Shooting JPEG, Converting to RAW?

**Tamia** · 02-12-2010, 06:37 AM

Someone has told me that he shoots JPEG and then uses Photoshop Elements to open the files in RAW. He then manipulates copies of those RAW files and saves the copies as JPEGs. I don't see the point of this, and he's not sure of himself so can't give a coherent explanation of why he does it, other than to say he saw it in a lesson somewhere.

Can anyone give me some idea why anyone would want to do this? Am I right to think that there is no point in shooting JPEG and then converting those files into RAW on the computer? I should say that I don't use Photoshop or Elements, simply because I've not had to, because I have GraphicConverter and Gimp.

**sinus007** · 02-12-2010, 08:36 AM

Hi Tamia,
I believe it's impossible, let alone has no sense.
Maybe they shoot in RAW+JPEG and then do PP?

AK

pschlute · 02-12-2010, 08:45 AM

Ak may be right that he shoots in raw + jpg and converts the raw file.

If he is simply editing the jpeg from the camera, some raw converters will let you open a jpeg file and make adjustments "as if" you were working with the raw image. But his starting point is still a jpeg file and the data lost in the original raw conversion (in camera), cannot be magically recovered by any raw converter. He will simply be editing the jpeg that came out of the camera.

You cannot create a raw file from a jpeg.

graphicgr8s · 02-12-2010, 08:47 AM

You can open jpegs in Raw and have almost all the same adjustments as a raw file. One that is missing IIRC is white balance. Bad thing about saving back to a jpeg is it's a very lossy format. So every time you save you lose information. I always shoot Raw + but always edit raw files. Then save as tiff. Use jpegs for quick uploads to email/web. A quick resize and I am done. For the ones worth it I open and adjust Raw. These never go online. But that's just me. I don't want anyone to be able to use my work.

Lank · 02-12-2010, 10:20 AM

I think the confusion here results from the fact that the Adobe RAW application does work quite well on JPEG images. But, they are still JPEG images with all of its limitations. Adobe RAW is included in Adobe Bridge, Elements, and Photoshop. Adobe RAW can do much more with a RAW image from your camera than it can with a JPEG.

Graystar · 02-12-2010, 10:23 AM

Originally posted by Tamia

...and he's not sure of himself so can't give a coherent explanation of why he does it...

LMAO!! Classic!

Before messing with RAW you should...
1. Understand what RAW is
2. Understand the processes that the camera performs on RAW to produce an image.
2. Have a reason for wanting to take control over a particular process.

Until you've got these, there's very little to be gained by messing with RAW.

George Lama · 02-12-2010, 08:47 PM

He's likely shooting JPG and editing a JPG, then saving the modified JPG.

Yes, RAW editing tools can still control some functions in JPG files, but they are indeed limited when compared to the feature set you get with RAW editing. Beyond that, they just don't have the same impact/results as when you edit an actual RAW file.

To me it would be like the difference between a 16 color box of crayons and an artist's paint kit with dozens of colors, brushes, and tools.

**Tamia** · 02-13-2010, 01:07 PM

Thanks to everyone for your views on this, and what you all have to say confirms my suspicions. Now I've got to find a diplomatic way to tell this guy.

flyer · 02-13-2010, 03:21 PM

Originally posted by Tamia

Thanks to everyone for your views on this, and what you all have to say confirms my suspicions. Now I've got to find a diplomatic way to tell this guy.

Why do you want to shatter his illusions? If he is happy with the results, why mess with it.

**Tamia** · 02-14-2010, 08:46 PM

Originally posted by flyer

Why do you want to shatter his illusions? If he is happy with the results, why mess with it.

I don't want to shatter his illusions at all. What I meant was that I would be saying if he likes it, do it, but that it's not a technique everyone would adopt. He seems to think it's the only PP method to employ, and he pressed me by saying something like, "So you don't think much of my method, then." I sure don't want to give him a hard time, just let him know that there are many approaches.

02-12-2010, 06:37 AM	#1
Tamia Site Supporter Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Here, there, and everywhere. Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 4,384	Shooting JPEG, Converting to RAW? Someone has told me that he shoots JPEG and then uses Photoshop Elements to open the files in RAW. He then manipulates copies of those RAW files and saves the copies as JPEGs. I don't see the point of this, and he's not sure of himself so can't give a coherent explanation of why he does it, other than to say he saw it in a lesson somewhere. Can anyone give me some idea why anyone would want to do this? Am I right to think that there is no point in shooting JPEG and then converting those files into RAW on the computer? I should say that I don't use Photoshop or Elements, simply because I've not had to, because I have GraphicConverter and Gimp.

02-12-2010, 10:20 AM	#5
Lank New Member Join Date: Jan 2010 Location: USA, Idaho, Boise Posts: 4	RAW processing of JPEG images I think the confusion here results from the fact that the Adobe RAW application does work quite well on JPEG images. But, they are still JPEG images with all of its limitations. Adobe RAW is included in Adobe Bridge, Elements, and Photoshop. Adobe RAW can do much more with a RAW image from your camera than it can with a JPEG.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
[K10D RAW+]Exposure difference between RAW and JPEG	sterretje	Pentax DSLR Discussion	9	04-13-2010 02:06 AM
JPEG, RAW, JPEG + RAW...huh?	Raptorman	Troubleshooting and Beginner Help	14	12-22-2009 11:49 AM
RAW + JPEG with JPEG on One Star quality	laissezfaire	Pentax DSLR Discussion	58	12-10-2008 02:42 PM
Raw converting	Mojtala	Pentax DSLR Discussion	6	06-22-2008 11:01 AM
RAW and JPEG Shooting - Filenames change?	Alvin	Photographic Technique	2	07-04-2007 07:25 AM

02-12-2010, 08:36 AM	#2
sinus007 Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Cleveland, OH, USA Photos: Gallery Posts: 292	Hi Tamia, I believe it's impossible, let alone has no sense. Maybe they shoot in RAW+JPEG and then do PP? AK

02-12-2010, 08:45 AM	#3
pschlute Moderator Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Surrey, UK Photos: Gallery Posts: 8,215	Ak may be right that he shoots in raw + jpg and converts the raw file. If he is simply editing the jpeg from the camera, some raw converters will let you open a jpeg file and make adjustments "as if" you were working with the raw image. But his starting point is still a jpeg file and the data lost in the original raw conversion (in camera), cannot be magically recovered by any raw converter. He will simply be editing the jpeg that came out of the camera. You cannot create a raw file from a jpeg.

02-12-2010, 08:47 AM	#4
graphicgr8s Guest	You can open jpegs in Raw and have almost all the same adjustments as a raw file. One that is missing IIRC is white balance. Bad thing about saving back to a jpeg is it's a very lossy format. So every time you save you lose information. I always shoot Raw + but always edit raw files. Then save as tiff. Use jpegs for quick uploads to email/web. A quick resize and I am done. For the ones worth it I open and adjust Raw. These never go online. But that's just me. I don't want anyone to be able to use my work.

02-12-2010, 10:23 AM	#6
Graystar Inactive Account Join Date: Jan 2010 Location: Brooklyn, NY Posts: 144	Originally posted by Tamia ...and he's not sure of himself so can't give a coherent explanation of why he does it... LMAO!! Classic! Before messing with RAW you should... 1. Understand what RAW is 2. Understand the processes that the camera performs on RAW to produce an image. 2. Have a reason for wanting to take control over a particular process. Until you've got these, there's very little to be gained by messing with RAW.

02-12-2010, 08:47 PM	#7
George Lama Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Buffalo/Rochester, NY Photos: Albums Posts: 1,133	He's likely shooting JPG and editing a JPG, then saving the modified JPG. Yes, RAW editing tools can still control some functions in JPG files, but they are indeed limited when compared to the feature set you get with RAW editing. Beyond that, they just don't have the same impact/results as when you edit an actual RAW file. To me it would be like the difference between a 16 color box of crayons and an artist's paint kit with dozens of colors, brushes, and tools.

02-13-2010, 01:07 PM	#8
Tamia Site Supporter Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Here, there, and everywhere. Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 4,384 Original Poster	Thanks to everyone for your views on this, and what you all have to say confirms my suspicions. Now I've got to find a diplomatic way to tell this guy.

02-13-2010, 03:21 PM	#9
flyer Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Ste-Anne des Plaines, Qc., Canada Posts: 2,013	Originally posted by Tamia Thanks to everyone for your views on this, and what you all have to say confirms my suspicions. Now I've got to find a diplomatic way to tell this guy. Why do you want to shatter his illusions? If he is happy with the results, why mess with it.

02-14-2010, 08:46 PM	#10
Tamia Site Supporter Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Here, there, and everywhere. Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 4,384 Original Poster	Originally posted by flyer Why do you want to shatter his illusions? If he is happy with the results, why mess with it. I don't want to shatter his illusions at all. What I meant was that I would be saying if he likes it, do it, but that it's not a technique everyone would adopt. He seems to think it's the only PP method to employ, and he pressed me by saying something like, "So you don't think much of my method, then." I sure don't want to give him a hard time, just let him know that there are many approaches.