Automotive Deals HPCC Amazon Fashion Learn more nav_sap_plcc_ascpsc $5 Albums Fire TV Stick Sun Care Handmade school supplies Shop-by-Room Amazon Cash Back Offer TarantinoCollection TarantinoCollection TarantinoCollection  Amazon Echo  Echo Dot  Amazon Tap  Echo Dot  Amazon Tap  Amazon Echo Introducing new colors All-New Kindle Oasis AutoRip in CDs & Vinyl Segway miniPro STEM
Customer Discussions > Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 4 forum

My camera only does JPEG --- HELP

Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-12 of 12 posts in this discussion
Initial post: Mar 27, 2012 1:25:32 PM PDT
My camera only does JPEG and I can't get a RAW file out of it. I am fixing photos that will be burned to a slideshow disk. I already have Photoshop CS5. Will Lightroom 4 make much of a difference in bringing out details and making my pictures look good?

A second question. When I buy it should I download it or get it in a box. Is there anything in the box other than the install disk?

Posted on Apr 11, 2012 8:52:59 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Apr 11, 2012 8:56:01 AM PDT
Titanium22 says:
LR4 will help you with your workflow and probably allow you to work faster because the most common tools for editing photos are at your finger tip. The question on if it will improve your the quality of your images is hard to answer. If you are a Photoshop novice it probably will. If you are a Photoshop expert, then it will be about the same. There are some things that LR does like noise reduction, and lens correction that Photoshop only has in the Raw engine I believe. You would benefit from that. Also remember LR is a non destructive edit. Your original files remain untouched. The changes you make only happen on a new copy that you export. The changes are stored in the LR database. This is helps quality because you everytime you save a jpg image you compress it again, loosing quality. This also means you can take the same original picture and create a virtual copy to create many different versions of the same image and not take up lots of hard drive space with all of those copies until you export them.

In reply to an earlier post on May 6, 2012 2:40:00 AM PDT
®ichard says:
No your photos will not really improve from CS5.5 to LR4. The only thing I heard is LR4 is base on the Adobe converter raw (ACR)7 which is what PS6/CS6 will use. LR3 and Photoshop C5.5 uses the older ACR 6.7 or something. Adobe may not let people with older software use the latest ACR. Photoshop has more tools then lightroom, I have LR4 and CS5.5e. LR is so much faster and easier to use, and I have been using PS for a long time, just picked up LR4 a few weeks ago, awesome sauce.

Base off LiquidRetro:
Yes you can reduce noise in PS after ACR with de-noise or use one of blur filters. I never really had the need to use lens correction, in PS you can tilt and shift the image manually, basically what lens correction does automatically.

Why RAW?
I had some old jpegs and used the noise reduction and it helped. You can't pull as much dynamic range from jpeg as you do raw. I was surprised how much a blowout shot on my Nikon D7000 RAW can still be adjusted in lightroom. So your margin for error on jpeg is much lower, image will look bad fast. You will slider adjustments/ settings only half way where in raw you can maybe max it out before looking bad. Jpeg has less color range saved then raw, so any color you add in processing is artificial and might look fake.

box or download doesn't matter. You can always burn a install file to a dvd. Nothing special comes with the box version. All I got was a disc with a serial number on the slip. Wasted packaging.

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 17, 2012 12:27:21 PM PDT
Jonker says:
Following up on the Why Raw? comment (which is certainly true vs. jpg), is there any important difference in terms of what you can do with your image in RAW vs. TIFF?

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 17, 2012 2:26:49 PM PDT
Titanium22 says:
Definitely. Raw is like a digital negative. It is a very unprocessed file and gives the most flexibility on what you can do with it in post, most have lossless compression as well so file sizes are not crazy. It's also somewhat proprietary and each manufacture stores a little different info with the image that helps in post. Tiff is a container, it can but uncompressed (So files can be huge) but it doesnt have to be. It can be a container for jpgs and png too. Camera's generally don't shoot in it. It's hard to explain and do a compare and contrast without a bunch of research. They are not really the same either because of when they are used in the process of workflow. With the way Lightroom edits photos, Tiff have been replaced for the most part, with the exceptions of export for a specific purpose.

Posted on Aug 17, 2012 2:39:37 PM PDT
Jonker says:
I see.
I scan film sometimes and thought (and still wonder if) uncompressed TIFF might be essentially as useable as RAW in LR/PS, while also more universal, although I realize huge files.

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 17, 2012 2:43:08 PM PDT
Titanium22 says:
It's not going to be 100% the same but its your best option in that situation. Scanning directly into PS would be your best bet and then you can save from there out to what ever you need. To my knowledge LR does not do scanning. PS will have some more options than LR for more cleaning etc.

Posted on Oct 30, 2012 2:44:02 PM PDT
Question about RAW and JPEGs:

I understand the differences between the two, one is more editable then the other (etc), but which do you shoot in-camera? I know I can select my camera to save as JPEG, RAW or RAW + JPEG. Which is the most logical to do without using too much of your memory card?

For instance, is it better to shoot RAW only, then save a copy and compress it on the computer if you wanted to share it online? Or does it make sense to shoot RAW + JPEG and just have two copies of every photo you take/save?

Just curious what people do, thanks!

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 30, 2012 2:56:17 PM PDT
Titanium22 says:

I shot RAW 100% of the time. My camera has the ability to shoot in different RAW resolutions and for snapshots around the house of things I am selling on Ebay or food I make, sunsets etc I shoot mRAW. For big trips and things I think I may want to enlarge in the future I shoot full size raw. Memory is cheap these days and I have about 30gb of CF cards, so for me the flexibility of shooting RAW outweighs the ability to store more files with JPG.

Posted on Oct 31, 2012 6:23:48 AM PDT
Thanks Liquid,

So just out of curiosity then, you shoot RAW, so when you want to share the photo online or send someone an email, do you just save a copy of the RAW photo into a JPEG to compress it?


In reply to an earlier post on Oct 31, 2012 10:15:04 AM PDT
Titanium22 says:
Yes I process all the photos I post online, and usually send them out as a jpg. With RAW you have to process because the file is flat looking without it. JPG's that come out of your camera have processing already applied to them by the camera to make them look move vivid etc.

Posted on Oct 31, 2012 6:03:14 PM PDT
Oh ok. Thank you, that clears up a lot!
‹ Previous 1 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in


This discussion

Participants:  5
Total posts:  12
Initial post:  Mar 27, 2012
Latest post:  Oct 31, 2012

Search Customer Discussions
This discussion is about
Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 4 [Old Version]
Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 4 [Old Version] by Adobe (Mac OS X, Windows 7 / Vista)
4.3 out of 5 stars (384)