RockinRobinG Loc: The Middle of Nowhere, Nebraska

Ok...so I now have set my camera set to RAW/JPEG (combo). Will try that for now. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it looks like RAW format should be better for post-production editing and THEN convert to JPEG as I save the edited image. On-camera JPEG is somewhat "as is" and does not provide you with the options for editing (if needed). It;s a lot of data, but I can deal with that for now. Thanks for the input.

RockinRobinG Loc: The Middle of Nowhere, Nebraska

Duly noted. Thank you.

clicktime Loc: Yucca Valley Ca.

Sometimes you get a jpeg for whatever reason and you want to use some of the raw editing tools in CS5 to improve that pic. You can right click in Bridge and open that jpeg in ACR and it will allow you to use the Raw edit tools. You can improve that pic greatly. Great way to fix a bad jpeg pic.

dongrant Loc: Earth, I think!

The statement that I take exception to is "Adobe came out with the Concept of Raw a few years ago". Not true. I was working with raw image data, in industrial imaging equipment before Adobe even existed.

Merle Loc: Ormond Beach, FL

A lot of confusion here. Adobe Camera Raw has many advantages for editing not only raw files but also jpg and TIFF files. The main advantages is it is non-destructive editing, a simply workflow, and faster workflow.

To open a jpg or TIFF file in Camera Raw while viewing in the Organizer, if using Windows, right click on the image to get a context sensitive menu and select edit in Camera Raw. If using a Macintosh, then Control click on the image and select Edit in Camera Raw.

Hope this helps.

lfdaly

Thank you all, but we seem to be wandering off task. As to the "whys," sometimes the photo you are manipulating was not shot by you, but by someone else years ago, or by your daughter visitng Italy. You can't always be working on a RAW image you shot yourself. As for second "why"--I'm used to and comfortable with the tools in in the Adobe RAW converter, that's all. I didn't intend to start a debate, just to ask if someone knows the detailed steps to get there. Thanks again.

bobharron Loc: Iowa

I use PSE9 and with it under the File menu select OPEN AS and select Camera Raw from the drop down menu. I can't say if this works for PSE8.

Twardlow Loc: Arkansas

Open acr, use drop down menu to "open as" select "camera raw" and acr will open and edit jepegs ta ta.....cheers, tom

arphot Loc: Massachusetts

I'm glad you brought this back around. You never asked how to convert a JPEG to a RAW (which was why my first response was one of confusion). You just wanted to convert a JPEG "for edditing in Adobe RAW menu in Elements 8?"
I guess that was already answered though. You don't have to convert a JPEG to edit in ACR. Good news, huh?

beacher Loc: Butler, PA

jpegs are 8 bit images. Raw files are 12-14 bit images. Raw files can be converted to jpegs, but not the other way around -- you can take info away, but you can't make it up out thin air. Moreover, you can't save a ps'ed file as raw, only as psd, tiff, jpeg, or dng (I think). Jpegs are lossless files, which means when you compress it to save space, you can suffer a loss of information. More so once you manipulate it and save it. The raw files your camera kicks out don't suffer that fate. But they are much, much bigger (maybe 3-4 times the size of jpegs).

julian.gang

I to shoot in JPEG, then convert to DNG to get the benefits of shooting RAW!...Julian

DirtFarmer Loc: Escaped from the NYC area, back to MA

I believe you are correct. The raw file has more information from which to extract the image you want.

I will admit that it is possible to get a good image in jpg straight from the camera. But it is not guaranteed, so shooting raw gives you insurance against problems. The only real advantage of shooting jpg is that you have an instant image for use. Of course on UHH (and most other forums) there are people with other opinions. They have their reasons for holding their opinion and they are all different. It's like religion. Every religion has some truth to it (although there are probably some weird religions with minimal truth content) but none of the religions has the whole truth. There are too many inconsistencies for that to be the case. You pays your money and you takes your choice.

I shoot raw only*. The primary reason I shoot only raw is that it forces me to use raw conversion software. My software of choice is Lightroom, which has DAM. If I shot jpg occasionally, I would be tempted to use the jpg directly without putting it through Lightroom. If I were to do that, the image would not be in my DAM, and, my memory being what it isn't, after a fairly short period of time I would not remember (1) that I took that shot; (2) where I put it in my computer; or (3) what the file name is. I might just as well delete the image file right away.

With respect to Adobe's dng format, it is certainly possible to convert a jpg to dng. HOWEVER, that doesn't make it a raw file. What you have is a jpg wrapped into a dng format.


* The only times I shoot jpg are (1) when I'm taking a shot to look for dust on my sensor (ephemeral test images with no enduring value); or (2) when my camera does not have raw available in a certain mode (e.g. for a D4, live view, continuous shooting [which is basically video frame captures]). Fortunately, since Lightroom is engrained in my workflow, option (2) images go into Lightroom, and the jpgs are editable there.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

Why are you wasting time on a 2011 zombie thread restarted by a member that seems to troll these types of subjects?

DirtFarmer Loc: Escaped from the NYC area, back to MA

Dng is not necessarily a raw format. If you converted a raw file to dng, it is a raw file. If you convert a jpg to dng, it is not a raw file.

DirtFarmer Loc: Escaped from the NYC area, back to MA

Because it was there?