Raw to jpeg prosessing much slower in CS6

I asked same question in general discussion but got no answer!
I´m tweeking my time lapse image sequence in ACR 7.0/7.1. After setting up the look I transfer all of them to jpegs.
In CS5 I could see in save status window that ACR was processing 2-4 pictures at the same time.
In CS6 its only processing one picture at a time. So it´s 2-4 time slower than CS5. Any one else noticed this behavior??
What is causing this?
My computer is Mac pro 3.1 8-core 2.8, 16 ram and quadro 4000
thanks,

Jeff Schewe wrote:
I don't know since you didn't say...
Specifically, you made the comment, "So, the above timings are not really useful unless all factors involved are exactly the same."
"All factors exactly the same" is impossible to achieve in context, because the different ACR versions sport different features. So I strove to make the output match as closely as possible.
So, the above comments are not really useful unless you use technically accurate terms.
Regarding seeing multiple conversions happening at once...
Whether we're seeing improvement or degradation from from past versions isn't clear here...
ACR 5.7 x64 - only appears to process one image at a time.
ACR 6.7 x64 - processes two images at a time and busies the CPU resources almost fully:
ACR 7.0 x64 - is back to processing one at a time, but seems to busy more CPU resources overall than ACR 5.7:
ACR 7.1 x64 - seems to load the system up somewhat less aggressively, which could help explain why it's slower...
Might it be that Adobe has changed the way the task is broken up, so that now more multithreading is done in an individual image, and thus it's not needed as much during the group conversion? This would have the advantage of making a single individual image open more quickly.
-Noel

Similar Messages

Bridge CC *much slower* than CS6 - anyone else?

We've been using bridge since CS5 as part of our workflow, and have upgraded computers along the way to support the demands of larger file sizes (we now use D800s with 36Mpix files) and software upgrades.
A typical workflow on a top-end Retina MacBook Pro or top-end iMac includes loading full screan previews in Bridge, culling, and opening to ACR and then Photoshop for post-production with a large amount of PS being batch operations. Going from CS5 to CS6 "felt" faster doing the same things we did in each. Upgrading from D700 cameras to D800 camera "felt" slower until we upgraded computers. Now going from CS6 to CC "feels" slower. Significantly. So much so I ran a test on the Retina MBP (latest OS, 2.6GHz quad processor, SSD, etc)
Open & Process Full Screen Previews for 100 NEF Files
CS6: 4 min 15 sec
CC: 5 min 22 sec
Run ACR Adjustments on 100 NEF files as Batch
CS6: 2 min 15 sec
CC: 2 min 51 sec
Run Batch on 100 NEF files with 174-Step Action
CS6: 6 min 13 sec
CC: 12 min 44 sec
To ensure it wasn't just the Retina MBP, I did a similar range of tests on the iMac (latest OS, 3.4GHz quad processor, SSD, etc), and the approximate ratio of slow-down in within the range of standard deviation.
Loading is confirmed to both "feel" slower as well as actually be slower. So, too, is running batches. A lot slower. We're downgrading back to CS6 for now since this is unacceptable. However, the questions remains - is anyone else seeing these slowdowns?

I have no data but it appears that every version of PS needs more horsepower and this is the case for Adobe Camera Raw as well. Just more data to process. And this is not all of Adobe's making as every camera that comes out the manufacturer develops a new camera raw that is "better" as it has more options.

ACR processing in CS6 much slower than CS5

A big advantage of hosting ACR in 64 bit CS5 vs in bridge was that then ACR would process multiple images at once when saving them to jpg which would reduce processing times by 30% or more. For some reason this doesn't seem to be the case with CS6. I just did a short test and CS6 won't process multiple images at once, and was 33% slower than CS5 at saving a batch of 5dmkii images to jpeg.
Has anyone else noticed this? Hopefully this limitation is due to beta status and the final release of ACR will be fully optimized for 64bit processing.

It seems strange that their is hardly any improvement in 64 bit cs6 speed vs 32 bit cs5.    I agree, gpu support for acr would great!
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2012 15:25:25 -0600
From: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: ACR processing in CS6 much slower than CS5
    Re: ACR processing in CS6 much slower than CS5
    created by Noel Carboni in Photoshop CS6 - View the full discussion
Bridge in CS5 was 32 bit only, and I observed the 32 bit converter as run by Bridge (or Photoshop 32 bit) wouldn't exercise all the cores, so the way I interpret your numbers is as follows:
1. ACR7 is 50% slower than its predecessor (34.25 seconds when run in Photoshop 64 bit vs. 22.59).
2. Bridge is now 64 bit, so you're running the same code in both cases, which is why you're seeing essentially the same number in Bridge as Photoshop.
-Noel
     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: http://forums.adobe.com/message/4328297#4328297
     To unsubscribe from this thread, please visit the message page at http://forums.adobe.com/message/4328297#4328297. In the Actions box on the right, click the Stop Email Notifications link.
     Start a new discussion in Photoshop CS6 by email or at Adobe Forums
For more information about maintaining your forum email notifications please go to http://forums.adobe.com/message/2936746#2936746.

In CS6, JavaScript Running MUCH Slower than ActionScript

Hi All,
I am finding that in CS6, JS code runs MUCH slower than ActionScript code. I don't want to double-post here - Full details may be found where I posted them in the InDesign Scripting forum at - CS6 JavaScript Running Much Slower than ActionScript, before I realized that this forum might be more appropriate.
The basic gist of it is that I had a Flex/ActionScript Extension, which I obviously needed to start converting to JavaScript in advance of the next version not supporting ActionScript. I converted 20,000 lines of my business logic code from ActionScript to JavaScript (grrr...) - only to find that it now runs 5 times slower than it did in ActionScript.
What has been the experience of others who have converted large Extensions from ActionScript to JavaScript?
I would greatly appreciate any and all suggestions.
TIA,
mlavie

Hi All,
I am finding that in CS6, JS code runs MUCH slower than ActionScript code. I don't want to double-post here - Full details may be found where I posted them in the InDesign Scripting forum at - CS6 JavaScript Running Much Slower than ActionScript, before I realized that this forum might be more appropriate.
The basic gist of it is that I had a Flex/ActionScript Extension, which I obviously needed to start converting to JavaScript in advance of the next version not supporting ActionScript. I converted 20,000 lines of my business logic code from ActionScript to JavaScript (grrr...) - only to find that it now runs 5 times slower than it did in ActionScript.
What has been the experience of others who have converted large Extensions from ActionScript to JavaScript?
I would greatly appreciate any and all suggestions.
TIA,
mlavie

Photoshop CS6 - How to export form Camera Raw to Jpeg of 300dpi?

Photoshop CS6 - How to export form Camera Raw to Jpeg of 300dpi?

What does your package include besides this disc?
If your artistry and production are at a high-level and you are charging tens of thousands of dollars then protecting your reputation and future-sales possibilities by not giving them a disc might be wise, but if you just want to be done with things after you get paid, then a disc or flash-drive of native-resolution (not resized) and uncropped JPGs might give the most freedom for the client, although if I was your client, I’d want the RAWs or at least DNGs with your settings saved to them. If there is enough space on the media then you could put a folder of JPGs and a folder of TIFs, separately. It depends on how many you’re giving them. If you’re high-end you could give them an Wi-Fi iPad with the photos on it, or at least a non-Apple tablet with a removable flash-card for more easy offloading.

Lens correction, and Raw or JPEG

Please bear with me, sometimes I'm a bit slow.
I just loaded a friend's JPEG into ACR, to see if I could fix the distortion. The image has no EXIF. The list of Nikon-fit lenses was much shorter than usual - is this because it is a JPEG, rather than a raw file?
I was surprised that the 16-85mm lens wasn't in the list, as I know this was added in 6.2. After hunting for the LCP files, I see that there is a RAW version only, so this ties in with my guess. So, my next question is: why does Adobe supply two profiles with some lenses (raw + jpeg) and one with others?
I gave up on ACR, and loaded the JPEG into CS5. In CS5 Lens Corrections, I was allowed to assign a raw-only profile to my JPEG. This is good, but why am I allowed here, and not in ACR?
And, a less important question, but niggling nonetheless, and maybe a little off-topic, why does CS5 Lens Correction offer both "NIKON" and "NIKON CORPORATION" as a camera make, when others just have one listing?

Yammer P, yes the list is shorter because it's a jpeg rather than raw, and we have more profiles for raw than for jpeg.
For the set of lenses supported in CS5's initial release, we created profiles for both raw and jpeg. Since then, we have been concentrating on raw-based lens profiles, for a number of reasons (one of which is that we feel we can consistently deliver the highest quality results this way). This is why you see some lenses supported with raw & jpeg profiles, but many more supported with raw only.
CS5's Lens Correction plug-in does indeed let you choose raw-based lens profiles even though it is processing a rendered file (e.g., jpeg, tiff). This will work in many (but not all) cases for distortion correction, but will often work poorly for chromatic aberration and vignette correction. I don't recommend this workflow and it is a key reason we don't let users mix/match in ACR & LR.
Eric

Help with managing RAW and jpeg images and installing iphoto 9

Greetings: Fist, let me make the neophyte apology and plea - I'm sorry, I should have come here first; I didn't and now I need your help.
I have just purchased a macbook pro (still in its box) with updated software for my older imac os x. I have a number of Canon related photo editing programs (that came with my 40D digital SLR) and Adobe photo elements 6 for mac on the imac. Following some erroneous advice I have made a complete mess of the pictures folder's content by trying to delete images directly from that folder (there are now 6000+ images in the folder, many of which are duplicates(?). Most of the images are not tagged or labeled and some have been organized in/by iphoto (I corrupted the iphoto's library structure very early on by disrupting and editing its images - which might explain why iphoto had a difficult time 'finding' and displaying some of my photos). The picture folder now holds jpegs, smallRAW images (a Canon 40D photo format) and various duplicates of the orignal images - (some of the duplicates don't display as images, but as jpeg logos, which, when opened contain duplicate image or are completely black) The first time I downloaded RAW images into iphoto 6 the RAW data displayed as a black image. When shooting in smallRAW on the Canon 40D, the camera produces a jpeg image for 'easy viewing and editing in the camera' but it looks as though iphoto 6 made duplicates of the jpeg and the RAW data and stored them in different locals in the picture file. In an attempt to get the number of images down, I have been trying to delete them from the picture folder. (My daughters both download images rather indiscriminately in hopes of 'editing them on the computer' which inevitably does not happen) and there is a lot of experimental bracketing of images - shooting raw and different Camera formats etc., all of which need to be cleaned up before I proceed.
Sometime in the not-too-distant future I would like to have iphoto 9 running on my imac with a clean library of images and a seamless way of downloading, editing and storing images (including the RAW data).
The macbook pro is for my highschool-aged daughter, who will run iphoto 9 but not have any RAW image data on her system. She would like to copy some of the old iMac's images to put into her own iPhoto 9 library (probably using a disk, email or on-line photo service - ideally, I would like to be able to copy and remove a number of those images from my HD and give them to her for the macbook)
A few questions and queries: Can I 'dis-able' iphoto 6, while I delete images (RAW and jpeg) from the picture file? (and is this even a good idea).
Once I have edited the # of images down to a reasonable size, should I re-launch iphoto 6, rebuild the iphoto library and then update to iphoto 9 or skip v6 and rebuild with v9?
And now for the 'how stupid is this guy question' - I really had planned to purchase an external backup; but between new the macbook, car repairs and braces it has never come to fruition. So, I have never properly backed up my images. What is the bare-bones, least expensive method for me to do this? I'd even consider burning everything to disks if that works. I can't afford the $ to purchase a new external hard drive right now (really). Budget is set aside mid-November for one though.
I've been looking through some other discussion boards and it looks like I'm not the only one having RAW image issues. I know that shooting smallRAW with the companion jpeg is probably not helping things but I take my camera equipment on extended canoe trips - and we like the ease of on-the-spot editing with this format.
Thanks in advance for your help - Mark

Terence, Is the picture folder the primary source for the images or does that data reside somewhere else?
If you gathered them there, then yes.
I really don't want to have to go through 14,000 images looking for the pictures that I want to keep (or is that my only option?).
Only you can decide what you want to keep.
Why does the computer keep making copies of the images and filing them under date and events?
That's how iPhoto works. It's not a problem usually, only you did go in there and make a problem, and now we are trying to fix it.
You advise not to muck around in the picture file via preview,
No I don't. I advise not to much around in the iPhoto Library Folder.
but if I download images through a program other than iPhotos - image capture or adobe aren't I doing that anyway?
Adobe what? Adobe is a software manufacturer who make many excellent applications, you need to be more precise. And no, if you import photos with Image Capture or “adobe” no you are not interfering with the iPhoto Library Folder.
Can you edit a base image file somewhere and remove it from the HD without iphoto making a copy of it and storing it somewhere else?
This is stunningly easy. Don't use iPhoto. Use an image editor.
I want to look the negatives, decide which ones I want and throw the rest away. Can that be done or am I way off course?
Yes, and iPhoto (or similar apps) make this really easy.
Hook up your camera. Import the pics to iPhoto. Go through the imported pics. Trash the ones you don't want. Then process the ones you do. But you must learn how to use iPhoto to do this successfully
To trash: put the pic in the iPhoto trash and empty it. This removes the file from iPhoto and the Hard Disk.
Process it: If you want to use another editor: You can set Photoshop (or any image editor) as an external editor in iPhoto. (Preferences -> General -> Edit Photo: Choose from the Drop Down Menu.) This way, when you double click a pic to edit in iPhoto it will open automatically in Photoshop or your Image Editor, and when you save it it's sent back to iPhoto automatically. This is the only way that edits made in another application will be displayed in iPhoto.
Regards
TD

Best practice for photo format: RAW+PSD+JPEG?

What is the best practice in maintaining format of files while editing?
I shoot in RAW and import into PS CS5. After editing, it allows me to save as various formats, including PSD and JPEG. PS says that if you want to re-edit the file, you should save as PSD as all the layers are maintained as-is. Hence I'd prefer to save as .PSD. However, in most cases, the end objective is to share the image with others and JPEG is the most suitable format. Does this mean, that for each image, its important to save it in 3 formats viz RAW, PSD and JPEG? Wont this increase the total space occupied tremendously? Is this how most professionals do it? Pls advice.

Thanks everyone for this continued discussion in my absence over two weeks. Going through it i realize its helpful stuff. During this period, i downloaded Aperture trial and have learnt it (there's actually not much learning, its so incredibly intuitive and simple, but incredibly powerful. Since I used iphoto in the past, it just makes it easier.
I have also started editing my pics to put them up on my photo site. And over past 10 days, here is the workflow I have developed.
-Download RAW files onto my laptop using Canon s/w into a folder where i categorize and maintain all my images
-Import them into Aperture, but letting the photos reside in the folder structure i defined (rather than have Aperture use its own structure)
-Complete editing of all required images in Aperture (and this takes care of 80-90% of my pics)
     -From within Aperture open in PS CS5 those images that require editing that cannot be done in Aperture
     -Edit in CS5 and do 'Save', this brings them back to Aperture
     -Now I have two versions of these images in Aperture - the original RAW and the new .PSD
-Select the images that I need to put up on my site and export them to a new folder from where i upload them
I would be keen to know if someone else follows a more efficient or robust workflow than this, would be happy to incorporate it.
There are still a couple questions I have:
1 - Related to PS CS5: Why do files opened in CS5 jump up in terms of their file size. Any RAW or JPEG file originally btn 2-10 MB shows up as minimum 27 MB in CS. The moment you do some edits and/or add layers, it reaches 50-150MB. This is ridiculous. I am sure I am doing something wrong. Or is this how CS5 works with everyone.
2 - After editing a file in CS by launching it from Aperture, I now end up with two versions in Aperture, the original file and the new .PSD file (which is usually 100MB+). I tried exporting the .PSD file to a folder to upload it on my site, and wasnt sure what format and size it would end up with. I got it as a JPEG file within reasonable filesize limits. Is this how Aperture works? Does Aperture allow you options of which format you want to save the file in?

Adobe Camera Raw (ACR), Jpeg Files and Metadata

I have been using Adobe Camera Raw (ACR) with my Canon EOS 30D, an 8 MP camera, for a while now. I would make non-destructive changes to the raw file (.CR2) in ACR where the changes would be stored in an adjoining .xmp file. Jpegs of the unedited and edited camera raw files would be created so I have a before and after versions of the images that can be viewed anywhere.
Now I have a Canon EOS 5D Mark III, a 22 MP camera and the raw files are much larger. I’m looking at using camera raw on jpeg files for some for my more casual photo shoots in order to save disk space. From what I have read, I can use ACR on jpeg files and that the changes would be stored in the metadata in the jpeg file. Is there a way for the changes to be stored in an adjoining .xmp file so that the original jpeg file is not modified, much like it is done with the .CR2 files?
I am using Adobe Photoshop CS5 on a Windows 7 machine. All software is up-to-date.
Also, I have found that Adobe’s camera raw handing is different than the raw handling of the photos using Canon’s software (DPP). Is there a way to make ACR closer to what Canon’s software does?
Thanks,
Mike

Probably not going to happen.
I agree, Canon's color is better than Adobe's in general - I just didn't know how good the Camera Standard profile might be for your particular camera. I had hoped maybe they'd made it a very close match.
Some time ago I got a very nice genius-level Camera Raw forum member named Vit to make me a custom profile that exactly matches the Canon color for my 40D, even to the point of emulating the way Canon fits the entire gamut of the captured image into the sRGB color space, so I'm more than happy.
Others might tell you that you're silly for wanting the color to match, but I understand completely your position - if you do get that kind of feedback just ignore it and push on.
Once you've set up a default to use Camera Standard, you may well be able to tweak the dozens of color controls to bring the Adobe default into line with the Canon color. I did that once before getting my special 40D profile, comparing embedded raw file JPEGs with the Camera Raw preview display with a variety of images - it was tedious but effective.
Best of luck.
-Noel

RAW to JPEG Coloring Porblem

I have a problem with the coloring of my images when I convert my images from RAW to JPEG. I work with a professional photographer on the weekends doing weddings and when doing so, I always use the RAW format. I use his cards since it is his business and he edits the pictures. I recieve a copy of the final product of the pictures he gives the bride in JPEG and then a copy of all the pictures that I took in the RAW format. I had been using JPEG until I played around with the RAW pictures in photoshop and realized how much more you can do with the pictures.
Anyway, I've been running into a problem. I downloaded all the programs for RAW files so I can view them, etc. I can view them perfectly, open them with photoshop perfectly, and edit them perfectly. The problem occurs when I convert the RAW picture in photoshop to a JPEG. The picture completely looses all color and saturation. It gets the dull and grey look. If it is a shot of a person, their skin looks grey and green. However, if I reopen that file as a JPEG in photoshop, it shows up in perfect color. It's perfect if its opened in photoshop but looks terrible in JPEG. If I shoot in JPEG to begin with, the color is fine no matter what. I love shooting in RAW though because there is so much more you can do.
I've done everything I can think of doing. I experimented myself and made the picture extremelly saturated and the colors overly bright but even then, photoshop still converts the RAW image to a gross looking JPEG. I sent a copy of the gross looking JPEG to a friend's compter to see if my computer had just distorted the color but even on her computer, it still wasn't right. I went to the professional that I work with and I pulled my images up on there. I showed him the nice RAW image and the crappy JPEG. On his computer, the JPEG was still wrong. He opened the RAW file and his computer in photoshop and saved it as a JPEG on his computer and it saved it perfectly. He didn't know when my computer was messing it up. He said it obviously wan'y my camera and was something with my computer or photoshop. We both have Photoshop CS2 so I compared the color settings and preferences but they were all the same. I also take classes at a photo center and my teacher's computer worked as perfectly as the professional's. My computer is not old at all. My brother is a computer engineer and knows everything. He just re-did my computer a few days ago (updated it, got rid of any viruses, etc.) and he put on the new Photoshop CS3. I was hoping that this would help me out but it's still the same problem. I jsut want to know why the color gets messed up when I convert a RAW picture to a JPEG. Thank you!

A) It sounds like you are using a Nikon camera... hence the green problem... although I have seen some Canon slime too... Do you control the color white balance with a good gray card when you shoot?
B) It sounds like you are working on the files until they look good on your monitor but then...
B.1) your monitor is not calibrated to a non equipment based standard like Adobe 1998 so the out put doesn't hold for the next step
or
B.2) you are not embedding a profile (sRGB or Adobe 1998 or other equipment based profile) to provide instructions for your software and hardware to know where black and white and neutral gray are so they can render the photo correctly... no instructions (aka profile) equals unpredictable color from one step to another...
C) Maybe you have the camera on one color profile and photoshop on another but you still aren't embedding when you save the file?

Format - RAW vs JPEG vs TIFF?

I am new to Aperture and I received a Nikon D3000 for Christmas. I am NOT a professional photographer. I just take pictures of my family and places we go. I would appreciate suggestions as to what format might be best for me. Thanks.

JPEG is the simplest, smallest, probably offers best quality for someone who doesn't want to post-process the image themselves, but offers the least amount of control. When shooting in JPEG format, you can think of the computer inside the camera as being your own little photo-processing department. The camera will not only "capture" the image, it'll post process it by adjusting light levels, white balance, noise levels, sharpening, etc. It's all fully automatic.
HOWEVER... it will ALSO compress the image substantially so that it doesn't take much space. When it does this, it'll decide to reduce the quality of the image in areas where the human eye probably wont notice. This is lost data that you can never really recover. The "problem" here is that if something is over-saturated, too bright, or too dark, etc. a JPEG will just "compress" all the pixels that seem to be "alike" by making them effectively identical. When you later try to adjust the image by editing saturation, highlights, or shadows, you'll discover that the JPEG has clipped off all the detail and the area of the image is flat. This would not happen if you had shot in RAW.
RAW offers you the most control over your image. A RAW image is sort of like the "negative" in a film camera before it's been printed by the photo lab. The camera retains the original data as seen by the sensor at the time the image was captured and does not 2nd guess what the image was supposed to look like. It will make some adjustments, but it will not make any adjustments that are considered "destructive" to the original data. The files will not be compressed -- so the storage of each image will consume much more space on your memory card. Areas of an image that are too bright, too dark, saturated, or blown out and "appear" to be flat, may not actually be flat. You may actually be able to recover data by adjusting the photo -- this is because if too two pixels on the sensor appear to be nearly identical but are not actually identical, RAW will not compress them to be the same color (as JPEG would). It'll store the difference no matter how subtle. When you adjust the image, you may see the detail return.
HOWEVER... some things you may take for granted with a point-and-shoot will NOT be performed on a RAW image. For example, the camera will not attempt to de-noise the image. If you shoot in both RAW and JPEG then compare the results (without doing anything to either image) you should notice that the JPEG actually looks better. But that's because the JPEG was already processed and the RAW was not. After processing the RAW image, you may find that the RAW looks better. RAW is particularly better when you know you'll need to adjusting the images.
TIFF is non-lossy (like RAW) but unlike RAW, TIFF is a fixed standard. E.g. if you need to give someone a non-compressed non-lossy file so they can do more processing with it then you send them TIFF. If you send them RAW you're taking a chance that they wont have any software that can open the file. The "problem" with RAW is that it's more of a concept than a standard. Every model camera seems to have it's own variation on 'RAW' and that's why there's a delay in support from Apple & Adobe to add 'RAW' support for any new model that comes out.

Shooting in Raw and JPEG

Hi,
I am really new to Elements, and am having trouble using the Editor!
My camera shoots in Raw and JPEG (Sony A100), so I have to go through one by one and delete the JPEGs after uploading. I have looked at all of the Help function in Elements, and can't find a way to delete the JPEGs as I upload them, without having to do it the long way!
Can anyone suggest a quick way around?
Thanks v much

I tend to disagree with the statements about the Downloader. In terms of resources it consumes they are neglibible - 8Mbytes from total system memory of 1Gbyte in my case. They are not active until invoked.
I have found no easier way than using the Adobe Downloader once setup.
1. Plug card into reader
2. Click on Get Photos
It also allows me to choose which Adobe Program the download should be to.
I can't see that using Windows Explorer is more efficient.
1. Open Explorer
2. Set up Folder
3. Drag and drop images from reader
4. Startup Elements
5. Get Photos
However, as always the choice is ours and should be whatever we're comfortable with.
Colin #2

Organizing raw and jpeg of same pic

i shoot my photos in raw and jpeg formats with my canon camera. when i tried to organize them in elements organizer i see the same picture twice. how do i make my organizer cleaner by only showing the picture only once? i think i had done it before when i had pse on trial period, but since i have just reformatted my computer and installed my pse and pre full version i don't remember how i did it before. thank you very much for your help.

thanks for your answer. ever since i switched my point and shoot camera to my new canon camera i have been shooting in raw and jpeg mode so i have a ton of folders with pictures in both formats. i will try your suggestion to see if that will help. thanks again.

What camera raw download do I need for photoshop CS6 and a canon 5D mark 111 on a Mac 10.8.5 computer?

What camera raw download do I need for Photoshop CS6 with a Canon 5D mark 111 on a Mac 10.8.5 computer

Got it to work.
Thanks so much for your help.
On Sun, Aug 17, 2014 at 2:36 PM, John Waller <[email protected]>

No JPEG saved to LR4 from CS6?

Hi,
I'm running LR4.3 and CS6 on an iMac. I open a raw file in LR4, then open in CS6 from Lightroom. Edit a little, save as a jpeg, close, and the file does not come back into Lightroom. Either in a folder or in the collection. TIF and PSD come in... but not jpeg.
So I try to import the image. It does not show up in the folder as a non imported image... or at all. Then, I open my hard drive from Finder, go into the folder and there it is.
Why isn't LR4 reading my jpegs?
Help!

The Photoshop CSxx edits are automatically imported in Lr only when you do a <save> as opposed to <save as>.
A <save> creates a PSD or TIFF but to create a JPG you have to do a <save as>.
The JPG should show when - in Lr - you right-click the folder in question and select <Synchronize folder>.
Also, be sure to turn on the Maximize Compatibility option in Photoshop so that Lightroom can read the images.
Consider creating the JPG via export in Lr. If you check the box <Add to this catalog> in the Export Dialog, the exported image will automatically be imported in Lr.

Raw to jpeg prosessing much slower in CS6

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for