Comparison of JPEG to DNG

I'm still getting the hang of LR5, in your opinion, is there a major difference between pictures when exported as a JPEG or DNG? I know that the DNG file will be greatly larger if the photo was taken originally in RAW, but I was just wondering if the more experienced people have seen something.

Yes, there is a difference (assuming the original was Raw or DNG) , but whether or not you can see it depends on you and the photo. JPG are readable by every software, whereas DNG are readable by only specialized software. It all depends on the reason why you are exporting the photo. If the original was a JPG, it's a total waste of time and disk space to export as DNG.
Most people don't export to DNG without a good reason. You wouldn't just do it as a general thing to do.

Similar Messages

When using Camera raw with PS12 after editing, I cannot save my file in JPEG, only DNG

When using Camera RAW after editing photo I can only save file as DNG, I want to save as JPEG. HOW??
THANKS LLOYD

BARBARA,Yes, you are so right, I was deceived by the eve button, Just tried it and it WORKS GREAT-Thanks for the help.
THANKS AGAIN AND HAVE A GOOD DAY Lloyd
From: Barbara B. <[email protected]>
To: Lloyd Bennett <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2015 11:46 AM
Subject: When using Camera raw with PS12 after editing, I cannot save my file in JPEG, only DNG
When using Camera raw with PS12 after editing, I cannot save my file in JPEG, only DNG
created by Barbara B. in Photoshop Elements - View the full discussionYou are being deceived by the Save button, like most people. That button is not the Save As button, really, but a link to the DNG converter. To save your raw file in an image format, click the Open button instead and then save in the format of your choice in the editor. If the reply above answers your question, please take a moment to mark this answer as correct by visiting: https://forums.adobe.com/message/7092207#7092207 and clicking ‘Correct’ below the answer Replies to this message go to everyone subscribed to this thread, not directly to the person who posted the message. To post a reply, either reply to this email or visit the message page: Please note that the Adobe Forums do not accept email attachments. If you want to embed an image in your message please visit the thread in the forum and click the camera icon: https://forums.adobe.com/message/7092207#7092207 To unsubscribe from this thread, please visit the message page at , click "Following" at the top right, & "Stop Following" Start a new discussion in Photoshop Elements by email or at Adobe Community For more information about maintaining your forum email notifications please go to https://forums.adobe.com/thread/1516624.

Why both jpeg and dng from my D90?

OK ....bear with me - I'm a beginner ... but why do I get photos from my Nikon D90 in both jpeg and dng formats? Is this desirable? Can I just select the dng format? If so, how?
And really confusing to me is the fact that often the jpeg copies seem to be more vibrant than its dng brother.
Thanks, Burt

Burtman,
First, your user manual will tell you how, in the camera's menu, to choose whether you want RAW, small RAW, JPEGs in Large, Medium, or Small, and a combination of RAW and JPEG.
Now, the why: RAW files are specifically intended for those who plan on doing image processing after taking the picture...it is what you camera's sensor actually "sees" and when comparedto the JPEG will almost always look washed out as you are seeing. If you are not planning on doing intensive post-processing such as white balance corrections, or using these as the kick-off point for creating large image files (such as TIFs coming out of Photoshop) that are not destined for large format printing, you may well find that (at least for now) you are fine just changing the file capture setting just to Large JPEGs.
Here is a link to the manual (you want the section starting on page 62), but the short version is: use the "quality" button on the bottom left of the back of the camera, and then use the main command dial to change selections.
Link to user manual.
Hope that helps.
H

Exporting full size Jpegs from DNG converted files

Hi there
I imported some RAW files into Lightroom 4, which I then copied/converted to DNG, then edited them. I now want to export them as full size, high-quality jpegs but I only seem to be able to export them at a maximum of about 800kb, which is far lower than full-size. Is this to do with first the conversion to DNG from RAW on the import? Am I best copying them from raw and not converting them to DNG at all? Next question is, will I have to import the original RAWs again and re-edit them to be able to export as full-size high quality jpegs or is there some way to not have to do them again? Many thanks, Sophie

The curious thing is that when I try to export full size jpegs through the email function,
Do you mean exporting through the e-mail the EXACT SAME photos that you were discussing above?
Have you done any cropping of the photos? What is the size, in pixels, of one of these photos according to Lightroom? What is the size, in pixels, of the corresponding exported photo, according to your operating system?
Can you show us screen captures of the export dialog box?
At this time, I am not going to deal with the print at A4 size being pixelated, as printing introduces a lot of other places where something can go wrong. To see if the problem is in the export, I want to know if you look at the exported photo outside of Lightroom, does it appear pixelated or not?

JPEG to DNG in Lightroom: can't open the DNGs

Hello,
I've been importing images into Lightroom, and have had good success saving DNGs from my Nikon D2x's NEF files, and opening them back up in CS2 to verify their ability to open and become a good archival file (upon learning of the glory of DNG for archival purposes from Seth Resnick and Jamie Spritzer at this month's D-65 workshop in Denver).
My problem: A good portion of my earlier work (shot on D100, D70 and D2X cameras) was captured as JPEG. I have imported some of these into Lightroom and likewise attempted to make DNGs from them in order to optimize them for long-term archiving. However, when I try opening these DNGs in CS2, the dialog "Could not complete your request because Photoshop does not recognize this type of file" appears, and they will not open.
I will be shooting all RAW from this point on, and so the problem isn't with my NEF files from here on out. But will I always be unable to make a readable DNG from these older JPEG files, and thus should I archive them as TIFFs instead? I tried using the Adobe DNG converter, but it still didn't create a readable DNG file out of a JPEG, and I'm not sure that anything will.
I do not wish to rely on these JPEGs to stand the test of time (after seeing many become corrupt through the years), so I'm looking to change them to something else. Any suggestions for a good alternative archival file format for JPEGs, or methods of making them into readable DNGs?
Thanks,
Greg Latza
Sioux Falls, SD
http://www.peoplescapes.com

Jeff, Fred and John,
Thanks for the input...I did update to the proper ACR and was able to open the DNGs; I had forgotten that I'd updated it on my laptop but not this desktop G5. So now it works, and thank you for the tip.
I do agree that JPEGs are going to be very relevant for a long time, but it seems like I see a lot more corrupt JPEG files over time than other file formats; I'm trying to find a format that will be more reliable over the long haul, and less apt to have problems (lines through the file, blocks, etc). Would the DNG format be more reliable in this way?
Since I'm importing these older JPEGs into Lightroom from an archival standpoint, catching myself up to the present with my image database, I'm also trying to makes DNG folders of these files at the same time in order to archive them, and thus not have to return to the files again for this purpose (tip from the D-65 workshop).
Thanks again!
Greg

Keywords from JPEG to DNG

I have more than 3000 images that are keyworded using the JPEG file. I would like to transfer those keywords to the corresponding RAW file (actually RAW converted to DNG).
As it stands, the only way I know of doing this is cutting and pasting the keyword data by hand from the JPEG version of the image to the DNG version of the image. It is going to take a while to do that with 3000+ images 8(.
Any chance there is a more automated way of doing this in Lightroom (I don't think so) or using some other piece of software?
Thanks!

I appreciate the reply. Actually, my problem is even worse than you indicated. In particular, the first part of the filename for the DNG file often does NOT match the filename of the JPEG file. The software would have to make the match based on something like the time photo was taken.
At any rate, it sounds like I should check into ExifTool and see if it can do what is required.
Thanks!

JPEG to DNG

I accidently shot some images as high res JPEGs when I should have shot RAW.
Should I convert them to DNG or does it not matter. Are there advantages to converting them to DNGs?

No advantage, only disadvantages (increased filesize without any gain in quality). Just leave them as is. Lightroom edits jpegs non-destructively very well too.

"There was not enough memory" error message when saving DNG and Jpeg

PC/Windows XP Pro. Pentium 4/2Gb RAM.
I am constantly getting memory errors when trying to save batches of images from ACR4 either as Jpegs or DNGs.
A couple of images in to the batch a small window appears with a list of the files and next to each of them is the line: "There was not enough memory."
These are 220Mb TIFF files that are processed in Hasselblad's Flexcolor on the same computer. I can process an entire folder full (sometimes 50 images) without a hitch in Flexcolor, but Bridge/ACR4 and CS3 can't handle any reasonable number of images.
Could it be something in my settings? For the record, they are:
In Bridge, under Edit/Preferences/Camera RAW preferences, Camera Raw Cache is set to 10Gb. Jpeg and Tiff handling boxes are both ticked.
Under Edit/Preferences/Cache, Cache Size slider is slightly over half way to the right.
In addition, I have CS3 pointed to a formatted 500GB scratch disk all to itself.
And CS3's RAM is set to 80%.
Finally, this computer is used for nothing else except image editing.
Any ideas?
Thanks.
D.

Thomas,
Thanks for the reply.
If you mean by "Public Beta", did I download the 10.4Mb plug-in (as per John Cornicello's link above) and install it at Program Files\Common Files\Adobe\Plug-Ins\CS3\File Formats in place of the old plug-in, then yes.
I always run ACR4 via Bridge, never via CS3. CS3 always comes after conversion in my workflow. Also, I like to give Bridge/ACR a free run of available resources. Nothing else is ever open when I'm running them.
In CS3 under Edit/Preferences/File Handling, under Image Previews I selected 'Never Save'. Not sure if this affects ACR though.
Also, as per the suggestion in the article referred to in my last post, I removed the tilde ~ to activate the Bigger Tiles plug-in. CS3's memory % is now set @ 90%.
The only thing I haven't done is to activate the Microsoft 3Gb switch. I can't find instructions that are clear enough. Also, it may be that it makes no difference when running Vista 64bit, as I am.
For what it's worth, with these fine tunings, CS3 now executes the Retouch Artist's Speedtest in 20 seconds, a shade faster than before. This is extremely fast, so my setup should not be the problem here. I hope! ;-)
Finally, is there any point in trying LR? Or is its file saving/cache setup the same as ACR's?
Thanks for taking an interest in my case. I'm very happy to be a guinea pig since I will constantly have to process large numbers of files and I'd like to overcome this problem
Many thanks.
D.

Is there a "one-touch" way to convert to my existing library to DNG?

Is there a "one-touch" way to convert to DNG?
My Aperture library currently has three types of files: JPEG files taken with point-and-shoot camera going back for years, (ii) RAW (NEF) files made with a Nikon D60, (iii) RAW (CR2) files made with a Canon G9, and (iv) RAW (DNG) files I have shot recently.
I am interested in converting all the non-DNG RAW files (NEFs and CR2s) into the Adobe DNG file format. I understand that the format has a smaller file size (than the original RAW file) and that it is "lossless" (unlike converting to JPEG). So, in addition to "standardizing" my file-types, it will also reduce my overall library size (in GBs).
So, the question is: is there a way to take my existing Aperture library and, through some (hopefully free) combination of scripts and programs, convert all the RAW files to DNG automatically and without having to export each one from Aperture and them import it again. That is, I want a solution that will look at each file and ignore the JPEGs and DNGs, (ii) convert the NEFs and CR2s into DNG, and (iii) move the original NEF/CR2 files to a folder (just in case)?
This is not an problem going forward, because I can easily just import as DNG to begin with ... but its an issue for a few thousand images in my library.
Any ideas? Also, anyone think this is a crazy bad idea?
Thanks,
~B

Do you find that using Aperture to "import" the pictures (e.g., using the import function on Aperture and pointing it at your memory card) gives better results than using the DNG converter to "import" (e.g., by selecting the camera memory card and saving the conversions to disk, then importing those DNG files into Aperture)?
Not the way it works. The camera memory card does not have conversions on it, it has RAW (or JPEG) image files.
IMO generally most useful to help keep drives underfilled and fast (drives slow as they fill) is to manage by Reference ("referenced images") as in the workflow outline below where Master images can live anywhere. However with small changes similar workflow could be applied to Managed Masters.
I feel pretty strongly that card-to-Aperture or even camera-to-Aperture handling of original images puts originals at unnecessary risk. I suggest this workflow, first using the Finder (not Aperture) to copy images from CF card to computer hard drive:
• Remove the CF card from the camera and insert it into a CF card reader. Faster readers and faster cards are preferable, and Firewire is much preferable to USB2.
• Finder-copy images from CF to a labeled folder on the intended permanent Masters location hard drive.
• Eject CF.
• Burn backup hard drive or DVD copies of the original images (optional recommended backup step).
• Eject backup hard drive(s) or DVDs.
• From within Aperture, import images from the hard drive folder into Aperture selecting "Store files in their current location." This is called "referenced images." During import is the best time to also add keywords, but that is another discussion.
• Review pix for completeness (e.g. a 500-pic shoot has 500 valid images showing).
• Reformat CF in camera, and archive originals off site on hard drives and/or on DVDs.
Note that the "eject" steps above are important in order to avoid mistakenly working on removable media.
Alternatively, does anyone actually use (or recommend) Nikon-branded software for any step in this process? If your camera shoots JPG (as all mine did till a few months ago), it does not matter ... but does the RAW thing change that equasion?
Yes RAW changes the equation. Folks who want the very best NEF conversions will use Nikon Capture NX2 but the interface *****. Personally I find Aperture very good for the D2x.
Good luck!
-Allen Wicks

What good are the preview JPEGs? (newbie question)

Dear Folks,
I'm new to converting raws to DNGs, and I can't seem to find any use for the preview JPEGs that DNG converter can embed in the file.
Mac OSX (10.4.11) doesn't display them in Finder windows (Icon view mode). Get Info windows can show me a small preview whether or not I embed a JPEG. Mac OSX's Preview program can't display DNG files whether or not JPEGs are embedded in them. I don't see any difference in the functionality of Bridge and Photoshop whether they're there or not.
That pretty well describes my entire photo workflow, so if previews really are irrelevant to it, seems to me I might as well leave them out and save a little processing time and disk space.
Am I missing something obvious? (probably)
Thanks!
Ctein

Dear David (and Ramon),
Nope, no such implication whatsoever. I entirely understand the theoretical benefit. I've just been trying to find out if they'll benefit me.
BUT... here's an unexpected curiosity. I just ported one of my freshly-baked DNG file to a friend's brand new Mac, so it's running the latest versions of everything and it ought to be pretty much a stock configuration.
It can't read my DNG preview JPEG, either! When I drag the DNG file into the Preview app, it shows me a question mark, not a preview! I just double-checked, and I am generating the DNGs using the default settings in Adobe DNG Converter (medium JPEG, lossless compression, non-linear, no embedded RAW, etc.)
So, what's going on?! Ramon confirms that DNG previews should be viewable under Mac OSX. Either I'm doing something wrong (entirely likely) or there's something broken in A-DNG-C.
The DNG files I'm generating look perfectly fine in Adobe Bridge/ACR/Photoshop, by the way. It's something hinky with the JPEGs.
Anybody got a clue? I'm fresh out!
pax / puzzled Ctein

Camera profiles in DNG from camera (Leica S2, M8)

Hi all,
I´m reviewing captures from the Leica S2, which is saving Raw in the DNG format after capture. There is only one camera profile in the DNG files ("embedded"). Compared to a JPEG (mode DNG+JPG for capture) of the same shot the color rendering with the embedded profile is more saturated and slightly shifted in the hues. Greens get an ugly plastic look.
I have captures with Leica M8, too. They have more camera profiles: Embedded, Adobe Standard, Camera Standard and ACR legacy (3.6, 4.4).
As I understand Leica M8 DNGs are supported by Adobe with camera specific camera profiles while Leica S2 DNGs are NOT supported by Adobe with specific camera profiles.
Please can someone clarify this?
Second question: Is the Leica S2 embedded profile a camera specific profile (from Leica) or a general camera profile? Who is in charge for the embedded profile?
Mike
((posted this yesterday in DNG forum too, but this forum seems to be more visited))

Jeff Schewe wrote:
As far as I can see, any support for the S2 raw files is preliminary (which means it's NOT officially supported with a full range of color profiles).
Jeff,
I´ve got shots from two S2 cameras and they are pre-production (in terms of firmware, Leica will update this).
I process them with ACR 5.6 / LR 2.6.
As far as I understand "embedded" means color rendering as supposed by the camera maker (in this case Leica) and "Adobe Standard" does mean an official camera profile from Adobe. "Embedded" is pretty close to the color rendering of the S2´s JPEGs.
By the way, Capture One does open the DNG with a "DNG File Neutral" ICC profile. The color rendering is quite different. I know there is no DNG camera profile support in other applications than ACR/LR.

JPG to DNG mistake

I was messing around with importing fresh install of LR 1.1 and ended up converting jpg to DNG for some files. Other than they are much larger is their any other issues. If I export as JPG high quality will they be the same or should I go looking for backups, I have them but not organised as well as they should be ;-), hmm looks like some time issues depending on which of the families cameras was used, not sure if this is a LR issue or happened in the conversion as I see others having problems :-(

I personally like DNG for archiving and do convert jpeg to DNG.
I like the idea of having everything wrapped up in a dng container and never having to touch the jpegs again. Even accidentally rotating a jpeg will degrade the quality and if you intend to do further non-destructive editing in lightroom you will be continually adding to file metadata unless you have deselected that option in catalog preferences. Even then you will get a separate sidecar (XMP) file and DNG simply frees you from the worry of those ever getting separated from the parent file or deleted altogether.
Adobe continues to invest in the DNG format; so you can also take advantage of future developments. For example LR4 will introduce the option of fast load data for DNG’s which will make for greater editing efficiency.
As Paige says you will use more disk space, and a jpeg baked in camera will never be more than an 8 bit file, even within a DNG. So it’s a matter of personal choice.

How to import only RAW images from folder with RAW & JPEGs?

My system is set up that I have both RAW & JPEGs in the same folder since I shoot JPEG+RAW. How can I import just the raw images without also sucking in the jpegs? There is no way to distinguish the difference in the Import box and also no way to easily separate the the two in the Import box. I've tried using the List View and separting them by File Size, but Aperture has a stupid bug here and it tells me that the JPEG file sizes are in the teens (like 17-18 megs) and they are still hard to separate from the RAW which are about the same size.
Why can't Aperture do this basic thing?

I'm not doing anything. What I wrote in my workflow example above is exactly what I'm doing. I've been trying some experiments to see if it was "A Better Finder Rename" that is causing the issue. So far, no go. I have taken just a couple of JPGs only and pointed Aperture's Import to the folder that contains them. Aperture is reading that there are only 2 jpegs (which is what there is) and their file size is right on the mark.
Ok. I just narrowed it down to something. The flaw is showing up after the RAW files are converted to DNGs. The JPEGs do not show up in the Import box when there are camera raw files like NEFs or CR2s and the corresponding JPEGs. That is Aperture's normal behaviour. But, and this is a big BUT, when the raw files are converted to DNGs and they are in the same folder as the corresponding JPEGs, that's when Aperture pulls its shenanigans. It has something to do with the JPEGs and DNGs having the same name. Even though the files have different extensions, Aperture is doing something to the file size of the JPEGs that make them seem that they are much larger files than they actually are.
I figured it out like this:
I had 2 CR2 files and the corresponding JPEGs in a folder. Pointing Aperture's Import to that folder, Aperture did what it is supposed to do; it saw only 2 raw files (doesn't matter that the G9 CR2 files are not supported yet). So, I renamed all the files using A Better Finder Rename and Aperture still only saw 2 raw files.
So far so good.
Then, I converted just the 2 CR2 files to DNG and kept them in the same folder. Aperture saw 2 DNGs and 2 CR2 files. No jpegs were seen. Business as usual. Then I removed the CR2s and renamed the jpegs so they had the same names as the DNGs (except for of course different extensions) and that's when Aperture saw the jpegs as separate files and saw them with bogus file sizes.
So I tested that by altering the jpeg names so that they were different from their corresponding DNGs and Aperture went back to seeing the jpegs with the correct file sizes.
Therefore, Aperture is having some difficulty with two separate files, one JPEG and the other DNG, when they both have the same name (different extensions, of course).
Try it if you have a moment. Take one raw file and convert it to DNG and place it in a folder with its corresponding jpeg. Rename both to the same name and different extensions (.dng + .jpg) and see what happens when you try to get Aperture to import. Chance are Aperture will show bogus file sizes for the jpeg.
Let me know if that's clear.
Antonio

JPGS not converting to DNGs

Hi,
When trying to convert JPGs to DNG is it currently failing.
Steps:
1. Select the JPG images in Grid view
2. Go to Library, and choose Convert Photo to DNG
3. Untick Only convert RAW files, click OK
4. The conversion starts and the DNG files shows in the Grid view with an exclamation in the top right corner of the image. Clicking on the exclamation displays "Lightroom has encountered problems reading this photo. You will not be able to make adjustments to the photo".
5. If I convert the JPG to JPG within Lightroom and then convert the new JPG to DNG, it works. Why is that?
Please advise if I need to submit samples of the JPEGs and DNG.
Thanks,
Kreeson N

MinerFortyNiner,
Before you burn the playlist for your mp3 CD, make sure that "Kind" is visible as a column. If it is not, go to View > Options and check it. Then you can verify that it *only contains mp3s*.
Note that when iTunes converts an AAC to mp3, it is actually creating a second file in mp3 format. (That is why you saw "duplicates.") It adds the new mp3 to the library, but does not replace the original version in any playlist. So unless you manually change it, your playlist still has the unconverted (AAC) files in it.
Pls let us know if this solves the issue.

Should JPEG 2000 be an Exportable File Format Option?

I have been keeping up with the Library of Congress' efforts in the "Sustainability of Digital Formats Planning for Library of Congress Collections." In essence, TIFF is their first choice, with JPEG 2000 a close second. Here is the link to a short summary of their recommendations.
I like JPEG 2000, but like everybody else I never use it. When I burn a DVD to share with someone, I make a "hi-res" folder of TIFFs, and a "lo-res" folder of JPEGs. It isn't difficult to add JPEG 2000 as an exportable file format, as it is an ISO standard if I understand the spec correctly. In any event, if JPEG 2000 is a close second on the list at the Library of Congress, then we shouldn't take this lightly as they are the largest library in the world, in addition to being the single most important entity for handing our digital imaging rights which should be in the interest of all Aperture users.
Given this information, would you support adding JPEG 2000 as an exportable file format in Aperture 3?

Click on the word Aperture in the menubar, and choose Provide Aperture Feedback.
Ernie
Btw, quoting from Wiki, which leaves me uncertain as to why I would ever use, even from Photoshop:
"While there is a modest increase in compression performance of JPEG 2000 compared to JPEG, the main advantage offered by JPEG 2000 is the significant flexibility of the codestream. The codestream obtained after compression of an image with JPEG 2000 is scalable in nature, meaning that it can be decoded in a number of ways; for instance, by truncating the codestream at any point, one may obtain a representation of the image at a lower resolution, or signal-to-noise ratio – see scalable compression. By ordering the codestream in various ways, applications can achieve significant performance increases. However, as a consequence of this flexibility, JPEG 2000 requires encoders/decoders that are complex and computationally demanding. Another difference, in comparison with JPEG, is in terms of visual artifacts: JPEG 2000 produces ringing artifacts, manifested as blur and rings near edges in the image, while JPEG produces ringing artifacts and 'blocking' artifacts, due to its 8×8 blocks."
Message was edited by: Ernie Stamper

Comparison of JPEG to DNG

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for