Computer Graphics with Photoshop - How to load a JPG file into ACR?

Author

How to load a JPG file into ACR?

Basiltoo

2007-05-06, 6:15 pm

I have seen discussions where it has been mentioned that it is possible to
load JPGs into ACR and use some of the editing tools on the file. How is
the file loaded?

TIA

--
Regards,
Baz

Rudy Benner

2007-05-06, 6:15 pm

"Basiltoo" <basiltoo@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9928CEBD373F4Insomnatus@204.153.245.131...
>I have seen discussions where it has been mentioned that it is possible to
> load JPGs into ACR and use some of the editing tools on the file. How is
> the file loaded?
>
> TIA
>
> --
> Regards,
> Baz
>
>

You need CS3, you can load either through Bridge or through Photoshop. You
need to set up a couple of items in preferences to utilize this feature.

It works great.

Johan W. Elzenga

2007-05-08, 6:14 pm

Rudy Benner <total@crap.com> wrote:

> "Basiltoo" <basiltoo@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns9928CEBD373F4Insomnatus@204.153.245.131...
> You need CS3, you can load either through Bridge or through Photoshop. You
> need to set up a couple of items in preferences to utilize this feature.

Not necessarily. You can use 'Open as...' in CS3 for Windows, or 'Open'
on the Macintosh and then select Camera RAW as file type. That way you
can open a JPEG or TIFF in Camera RAW without having to set this as the
default behavior for *all* JPEG's.

--
Johan W. Elzenga johan<<at>>johanfoto.nl
Editor / Photographer http://www.johanfoto.com

2007-05-12, 6:14 pm

>>>>> Johan W Elzenga writes:

Johan> Rudy Benner <total@crap.com> wrote:[color=darkred]
news> Xns9928CEBD373F4Insomnatus@204.153.245.131...[color=darkred]

Johan> Not necessarily. You can use 'Open as...' in CS3 for Windows, or 'Open'
Johan> on the Macintosh and then select Camera RAW as file type. That way you
Johan> can open a JPEG or TIFF in Camera RAW without having to set this as the
Johan> default behavior for *all* JPEG's.

Time for a stupid question:

Why would one want to open a jpg in ACR? Can't PS do all the edit functions
that are in ACR?

--
Andrew Hall
(Now reading Usenet in comp.graphics.apps.photoshop...)

Dave

2007-05-12, 6:14 pm

On 12 May 2007 17:15:51 -0400, <ahall@no-spam-panix.com> wrote:

>
> Johan> Rudy Benner <total@crap.com> wrote:
> news> Xns9928CEBD373F4Insomnatus@204.153.245.131...
>
> Johan> Not necessarily. You can use 'Open as...' in CS3 for Windows, or 'Open'
> Johan> on the Macintosh and then select Camera RAW as file type. That way you
> Johan> can open a JPEG or TIFF in Camera RAW without having to set this as the
> Johan> default behavior for *all* JPEG's.
>
>Time for a stupid question:
>
>Why would one want to open a jpg in ACR? Can't PS do all the edit functions
>that are in ACR?

Why would you call this a stupid question?

Dave

Johan W. Elzenga

2007-05-12, 10:14 pm

<ahall@no-spam-panix.com> wrote:

>
> Johan> Not necessarily. You can use 'Open as...' in CS3 for Windows, or
> Johan> 'Open' on the Macintosh and then select Camera RAW as file type.
> Johan> That way you can open a JPEG or TIFF in Camera RAW without
> Johan> having to set this as the default behavior for *all* JPEG's.
>
> Time for a stupid question:
>
> Why would one want to open a jpg in ACR? Can't PS do all the edit functions
> that are in ACR?

That is not a stupid question at all. To me, it's a bit stange because
it makes ACR like an editor inside another editor (Photoshop). I believe
the explanation is that the ACR engine is used in Lightroom as well, and
Lightroom needs to be able to handle TIFF and JPEG. So, because the
engine can do it anyway, ACR can do it.

--
Johan W. Elzenga johan<<at>>johanfoto.nl
Editor / Photographer http://www.johanfoto.com

Rob

2007-05-13, 3:14 am

ahall@no-spam-panix.com wrote:

>
>
> Johan> Rudy Benner <total@crap.com> wrote:
> news> Xns9928CEBD373F4Insomnatus@204.153.245.131...
>
> Johan> Not necessarily. You can use 'Open as...' in CS3 for Windows, or 'Open'
> Johan> on the Macintosh and then select Camera RAW as file type. That way you
> Johan> can open a JPEG or TIFF in Camera RAW without having to set this as the
> Johan> default behavior for *all* JPEG's.
>
> Time for a stupid question:
>
> Why would one want to open a jpg in ACR? Can't PS do all the edit functions
> that are in ACR?
>
>

I am now using ACR more so than before.

Bridge is better and much quicker and opening ACR is at your finger tips.

I like to adjust my initial image with all the controls in one place
instead of within PS. Seem to get better results.

PS CS3 is a much better product now.

Barry Pearson

2007-05-13, 6:14 am

On May 12, 10:15 pm, <a...@no-spam-panix.com> wrote:
[snip]
> Why would one want to open a jpg in ACR? Can't PS do all the edit functions
> that are in ACR?

I'll give one example. I have had to do simple processing of lots of
JPEGs with strict time constraints. (I normally shoot raw, but this
was a case where that would have exceeded the time available).

This is possible: load Bridge; select a folder with 115 JPEGs in it;
open them all in ACR 4.0 (called from Bridge, not from Photoshop);
select them each in turn and crop; select them all and apply a preset;
save them all as JPEGs to another folder.

This took me less than 19 minutes end-to-end - about 9 seconds in
total per image. That would be hard to do with Photoshop CS3 (which
wasn't loaded at all in the above example).

In the wider case, we are seeing a convergence between the ease that
people expect when handling JPEGs, and some of the features that are
in (some) raw converters or other photograph processors but not so
easily available in Photoshop. That is good - why distinguish between
raw and JPEG when it isn't necessary? Why not have the same ease of
setting/correcting the WB with a single click for JPEGs that we expect
for raw images? Or the same non-destructive editing? Why make raw
processing something different, perhaps perceived as harder or more
specialised, for cases where it isn't?

--
Barry Pearson
http://www.barrypearson.co.uk/photography/

Johan W. Elzenga

2007-05-13, 6:14 am

Barry Pearson <news@childsupportanalysis.co.uk> wrote:

> On May 12, 10:15 pm, <a...@no-spam-panix.com> wrote:
> [snip]
>
> I'll give one example. I have had to do simple processing of lots of
> JPEGs with strict time constraints. (I normally shoot raw, but this
> was a case where that would have exceeded the time available).
>
> This is possible: load Bridge; select a folder with 115 JPEGs in it;
> open them all in ACR 4.0 (called from Bridge, not from Photoshop);
> select them each in turn and crop; select them all and apply a preset;
> save them all as JPEGs to another folder.
>
> This took me less than 19 minutes end-to-end - about 9 seconds in
> total per image. That would be hard to do with Photoshop CS3 (which
> wasn't loaded at all in the above example).
>
> In the wider case, we are seeing a convergence between the ease that
> people expect when handling JPEGs, and some of the features that are
> in (some) raw converters or other photograph processors but not so
> easily available in Photoshop. That is good - why distinguish between
> raw and JPEG when it isn't necessary? Why not have the same ease of
> setting/correcting the WB with a single click for JPEGs that we expect
> for raw images? Or the same non-destructive editing? Why make raw
> processing something different, perhaps perceived as harder or more
> specialised, for cases where it isn't?

These are good examples of the benefit of using ACR (or Lightroom), but
you do have to remember one thing though: all your 'edits' are now
Photoshop only edits. Other programs won't see them. Photoshop is a
heavy editting beast, and like many other people I often use another,
lighter program if I want to inspect a number of files, or just want to
do some minor work. Also, you may want to use a real catalog program
like iView Media Pro to keep track of your files. I'm on a Macintosh, so
I use GraphicConverter quite a lot next to Photoshop. Unfortunately,
GraphicConverter won't see those edits, because they aren't really done
on the JPEG file itself. iView Media Pro will still catalog the files,
but will show the unedited originals, not the edits. That's the downside
of this approach and you do have to be aware of that too.

--
Johan W. Elzenga johan<<at>>johanfoto.nl
Editor / Photographer http://www.johanfoto.com

Barry Pearson

2007-05-13, 6:14 pm

On May 13, 9:34 am, nom...@please.invalid (Johan W. Elzenga) wrote:
> Barry Pearson <n...@childsupportanalysis.co.uk> wrote:
[snip]
>
>
>
>
> These are good examples of the benefit of using ACR (or Lightroom), but
> you do have to remember one thing though: all your 'edits' are now
> Photoshop only edits. Other programs won't see them.
[snip]

In my example above with the 115 JPEGs, I saved the results of the
editing as JPEGs. They were then usable by any JPEG-handling product,
(which was the purpose). I agree that had I simply used "Done" I would
simply have the original JPEGs with XMP metadata in them (or in the
database). But I used "Save as ..." to create new JPEGs, and the
timing above reflects this, (about 2 minutes of the total).

Yes, there is a problem, (and probably not just a temporary one), that
XMP editing metadata is raw converter specific. (ACR & Lightroom are,
in effect, the same raw converter). There only appear to be a couple
of ACR edits that could accurately be generalised - crop & align.
(They record rotation angles and the coordinates of the corners).

IPTC XMP management metadata is understood by Bridge and (I'm told) by
iView Media Pro. But as you point out, if they start as JPEGs and
"Done" is used, the latter product won't show the "visual" edits. I
think it might be necessary to save the edited JPEG from ACR as a
Linear DNG with a suitable preview for it to show the edited version
from the preview - is that so? A bit "heavy"!

This is a bit of a mine-field for the unwary. I wouldn't (yet) have
had the confidence to post above what could be done with JPEGs unless
I had run the above test myself. But I expect further examples to
appear from other people in future.

--
Barry Pearson
http://www.barrypearson.co.uk/photography/

Rudy Benner

2007-05-13, 6:14 pm

"Johan W. Elzenga" <nomail@please.invalid> wrote in message
news:1hy0za7.1hc1fpc1f665wzN%nomail@please.invalid...
> <ahall@no-spam-panix.com> wrote:
>
>
> That is not a stupid question at all. To me, it's a bit stange because
> it makes ACR like an editor inside another editor (Photoshop). I believe
> the explanation is that the ACR engine is used in Lightroom as well, and
> Lightroom needs to be able to handle TIFF and JPEG. So, because the
> engine can do it anyway, ACR can do it.
>
>
> --
> Johan W. Elzenga johan<<at>>johanfoto.nl
> Editor / Photographer http://www.johanfoto.com

Think of it as a non-destructive editor, the changes are not to the jpeg
image, instead, the changes are recorded as meta-data with the image file.
Subsequent editing in Photoshop changes the image data.

I have found the ability to edit jpeg's in ACR to be very useful. Some of my
otherwise crap shots become worthy.

Rudy Benner

2007-05-13, 6:14 pm

"Rob" <mesa@mine.com> wrote in message
news:4646a11f$1_5@news.peopletelecom.com.au...
> ahall@no-spam-panix.com wrote:
>
>
>
> I am now using ACR more so than before.
>
> Bridge is better and much quicker and opening ACR is at your finger tips.
>
> I like to adjust my initial image with all the controls in one place
> instead of within PS. Seem to get better results.
>
> PS CS3 is a much better product now.
>

I agree completely. CS2 is now gone from both computers.