DNG Converter: Enable JPG conversion

  • 403
  • Idea
  • Updated 2 weeks ago
  • (Edited)
Lightroom is capable to convert JPGs into DNG. The DNG Converter unfortunately currently is not. Please add JPG support to the Adobe DNG Converter. Thank you very much for considering!
Photo of Gunther Wegner

Gunther Wegner

  • 33 Posts
  • 10 Reply Likes

Posted 4 years ago

  • 403
Photo of Michel BRETECHER

Michel BRETECHER, Champion

  • 1176 Posts
  • 246 Reply Likes
Photo of Jose Alonso Leon

Jose Alonso Leon

  • 1 Post
  • 6 Reply Likes
I would add that it would be even cooler if DNG Converter could convert Tiff files into DNG.
Photo of Gunther Wegner

Gunther Wegner

  • 33 Posts
  • 10 Reply Likes
I agree: TIFF and even PNG can be easily converted / wrapped in Lightroom. Why not with DNG Converter? Would love to have those supported as well!
Photo of chris tucker

chris tucker

  • 4 Posts
  • 4 Reply Likes
Hi Adobe! This should be in the next update to your software. Thanks!
Photo of Thomas Wyatt

Thomas Wyatt

  • 1 Post
  • 2 Reply Likes
I, too, support this request.
Photo of RP Somers

RP Somers

  • 1 Post
  • 1 Reply Like
I support Gunther's request, please add this in the next release....
Photo of Damian Vines

Damian Vines

  • 5 Posts
  • 1 Reply Like
Yes I want this feature too!
Photo of brennan nance

brennan nance

  • 1 Post
  • 0 Reply Likes
I think this really should come to fruition as well. Make it happen Adobe bros.
Photo of David Walters

David Walters

  • 1 Post
  • 0 Reply Likes
Absolutely this should be done. Please add the support in the next version of DNG Converter
Photo of Jody Brown

Jody Brown

  • 3 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
Need this feature
Photo of Roger Howell

Roger Howell

  • 1 Post
  • 0 Reply Likes
Make it so
Photo of nbnbn nbnbnnbnb

nbnbn nbnbnnbnb

  • 4 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
please!
Photo of Khazaad

Khazaad

  • 14 Posts
  • 1 Reply Like
How about, no!
Photo of Gunther Wegner

Gunther Wegner

  • 33 Posts
  • 10 Reply Likes
Still not implemented in DngConverter 8.8. :-(
It would be nice to get a statement from Adobe, why DngConverter still does not allow us to embed JPGs into a DNG container (while Lightroom does) and if they would please consider to implement this!
Photo of Christoph Malin

Christoph Malin

  • 2 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
I am in for Gunther's request as well.

Cheers
C
Photo of Michel BRETECHER

Michel BRETECHER, Champion

  • 1176 Posts
  • 246 Reply Likes
It seems that Lightroom is the only way to batch convert (=export) a full batch of non raw format pictures to DNG. (I don't know for CC with Bridge).
A lot of Elements users deeply regret that you can't use the Organizer to open non raw files in ACR. In recent versions of the editor, you can open several non raw files at the same time in ACR, which is good. However, you have to 'save' them individually to DNG in the limited ACR dialog version. Letting the DNGconverter do the conversion like in Lightroom would be a very good solution.
Photo of made dema

made dema

  • 1 Post
  • 0 Reply Likes
I, too, support this request.
Photo of Detlef Denne

Detlef Denne

  • 1 Post
  • 0 Reply Likes
I agree, please add JPG support to the DNG Converter.
Photo of Aitor Arce

Aitor Arce

  • 1 Post
  • 0 Reply Likes
+1
Photo of Marion Wolf

Marion Wolf

  • 1 Post
  • 0 Reply Likes
I support Gunther's request.
Photo of Mark Anderson

Mark Anderson

  • 1 Post
  • 0 Reply Likes
Hi, Adobe, this would be great. There's nothing like flexibility in software.
Photo of Pedro Sá

Pedro Sá

  • 1 Post
  • 0 Reply Likes
*****
Photo of Robert Cullen

Robert Cullen

  • 165 Posts
  • 46 Reply Likes
As Granny said- "You cannot make a silk purse from a sow's ear."
Briefly-
DNG files are fully un-processed RAW files with 14-bit data.
JPG files are compressed "lossy" 8-bit rendered files.
There is little point in converting JPG to DNG as you cannot recover lost quality and lost image data from the jpg.
And you can open JPG files in ACR, (from Bridge CTRL+R) but you will not have the full range of edit benefits that a 'true' raw image provides.
Photo of Cristen Gillespie

Cristen Gillespie

  • 1535 Posts
  • 468 Reply Likes
Learn something new every day. I didn't know PSE didn't allow the same JPEG (and TIFF)  into the Raw editor that PS/LR does. And no filter access to the "raw" editor either? I did know that the raw editor isn't as complete, but apparently gets more so all the time, like masking, but why don't they just let PSE users open JPEGs the way PS users can? Because there has to be some reason to upgrade? I'd say there are still quite a few. I doubt that's what makes PSE users jump to the Photography plan.  I know a lot who did, but I never heard it was to get their JPEGs into a raw editor. <BG>

It might be easier on them to open that feature up than provide JPEG batch conversion through the DNG converter, but that would be for them to decide. One or the other seems reasonable enough since you're well within the Adobe family here, so they could profit while making life easier on their customers.
Photo of Andrew Rodney

Andrew Rodney

  • 690 Posts
  • 135 Reply Likes
Yeah, Elements version of ACR has been 'crippled' for years and years. It's Elements after all. 
Photo of Michel BRETECHER

Michel BRETECHER, Champion

  • 1176 Posts
  • 246 Reply Likes
I'm having to assume that the reason why you say the workflow itself is desirable, even if it does nothing but put JPEG into a DNG wrapper, is the ability to open that JPEG in a raw editor?
You probably did not read the workflow reason I gave in the beginning of the discussion, which I detailed a little more in my previous answer. I can't speak for the special need of the original poster. The Elements organizer workfow issue does not add weight to the current request, on the contrary. Market segmentation. No competition with LR. I am relatively happy with the workaround and few users do care. However I am a bit sad to see that experts in this forum suppose everybody uses LR. I also have the CC subscription but never use it for my own needs (95% of unnecessary features for me).
I should not have taken part to this discussion.
Photo of Michel BRETECHER

Michel BRETECHER, Champion

  • 1176 Posts
  • 246 Reply Likes

Cristen Gillespie

  • 1512 Posts
  • 453 Reply Likes


Learn something new every day. I didn't know PSE didn't allow the same JPEG (and TIFF)  into the Raw editor that PS/LR does. And no filter access to the "raw" editor either? I did know that the raw editor isn't as complete, but apparently gets more so all the time, like masking, but why don't they just let PSE users open JPEGs the way PS users can?  <BG>
To be precise, the 'crippled' ACR version of Elements is excellent for me. It's the best of the three tools with the pixel editor and the organizer. Elements users can open jpegs, psd or tiffs in the ACR editor, even batches at the same time. Most missing tools are present in the pixel editor if needed.
What is missing is precisely that there is no option to open files in the ACR editor from the organizer. Also, if you have opened and saved jpegs in ACR from the editor, the next time you open it from the organizer it will open necessarily in ACR.
The DNG conversion would only be a better workaround.

Because there has to be some reason to upgrade? I'd say there are still quite a few. I doubt that's what makes PSE users jump to the Photography plan.  I know a lot who did, but I never heard it was to get their JPEGs into a raw editor.

True. In the Elements forum we also see a lot of LR and PS users downgrading to PSE. You bet why... For them it's like having to learn a new software.
Photo of Cristen Gillespie

Cristen Gillespie

  • 1535 Posts
  • 468 Reply Likes
<<I should not have taken part to this discussion. >>

I don't see why not. I enjoy learning about other people's workflow, what they need, what they think they don't need. As you've noticed, I'm not very familiar with PSE. They keep upgrading it, and since I don't have any need for it, I don't keep up with what they've upgraded vs what they haven't.

My interest in the JPEG to DNG conversion is obviously that I am a Topaz user, and I approach it from the standpoint of one. Because Studio has a free, extremely basic editor, a LOT of their customers are quite obviously new to image editing, and they very likely don't own all of Topaz products. The three main image enhancing AI products they've brought out are AI Clear, AI Gigapixel, and just now, AI JPEG to Raw, all seeming to share some aspects of the same AI.

I can't fault Topaz on their efforts to create plugins that use AI to find and preserve detail, eliminate significant noise, while not destroying the rest of the image with smudges, smears, and artifacts. And that is possibly why I'm a bit underwhelmed by AI JPEG to Raw. I've compared to working with their Studio products and can't find a difference between the TIFF-16bit exported from that, and the DNG from AI JPEG. Using the exact same numbers in CR to further edit each of these, I have the exact same dynamic range within one point from another when working with highlights and shadows, clarity, etc., if that much.

<<I am not sure that the software will be successful (same price as Elements)? >>

Well, my underwhelm doesn't mean this standalone won't sell very well. What if you didn't buy AI Clear? You've basically got it in AI JPEG, and you get the DNG file out of it. What if you had no need for Gigapixel, but wanted the fine detail it recognizes? It would seem that's in AI JPEG. And it's a standalone, does batch (slowly), so what if you are using another editor, such as PSE? Maybe that's what you'll buy (they're all expensive, relatively speaking), if you work with JPEG and don't want to do a lot of post.

I would use Adobe's Shake Reduction before even trying Topaz if I had a significant amount of blurring in a photo. I've used it on some very old photos I didn't take, but were irreplaceable, and been astonished by how much I could rescue. Not turning a sow's ear into a silk purse, or even good quality polyester, but enough for the memories people want to preserve. From unusable to usable if you don't look too closely. However, I could say that while I don't need the JPEG to Raw converter in Adobe, I wouldn't mind some an improvement along those lines in Shake Reduction—for "free with subscription," of course. '-}

Workflows are all important, you see, and mine isn't yours or anyone else's, but it's why I'm interested in them. It makes a difference as to just what is important to someone.
Photo of dsuggitt

dsuggitt

  • 1 Post
  • 0 Reply Likes
I support this request!
Photo of Tom Haines

Tom Haines

  • 2 Posts
  • 1 Reply Like
Yes, please help improve the amazing work Gunther is doing with your software.