DNG Converter: Enable JPG conversion

  • 440
  • Idea
  • Updated 3 months 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 5 years ago

  • 440
Photo of Michel BRETECHER

Michel BRETECHER, Champion

  • 1267 Posts
  • 268 Reply Likes
Photo of Jose Alonso Leon

Jose Alonso Leon

  • 1 Post
  • 7 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
  • 5 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

  • 7 Posts
  • 2 Reply Likes
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
  • 2 Reply Likes
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

  • 1267 Posts
  • 268 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

  • 198 Posts
  • 57 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 Gunther Wegner

Gunther Wegner

  • 33 Posts
  • 10 Reply Likes
That is all well known. Still, Lightroom is able to put a DNG wrapper around a JPG or TIFF, so it would be awesome if DNG Converte could too. We'd need this for LRTimelapse's workflow for time lapse processing.
Photo of Michel BRETECHER

Michel BRETECHER, Champion

  • 1266 Posts
  • 267 Reply Likes
Robert,
Obviously you don't see the point.
Lightroom users don't need this at all.
There are also other ACR users, particularly Elements users.
Today, most Elements users have jpegs to edit together with possible raw files.
As you say, they can open the jpeg files in ACR from the editor, but they can't open in ACR from the organizer. (Maybe a deliberate choice to push towards Lightroom). They have to save as DNG and re-import, possibly stack the DNG with the original
That's a major loss of time. You can't really imagine if you don't try yourself.
That's also a different workflow. Being able to use the same parametric and non destrctive workflow would be a significant bonus.
Of course, a jpeg is just that and does not offer all the raw advantages. But today, most users edit not only raw files, but the jpegs from their P&S or smartphones, the pictures they receive from the web. Editing in ACR is vastly superior, quicker and simpler than using the array of the tools in the editor.
With a single DNG version, you only keep one file. You have available three versions: the original, the default ACR version (generally already much better) and your own edits. No necessary need for version sets.
You can sort of 'batch process' jpegs, applying the same settings to many files.
Your options for color balance correction, shadow/highlight management, clarity, sharpening and denoising are superior.
I can tell you that if I have to process hundreds of pictures from various cameras from a given event, converting all jpegs to DNG in a batch before the editing session would save me a lot of time.
Photo of Hans Peter Theilacker

Hans Peter Theilacker

  • 2 Posts
  • 0 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 Nguyễn Như Ánh

Nguyễn Như Ánh

  • 1 Post
  • 0 Reply Likes
Great idea! Hopefully, this feature will be released in the next update.
Photo of Christoph Malin

Christoph Malin

  • 2 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
Robert, this is for the worldwide renown LRTimelapse workflow many pro's work with including NASA for ISS footage and some hollywood studios. Thank you.
Photo of Tom

Tom

  • 1 Post
  • 0 Reply Likes
Hi, I also agree jpg, tiff and png will be very welcome in ACR.  Also agree with Michael, Robert all you said is true, but you obviously don't understand why we are asking for this ability in ACR.  Michaels points about time saving are very relevant and Gunther Wagner's original request so, he can take advantage of it in his LRTimelapse program woul dbe awesome.
Thank you Gunther and Michael for expressing the need for the facility so clearly.
Tom Croll 
(Edited)
Photo of Michel BRETECHER

Michel BRETECHER, Champion

  • 1266 Posts
  • 267 Reply Likes
Well, a competitor has just issued a "JPEG to RAW AI" image conversion software.
That's life.
Photo of Andrew Rodney

Andrew Rodney

  • 817 Posts
  • 162 Reply Likes
No they have not and no, a JPEG cannot be converted to a raw. Utterly bogus marketing BS!
Photo of Cristen Gillespie

Cristen Gillespie

  • 1725 Posts
  • 580 Reply Likes
From my tests, I have to agree. They do seem to have very slightly, in some images, increased the ease with which you might edit the shadows in one pass (and not really getting as far down as into shadow "recovery,") but that's purely subjective in my edits between traditional edits and leaving it to AI. Mainly I've tested using a variety of  phone images, as they say that's the target.

I've not seen anything in Highlight Recovery that was any improvement over using CR. I'd need someone like you, Andrew, with the tools and know-how, to make a serious analysis of what, if anything, is happening to make it somewhat easier to work with the shadow areas. Perhaps combining noise reduction with edge protection and fine detail contrast being added, so when you lighten the shadows, you have a better starting point? There's definitely noise reduction and sharpening taking place when running the filter, and none of it excessive in my tests, if I do nothing else but compare it to the original.

If I use identical moves between 2 copies, I can quickly get a bit more out of the converted JPEG in just a very small percentage of instances. BUT, and for me, it's been a big "but," in most instances I've tried, I can get just as much or more out of the original JPEG with somewhat different moves, maybe at the small expense of more effort and thought involved.

And in all cases, I'm not seeing what I expect to see if this is anything like a "raw" image. Obviously, images that are posted on their FB page can't show exactly before and afters that would convince me, so I have to go by my own images, which I can look at close up and personal, and since that's what I'd be using this on. . . I do shoot raw + JPEG, so I can also easily compare using CR on my good camera's JPEG, AI JPEG to Raw, and the raw file itself. Even using a very high ISO image that was noisy, AI JPEG to Raw is no raw file when it comes  to shadow recovery. Nor was I able to get a better result than using CR with the original JPEG. My camera is considerably better than an iPhone 6 or 7<G>, but I'm not converting those JPEGs to raw, that's certain.

Since I get a lot of rather bad, and many not so bad, iPhone JPEGs given to me, I was curious if anything here did enough to make it worth it, but so far, no. I suppose for quite a few people, getting a phone JPEG quickly into a working condition that's helpful with later edits might be worth it. 10-12 images isn't much of a test. I'm willing to keep trying to see if there's enough of an advantage to whatever it is their algorithms are doing to justify the expense, but so far, I'm just not buying it.  I do enjoy a number of their products, but I think I'll wait and see what future updates to it bring in the way of ease when working with substandard phone JPEGs.

Photo of Michel BRETECHER

Michel BRETECHER, Champion

  • 1266 Posts
  • 267 Reply Likes
Andrew, do you really believe that anyone asking for the feature in this discussion think hat it's converting a jpeg to raw?
Yes, it's bocus marketing, but it performs what some users are asking for.
Why do you refuse to understand that they simply ask for a batch conversion process to DNG? 
You don't need it. Lightroom users don't need it. Ok.
That seems so easy for Adobe technically. You can batch "Save" or rather "wrap" jpegs into a DNG container from ACR, even in the basic Elements version, agreed?
Maybe Adobe has strong marketing reasons not to do it, but why would the feature bother you?
Photo of Andrew Rodney

Andrew Rodney

  • 817 Posts
  • 162 Reply Likes
I'm simply commenting on the post about competition and how bogus the claims are.
Photo of Michel BRETECHER

Michel BRETECHER, Champion

  • 1266 Posts
  • 267 Reply Likes
To Christen Gillespie,
What the competiting sofware offers is twofold.
1 - a batch conversion from jpeg to DNG (the subject of this discussion)
2 - a parametric editor doing the same as what Lightroom or ACR can do when opening jpegs.

You may spend a lot of time to test the quality of the editor and compare with ACR/Lightroom. That has already been done in other forums, but I don't care. I am not sure that the software will be successful (same price as Elements)?
The subject of this discussion is only a matter of workflow. Editing from jpeg is what it is, even in ACR and Lightroom. I don't expect the "AI" feature of the competitors to do better.
Photo of Andrew Rodney

Andrew Rodney

  • 817 Posts
  • 162 Reply Likes
Doesn't LR batch convert to JPEG to DNG? NOT that there is a reason to do so; it's still JPEG data.
(Edited)
Photo of Cristen Gillespie

Cristen Gillespie

  • 1725 Posts
  • 580 Reply Likes
> You may spend a lot of time to test the quality of the editor and compare with ACR/Lightroom. >

Which anyone with a lot of software probably ought to do before investing in more. Here I'm speaking to people who in all likelihood, do already own CR/LR and use it. They may, like me, own a considerable amount of other software. I still finally decided AI Clear and AI Gigapixel were worth the sale price I was getting, and I have enjoyed having them do some of the work so I spend my time on what else needs doing.

I was responding to Andrew's post that this didn't equal raw, which, believe it or not, might in fact capture a number of people who don't yet want to have to do as much processing as one does with raw, beginning simply with evaluating the potential of the raw image, when JPEG already looks so much better to them. They have been told there is a "raw advantage," and will want to have something that Topaz quite honestly says isn't really raw, but their claim is that it approaches raw for dynamic range.

I know quite a few people who like photography, but not post. I find nothing wrong with their quest for this kind of software since they are being quite honest about not wanting to do the extra work of starting from raw, or, like me, don't always have the choice in what they get to work with. If their camera is their phone, far be it from me to say they shouldn't be creating the best art they can with it. Some highly creative people do phenomenally well, in fact. But I don't want them to be fooled by marketing, which, in any company, present company not excepted, tends to go beyond the real, which in many instances really is praiseworthy on its own merits.

However, you'll note that I DID say this could appeal as a quick start to a better JPEG for further editing, without going overboard in its corrections (something quite easy to do with noise and artifact reduction software, not to mention detail sharpening), and I didn't say no one should buy it. I went so far as to emphasize that this is really a version 1, and a version 2 or 3 might be enough to convince me it's faster to work with than the basic JPEG I've got.

I think it's fair to critique software, and especially if you admit that these are your  subjective tests on your images, that you don't know everything that's happening, and to say whether or not what you see is or is not significantly better enough for you to want it.

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? Not all raw editors make that possible. Otherwise, to me, the advantage lies in what they do to the JPEG to make it more malleable to further edits, so Topaz is on the right track there, as I see it. If there's a lot more they're doing that I can't see, then when I can see the results of it, I'm all in.

And if that's what you all want Adobe to do, so you don't have to buy Topaz, that does make some sense to me. A good start is a good start. But whether or not it's cost-effective for Adobe to do that, I couldn't say. They'll not be charging $100 retail for each copy.  '-}

Photo of Andrew Rodney

Andrew Rodney

  • 817 Posts
  • 162 Reply Likes
"Topaz quite honestly says isn't really raw, but their claim is that it approaches raw for dynamic range. "

Yeah, they do!


Convert JPEG to raw; rubbish!
(Edited)
Photo of Cristen Gillespie

Cristen Gillespie

  • 1725 Posts
  • 580 Reply Likes
Okay. I didn't look at that, but was going by their sponsored YouTube presentation when I could swear (honestly<G>) I heard the presenter saying it wasn't all out raw when it came to highlight recovery, which squares up for what I've seen (as in nothing there in my images). Claimed more for shadow recovery than I have seen in my images, but it seemed a fairly honest description that said it didn't go quite as far as genuine raw, but was maybe the next best thing to it if all you had was the original JPEG.

However, what I said in this thread, I still feel—it's right to critique software so those who have less understanding don't feel duped by marketing. I've said the same about Adobe's marketing, and pretty much anyone else, so I'm not being a hypocrite when I say that. '-}

Technically, they're within the law when they say "convert to high-quality RAW." Raw is "high-quality" and DNG is Raw. Where's the emoji with tongue sticking out being silly when you need it? LOL  And I can't say that they haven't done more to make it "high-quality." They didn't simply wrap it in a DNG file.

What I  don't think it does particularly well is remove compression artifacts. Some, but if you need a heavier hand, and with older iPhone images, you're likely going to, you won't get it from this. You'll have to rerun it in other software and then mask back where overdone. And as I said, I can't tell that it's enhancing dynamic range. It's converting it to 16 bits—wait, my Bridge metadata says 17 bits? So technically, again. . .  legal?
Photo of Michel BRETECHER

Michel BRETECHER, Champion

  • 1266 Posts
  • 267 Reply Likes
Doesn't LR batch convert to JPEG to DNG? NOT that there is a reason to do so; it's still JPEG data.

Yes, it's still JPEG data. Bundled with editing parameters in a single container. The same container is used with the same tools and interface as in ACR or LR. As I said before, LR users don't care, that makes no real difference to them. Elements and its organizer users may care as I do. Most my photos are raw, a lot of older photos are jpegs as well as many from smartphones or from friends. I am happy to be able to shoot in (real raw) DNG with my new smartphone. So, an editing session will handle raw, DNG and jpegs. The workflow issue is to manage editing jpegs from the organizer. The organizer manages all formats but it has no option to open jpegs in camera raw. In older versions, John R Ellis had a nice add-on for that:  'Open in ACR'. So, we have to edit in the pixel editor. We are losing: 
- the ease of using the same interface and tools for jpegs as well as DNG/raws.
- the superior and faster edition in ACR (I do edit all my jpegs in ACR from the editor (Open in ACR option). 90% of my shots don't need further editing in the pixel editor.
- The ability to open a batch of files in ACR and to apply common edits to many files.  That will shorten editing time more than you think.
- there are other minor drawbacks to edit jpegs from the 'Open in ACR' command of the editor...

A batch conversion ( "wrapping in DNG container") before an editing session would make a tremendous simplification.

The present workaround for me is to open a reasonable batch of jpegs with the above "Open in ACR" command from the editor and "Save" as DNG. Only then importing the DNGs into the organizer catalog. If you are not dealing with a new batch of downloaded jpegs, you don't have the confort of choosing your jpegs for the batch editing from the catalog. A bit akward, but as a whole, the workaround does what some are wanting: batch "wrapping" to DNG.
(Edited)
Photo of Andrew Rodney

Andrew Rodney

  • 817 Posts
  • 162 Reply Likes
Yes, it's still JPEG data. Bundled with editing parameters in a single container. 
As one can do with a TIFF. There's no difference. 
You're asking for a batch convert in a free product and there's a pay for product that does this. 
That some lame company is selling a product and lying about what it does that also batch converts JPEGs to DNG is utterly off topic expect to point out a company that's completely lying about what their for profit, you pay for it software does. 
Photo of Cristen Gillespie

Cristen Gillespie

  • 1725 Posts
  • 580 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

  • 817 Posts
  • 162 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

  • 1266 Posts
  • 267 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

  • 1266 Posts
  • 267 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

  • 1725 Posts
  • 580 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.