything back in the day) is the Smart Object route. This is how I used to do my 'lossless' workflow – by either converting the Background layer (i.e. the original image) to a smart object, or "Open as Smart Object", then apply your Camera RAW as a Smart Filter... but then you lose the ability to purely use Camera RAW, and it HAS to be opened and edited in Photoshop (to see all your layers). This also makes the file size like 400% right off the bat... (versus a Camera RAW file + .XMP sidecar file) as soon as you save it as a .PSD or .TIF.

Thoughts? Ideas? What's your lossless workflow for images like this?

Converting a JPEG to DNG isn't converting a JPEG to raw, it's just putting in a DNG container, which is all DNG is (a container). You can't uncook a JPEG, just FYI. All JPEG is loss-based, whether it's wrapped in a DNG or anything else.

 

[Dochartaigh]

Converting a JPEG to DNG isn't converting a JPEG to raw, it's just putting in a DNG container, which is all DNG is (a container). You can't uncook a JPEG, just FYI. All JPEG is loss-based, whether it's wrapped in a DNG or anything else.

Thanks, and totally aware, and that's EXACTLY as I'm using it - just shoving the JPG into a more familiar Camera RAW container since I'm specifically using Camera RAW/LrC-Develop edits on these.


So the options for lossless (i.e. just keeping the original safe) Camera RAW editing for JPG's seems to be:

• Smart Object: makes size ~15 times larger so that's out (plus isn't treated like a Camera RAW file in LrC for quick edits).

• Camera RAW the JPG itself which I'm wary about since nobody can seem to see those edits unless they have Adobe-esque software installed (I also kinda consider this to be a non-standard workflow like my DNG below too)... so no matter what to give to another person I have to output it into a new file WITH the edits applied.

• Use a Camera RAW file format container (DNG), with a JPG inside, which keeps the same/similar lossless workflow I use for REAL Camera RAW files... so at least it has that going for it - I can treat them EXACTLY like all my other photos, and not have to edit my workflow (even if it's a fake RAW/DNG file inside lol). -- this is also NOT perfect as just like the JPG above I would still have to export into another format so others can view/open...


Also did some more reading on DPReview forums and seems to be pretty standard with quite a dew people there. Many also specifically use it because they want to use programs like (was it Luminar or Topaz?), and other RAW-only editing programs/filters, which this allows them to use those special filters and clean-up tools on a JPG when it's inside a DNG as it thinks it's a real RAW file.

 

[Jumpthesnark]

Converting a JPEG to DNG isn't converting a JPEG to raw, it's just putting in a DNG container, which is all DNG is (a container). You can't uncook a JPEG, just FYI. All JPEG is loss-based, whether it's wrapped in a DNG or anything else.

Exactly. It's like taking a slice of cake and trying to turn it back into flour, eggs, butter, sugar, milk and baking soda again. Can't be done.

@Dochartaigh you mentioned you have had LR catalogs get corrupted over the years. Do you use one big catalog for your photos? Or do you break up your work/archive and use smaller catalogs with fewer pictures?

I create a new catalog for each shoot. And as of yet I (knocks on wood) have not had a catalog get corrupted. At the very least, if a catalog would get corrupted somehow, it would affect fewer images.

Sadly, there isn't a truly "lossless" workflow for our old pre-RAW .JPG files, because a .JPG is by definition compressed and lossy. But I know that LR may open the file when you use it in the develop module, but it is a non-destructive process. So any work I do on an old .JPG has actually done nothing to the original file. It is unchanged, and when I export a file I've worked on in LR, it is a brand new image - whether it's a JPG, a TIFF, a DNG or whatever. So the original (old) file isn't changed by LR. The program just applies the changes you make in the develop module to the creation of a new file, in whatever size and format you want.

I just found a random .JPG image I shot and worked in 2013. I dropped it into an existing new LR catalog with some recent work. I made a minor tweak to the image and exported it. The new .JPG is dated today. The original still shows 2013 as the last time it was modified. So I believe your best process is simply to open your old .JPGs in LR and do whatever post-processing you need to, and then export them in any file format and size you want to. Your old files will be unchanged. Your new files are whatever you want them to be, a free-standing JPG or TIFF or anything.

I hope this helped. I may have missed something in your OP though, apologies if I did!

 

[Dochartaigh]

@Dochartaigh you mentioned you have had LR catalogs get corrupted over the years. Do you use one big catalog for your photos? Or do you break up your work/archive and use smaller catalogs with fewer pictures?

I create a new catalog for each shoot. And as of yet I (knocks on wood) have not had a catalog get corrupted. At the very least, if a catalog would get corrupted somehow, it would affect fewer images.

I had one big one years and years ago, but it wasn't really that big... just too much trouble with it over the years (stopped using it a LONG time ago). I also tend to move from computer to computer WAY too much (have like 3x laptops for home and work, mac mini in living room (I'm typing on now , mac Pro in other room, newer mac pro at work, etc. etc.) - just not feasible for me to have one catalog (even if I could like host it on a server everything could access -which would be really slow too- and I never looked into fyi)...

I also HATE Lightroom Classic's folder browser system... I'm commonly like 6+ folders deep... just can't browse comfortably in it (like I can in Adobe Bridge... well, in 2022's bridge... Bridge 2023 like I outlined in another post is unusable), just really limited for file management/delete/copy, etc as well.

TBH I ONLY use LrC for one single reason: my Loupedeck+ controller doesn't work in Photoshop/Photoshop-CameraRAW properly, only LrC... so I do my camera raw work there now - otherwise I would never, ever, touch LrC (prefer the FULL control I get in Photoshop).

Sadly, there isn't a truly "lossless" workflow for our old pre-RAW .JPG files, because a .JPG is by definition compressed and lossy. But I know that LR may open the file when you use it in the develop module, but it is a non-destructive process. So any work I do on an old .JPG has actually done nothing to the original file. It is unchanged, and when I export a file I've worked on in LR, it is a brand new image - whether it's a JPG, a TIFF, a DNG or whatever. So the original (old) file isn't changed by LR. The program just applies the changes you make in the develop module to the creation of a new file, in whatever size and format you want.

I will say I AM torn between simply keeping them .JPG's... and making Camera RAW edits. Think it's just something in my head that says "I'm using Camera RAW, thus I want to use ONLY Camera RAW-type files (i.e. DNG's)... even if they're really just lossy JPG's inside" lol.

In the end, after thinking about it during the course of this post, I really think it just doesn't matter... do whatever I want and it'll turn out the same way in the end... was just seeing if I was missing anything, missing any other way to do this. I figure worst case scenario, in like 20 years if computers then can't even open these file formats anymore, I buy a $50 ancient Mac Laptop and install the Photoshop of the day and export whatever format I need lol (which I've actually done similar to that lately: used a retro-gaming Windows 98 computer i built to relive my childhood DOS games, and also used it to export some ancient Quark and 3d Studio Max stuff from my college years lol).

 

[kenoh]

I have TONS of old camera .JPG files (many cameras back then couldn't even save files as Camera RAW!). I want to edit those solely in Camera RAW, and develop a proper LOSSLESS workflow way to do this... but can't quite figure it out.

On my newer cameras, which I shoot in Camera RAW, it's quite easy to have a lossless workflow: I edit the RAW files in the Develop Panel of Lightroom Classic (LrC) - which is powered by Camera RAW. I enable "Automatically write changes to XMP" in LrC, so no matter what happens (to my previously many, many-times corrupted LrC Catalog), I have those Sidecar .XMP files as a definitive backup of my edits. This workflow lets me ALWAYS keep the original file untouched (i.e. lossless), since I can turn on/off those RAW edits at will. It also keeps the file size WAY down as they're not converted to Photoshop/.PSD files or TIFF's or anything.

NOTE: I WILL NOT USE LIGHTROOM CLASSIC'S CATALOG FUNCTION!!!

So that brings us back to the JPG's. It is true LrC can also "Develop" these, and the Camera RAW edits seem to be saved INSIDE the JPG container, but I don't quite trust this for the long-run... already ran into issues when I send these to (non designer) people they ONLY see the non-edited/original version... and don't know if how Adobe does this will be "industry standard" and if programs (including non-Adobe programs) in 10, 20 years from now will be able to properly read it WITH the Camera RAW edits...

What I've started to do is convert those JPG's (in Adobe Bridge or LrC) to .DNG files. Adobe created the open source Digital Negative/DNG format as a "standardized and backward-compatible universal file format for digital image preservation/archiving"... but upon reading more, it seems like nobody but them really started using this... (definitely not Canon, Sony, or Nikon...) so again, don't know what will be best for the long run. I know I DO like how LrC and Photoshop's Camera RAW dialog window seem to treat the .DNG as a verified Camera RAW file... which is why I've been using it.

One thing/workflow I do NOT want to do (which is how I used to do everything back in the day) is the Smart Object route. This is how I used to do my 'lossless' workflow – by either converting the Background layer (i.e. the original image) to a smart object, or "Open as Smart Object", then apply your Camera RAW as a Smart Filter... but then you lose the ability to purely use Camera RAW, and it HAS to be opened and edited in Photoshop (to see all your layers). This also makes the file size like 400% right off the bat... (versus a Camera RAW file + .XMP sidecar file) as soon as you save it as a .PSD or .TIF.

Thoughts? Ideas? What's your lossless workflow for images like this?

Like others have said, as your originating image is a JPEG, the loss of granular detail has already been done, there is little to no benefit of converting them to RAW and certainly not worth the additional storage it would take.


I stumbled upon a software tool this week. It has been around for a while but I only just became aware of it. CamerBag Photo. You may know of it already.

It is only on Windows and Mac but it seems to be at least something of a step towards light room capabilities without having to subscribe or pay massive amounts - £30 for a license.

I am still exploring it so don’t take my opinion on it to mind but maybe worth looking at as it has a bit of file management built into it.

 

[Ray2]

With all your problems with Lightroom, perhaps looking for a replacement makes more sense. Seriously, it’s been a robust Catalog in the 25 event-free years I, not to mention a whole lot of others, have been using it. If you’re not gelling with it, perhaps it’s not the right choice for you.

 

[Reality4711]

Amazingly complex discussion on what looks like simply a matter of personal choice.
My jpegs are jpegs and I edit them & store them as such. Thirty odd years work or play if I don’t mess with em for no gain they have never messed with me.🦈

 

[_timo_redux_]

FWIW I just bring jpegs into my catalog or session (previously, into my Aperture Library), living alongside RAW files. As most people know, there's much less latitude to punch them up or the like than with RAWs, but still it can be useful to straighten or fix, in a limited way, white balance.

Since any processing on the file is just instructions within the session for how to "cook" it at export, the storage is "lossless", even if a jpeg or heic file technically isn't.

 

[Dochartaigh]

With all your problems with Lightroom, perhaps looking for a replacement makes more sense. Seriously, it’s been a robust Catalog in the 25 event-free years I, not to mention a whole lot of others, have been using it. If you’re not gelling with it, perhaps it’s not the right choice for you.

16 years is probably when I first tried it as well (came out in 2007). Please give my post above a read. That's why I don't use it - not really the lost catalog(s) of yesteryear, it's the 6+ computers (and that's just for me!), multiple locations, multiple users, multiple network locations (which aren't even accessible in all locations per VPN corporate rules, depending on client), having the / / / / route to those locations change all the time depending if somebody physically moves a drive or catalogues it into a newly created job #.... that's not even getting into how Lightroom's version of finder (file browsing) and copy/paste/delete off actual drive/move type stuff is really lackluster (unlike Bridge which I normally use, which also isn't perfect).

All this has it make WAY more sense to keep .XMP sidecar files of the edits of RAW files, and have the RAW changes embedded into the much-more-rare .JPG or fake .DNG's - so anybody, anywhere, at any location, can load those up into their (adobe-esque) program of choice and it'll show the edits, AND keep the files lossless still... and have no chance to be corrupted (or if it is, it's a single file, or your entire drive has issues... which all are backed up anyway).

 

[robgendreau]

My JPEG workflow, if I want to avoid writing metadata to the JPEG, is just to turn off that option in LrC and edit per usual. Edits are stored only in LrC. I assume that would work the same way in another parametric editor.

That being said I usually do write the edits/metadata into the file because it's not a raw file and that has no effect on the image itself. But I do avoid that with other people's files.

I don't quite get what you're referring to in Lr (it's not a file browser, for example, since you have to import files...Bridge is a file browser). So can't comment on what your problems are. But works for me for lossless editing of most everything. YMMV.

And BTW, if you need to create a sidecar for a JPEG to store metadata Graphic Converter can do that.

 

[MacNut]

You can't take a JPEG and magically make it a RAW file. Once the cake is baked you can't un-cook it.