Here's an easy one for many but as an old foggie I need some assistance converting RAW images into JPEGs. I have about 200 RAW images that I want to convert to JPEG. Although I have PS/LR CC I am very much of a novice with both and probably even less experienced than a novice. Is it possible to convert them using Lightroom and / or Photoshop? If so, can it be done as a batch process whereby I can convert them all at the same time or, do I have to do each image separately? I am using a PC with Windows 10 (which I hate) and the Microsoft Windows photo editor doesn't offer the capability of saving as another format anymore. Microsoft recently changed the program and that capability was eliminated. A very lame app for sure. So, any suggestions? I'm not above getting another converter that will accomplish the task but since I already have PS and LR I'd like to try to use them if I can. Thanks for your help ahead of time.

I've been following this thread, and it is quite amazing how much inaccurate information is being expressed as absolute fact. Here are a few examples:

1) First, understand that what you are seeing on screen is the JPEG rendering of the raw file.

This is incorrect, unless we are only talking about the camera screen, not the computer screen. A raw file usually has greater bit depth than an 8 bit JPEG file. Most modern software and most modern monitors can and do display greater than 8 bit depth. Raw files imported to software such Photoshop or PaintShopPro etc. use internal formats that have more than 8 bit information.

2) Just to clarify, do you know that raw files need to be edited? To expand on f8lee's comment, you're not seeing the "real" image. Converting straight to jpg without editing will not give you the same result as if you had shot strictly in jpg mode.

This is also, not strictly true. It is software dependent. It may be true in the Adobe world, but not necessarily so with other software, such as Canon DPP which applies the camera settings to the raw image data. Image looks the same as the JPEG but retains the full bit depth with no compression and will give higher quality prints even if not edited in any way.

3) Lots of good advice above , just know that if you convert to JPG with out any editing you will not get the same effects as you would have gotten if you shot in JPG.

Also frequently untrue. It is software dependent. It may be true with Adobe and other products, but it is not a universal truth.

4) I personally count myself with the JPEG insurgents since in the end do to anything useful with RAW images, you must (drum roll) convert them to JPEG which seems counter-intuitive.

Also completely untrue. The files need to be converted to a 'bitmap format' but JPEG is merely one of many alternatives. It is the most widely used for various reasons, but a 16bit TIFF file will yield higher quality prints from most raw files.

5) ALL Raw files need editing before conversion to JPEG.

Also untrue.

6) When you shoot raw, the camera has to convert that data to jpg in order to display it on the camera's LCD. So, it stores that jpg in the raw file.
Bottom line... if you have raw images on your computer, you already have the jpg also.

Only partially correct, there is really no such thing as "The JPG". Specifically with Canon (I can't test anything else) there are some details that matter. If you are interested in quality then raw files will yield the highest quality. There is an embedded JPEG in my camera's .CR2 raw files. It is more heavily compressed (~ 3MB ) than the highest quality JPEGs stored by the camera ( ~ 5MB). The raw files are about 25 MB, so 20 MB more data than the best quality JPEGs. If I import the raw into Canon DPP and simply convert to the highest quality JPEG, the JPEG file is then 10 MB. A 16bit TIFF is around 100 MB. These files are not all the same, they are not a commodity, they are not all equal.

Think of your images like gold. Do you want 9ct, 18ct, 22ct or 24ct? How much pure gold do you want? They are all yellowish to some degree and shiny whether white gold or rose gold! http://www.gold.org/my-gold-guide/why-gold/gold-purity-tips-difference-between-24k-22k-18k-gold

-------------------
In conclusion, although much of the advice from the people quoted above and from others is excellent, we all have limits to our knowledge / expertise / whatever. Absolute statements are problematic. Each of us needs to make our own choices, and should do so, but that doesn't mean that 'our way' is the right way for others, and certainly not the only way.

At the end of the day:

1) There is no such thing as a single JPEG where they all have equal quality derived from the same initial (raw) capture.

2) It all depends upon the combination of the camera, the settings, and the software used. Different combinations will yield different results.

3) There is no single universal approach that is right for every person or every occasion.

We all need to exercise the freedom to choose our own methods, and in the words of Andy M. Stewart "Freedom is like Gold": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mBaq1oYDHQU

Here's an easy one for many but as an old foggie I need some assistance converting RAW images into JPEGs. I have about 200 RAW images that I want to convert to JPEG. Although I have PS/LR CC I am very much of a novice with both and probably even less experienced than a novice. Is it possible to convert them using Lightroom and / or Photoshop? If so, can it be done as a batch process whereby I can convert them all at the same time or, do I have to do each image separately? I am using a PC with Windows 10 (which I hate) and the Microsoft Windows photo editor doesn't offer the capability of saving as another format anymore. Microsoft recently changed the program and that capability was eliminated. A very lame app for sure. So, any suggestions? I'm not above getting another converter that will accomplish the task but since I already have PS and LR I'd like to try to use them if I can. Thanks for your help ahead of time.

All RAW images require sharpening prior to export. The jpeg format usually gives you multiple choices for how an image will look:vivid, normal, daylight, cloudy, tungsten, etc. You can apply any of these to the RAW data to get the result you desire- that is how the jpeg images were created. However, if you set the wrong White Balance in jpeg it will be difficult to recreate a normal image, as some of the color data was discarded after the jpeg was created. When you shoot in jpeg you shoot a RAW file with predetermined jpeg instructions included.

This I did not know until another user Rongnongno pointed it out after, I complained that my Images seemed too soft. I was shooting in raw and basically doing no adjustment or very little and then converting to JPG and noticing that the images looked way better on screen in Raw.

I am learning! Thank You! Thank You! Rongnongno

I've been following this thread, and it is quite amazing how much inaccurate information is being expressed as absolute fact. Here are a few examples:

When is the last freakin' time you got a TIFF file on the internet? I qualified what I said by saying "useful"...re the conversion of raw to JPEG.... People are not going to come into your house to see what you did on your monitor.

As I predicted, this discussion has let the hounds out of the hills .... I will stick with Ken Rockwell's take on all this RAW nonsense...If you understand your own camera's settings, you don't need to mount absurd time consuming efforts to tweak a raw to eventually look like a JPEG ... But here it is again...the predictable WW I French trench warfare of what amounts to extremists thinking their RAW is so dramatically different than a JPEG....when it isn't....and the raw purists are so dug into their occult practice that they will never admit that at the end of the day all their effort is only appreciated by other raw purists while the rest of the world is out taking photos and having fun.

This raw discussion is purely an academic exercise when you put the prints down side by side..

Six pages of "discussion and advice" so far....ROFL!!!! Ken Rockwell is the common sense cure on the subject.





1) First, understand that what you are seeing on screen is the JPEG rendering of the raw file.

This is incorrect, unless we are only talking about the camera screen, not the computer screen. A raw file usually has greater bit depth than an 8 bit JPEG file. Most modern software and most modern monitors can and do display greater than 8 bit depth. Raw files imported to software such Photoshop or PaintShopPro etc. use internal formats that have more than 8 bit information.

2) Just to clarify, do you know that raw files need to be edited? To expand on f8lee's comment, you're not seeing the "real" image. Converting straight to jpg without editing will not give you the same result as if you had shot strictly in jpg mode.

This is also, not strictly true. It is software dependent. It may be true in the Adobe world, but not necessarily so with other software, such as Canon DPP which applies the camera settings to the raw image data. Image looks the same as the JPEG but retains the full bit depth with no compression and will give higher quality prints even if not edited in any way.

3) Lots of good advice above , just know that if you convert to JPG with out any editing you will not get the same effects as you would have gotten if you shot in JPG.

Also frequently untrue. It is software dependent. It may be true with Adobe and other products, but it is not a universal truth.

4) I personally count myself with the JPEG insurgents since in the end do to anything useful with RAW images, you must (drum roll) convert them to JPEG which seems counter-intuitive.

Also completely untrue. The files need to be converted to a 'bitmap format' but JPEG is merely one of many alternatives. It is the most widely used for various reasons, but a 16bit TIFF file will yield higher quality prints from most raw files.

5) ALL Raw files need editing before conversion to JPEG.

Also untrue.

6) When you shoot raw, the camera has to convert that data to jpg in order to display it on the camera's LCD. So, it stores that jpg in the raw file.
Bottom line... if you have raw images on your computer, you already have the jpg also.

Only partially correct, there is really no such thing as "The JPG". Specifically with Canon (I can't test anything else) there are some details that matter. If you are interested in quality then raw files will yield the highest quality. There is an embedded JPEG in my camera's .CR2 raw files. It is more heavily compressed (~ 3MB ) than the highest quality JPEGs stored by the camera ( ~ 5MB). The raw files are about 25 MB, so 20 MB more data than the best quality JPEGs. If I import the raw into Canon DPP and simply convert to the highest quality JPEG, the JPEG file is then 10 MB. A 16bit TIFF is around 100 MB. These files are not all the same, they are not a commodity, they are not all equal.

Think of your images like gold. Do you want 9ct, 18ct, 22ct or 24ct? How much pure gold do you want? They are all yellowish to some degree and shiny whether white gold or rose gold! http://www.gold.org/my-gold-guide/why-gold/gold-purity-tips-difference-between-24k-22k-18k-gold

-------------------
In conclusion, although much of the advice from the people quoted above and from others is excellent, we all have limits to our knowledge / expertise / whatever. Absolute statements are problematic. Each of us needs to make our own choices, and should do so, but that doesn't mean that 'our way' is the right way for others, and certainly not the only way.

At the end of the day:

1) There is no such thing as a single JPEG where they all have equal quality derived from the same initial (raw) capture.

2) It all depends upon the combination of the camera, the settings, and the software used. Different combinations will yield different results.

3) There is no single universal approach that is right for every person or every occasion.

We all need to exercise the freedom to choose our own methods, and in the words of Andy M. Stewart "Freedom is like Gold": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mBaq1oYDHQU

When is the last freakin' time you got a TIFF file on the internet? I qualified what I said by saying "useful"...re the conversion of raw to JPEG.... People are not going to come into your house to see what you did on your monitor.

As I predicted, this discussion has let the hounds out of the hills .... I will stick with Ken Rockwell's take on all this RAW nonsense...If you understand your own camera's settings, you don't need to mount absurd time consuming efforts to tweak a raw to eventually look like a JPEG ... But here it is again...the predictable WW I French trench warfare of what amounts to extremists thinking their RAW is so dramatically different than a JPEG....when it isn't....and the raw purists are so dug into their occult practice that they will never admit that at the end of the day all their effort is only appreciated by other raw purists while the rest of the world is out taking photos and having fun.

This raw discussion is purely an academic exercise when you put the prints down side by side..

Six pages of "discussion and advice" so far....ROFL!!!! Ken Rockwell is the common sense cure on the subject.

Here's an easy one for many but as an old foggie I need some assistance converting RAW images into JPEGs. I have about 200 RAW images that I want to convert to JPEG. Although I have PS/LR CC I am very much of a novice with both and probably even less experienced than a novice. Is it possible to convert them using Lightroom and / or Photoshop? If so, can it be done as a batch process whereby I can convert them all at the same time or, do I have to do each image separately? I am using a PC with Windows 10 (which I hate) and the Microsoft Windows photo editor doesn't offer the capability of saving as another format anymore. Microsoft recently changed the program and that capability was eliminated. A very lame app for sure. So, any suggestions? I'm not above getting another converter that will accomplish the task but since I already have PS and LR I'd like to try to use them if I can. Thanks for your help ahead of time.

Bluetick....

OMG...here is this subject again with more twists....

There are always wild statements being made like one below in which somebody says though you have a RAW image on your monitor that you are actually seeing a JPEG image....THAT is brand new to this conflict..Jaw dropping in fact.

Anyway...you need an introduction to Ken Rockwell's EPIC piece on the subject of RAW vs JPEG which once again will cause warring hoards to flood out of the high steppes to do mortal combat.....

Give this a read. It could be a life altering experience. Each time this is brought up on the Hog, there are many casualties...I have not been on here very long and I have seen at least 9 such all out wars combust on here re Raw vs JPEG..... This could get ugly if rebel JPEG insurgents start showing up...But this Rockwell piece is JPEGER Holy Grail stuff like Mao's little Red Book...

Rockwell's assessment is more raw than RAW format. He doesn't mince his words...all plain language. HIS point is how could all the engineers at NIKON and CANON get imaging so wrong...? and that according to the RAW RELIGIOUS, it is vastly better for self-taught mankind to try and reinvent the wheel on each and every RAW image they must labor over while the sun circles the earth in their view of reality....and then absurdly at the very end of this labor, they must still convert the image to JPEG to do anything of practical use with what they have created in their laboratories....with the astounding revelation that the human eye cannot detect a difference unless the image is forensically examined using an electron microscope...it is dog whistle stuff but in a visual sense.

So please if you have not read this, you need to.

I personally count myself with the JPEG insurgents since in the end do to anything useful with RAW images, you must (drum roll) convert them to JPEG which seems counterintuitive.

It is a seemingly peaceful meadow you have wandered upon with your question which forms the basis of the mystery of the Raw Belief Religion ...a mystery rivaling Transubstantiation, the Virgin Birth, and the Holy Trinity for non-believing JPEGERS led by MARTIN LUTHER ROCKWELL, one each .....
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/raw.htm

Absolutely. Those variations depend upon the camera settings chosen by the user, and once taken cannot be changed if the in camera JPEG is the only resulting file. Even if not changing any of the camera settings different JPEG compression levels yield different quality results when viewed or printed. Sure that file can be modified with software, but only the already processed result delivered by the camera.
That's one of the main things with raw, you get to adjust some of those things after the fact and you have more / higher quality data to play with, and you never actually need a JPEG. It is useful, sure, but for printing or viewing on a computer it simply isn't required, merely convenient and good enough for many purposes.
JPEG is like a Polaroid. Raw is like an undeveloped film capture - negative or positive, higher quality and higher potential.
But, you know all this!