# JPEGs not being imported



## Pollok Shields (Mar 16, 2016)

I have folders with NEF and JPEGs (I've been shooting raw plus JPEG). I thought you couldn't filter on import so why can't I get the JPEGs to show up in Lightroom?

I can see the JPEGs in Finder (on my Mac).

If I try to synchronise the folder from within LR I don't see the JPEGs in the import window. Its as if they aren't there. But JPEGs in a sub-folder I can see and import...

I've checked all the Preferences and filters  (set to "none" and "filters off").

Where am I going wrong?


----------



## DGStinner (Mar 16, 2016)

Do you have "Treat JPEG files next to raw files as separate photos" checked under Preferences>General tab?


----------



## Pollok Shields (Mar 16, 2016)

DGStinner said:


> Do you have "Treat JPEG files next to raw files as separate photos" checked under Preferences>General tab?



Er, no. Is that a good thing or a bad thing...?


----------



## Pollok Shields (Mar 16, 2016)

OK sorted, thanks Dave Stinner. I knew there was a Preference somewhere, clearly overlooked it.


----------



## clee01l (Mar 16, 2016)

Pollok Shields said:


> Er, no. Is that a good thing or a bad thing...?


Treating JPEGs next to RAW as separate files. Mikes then unique. When the check boxes unchecked, the JPEGs are not cataloged but copied and referenced as a sidecar file to the RAW.


----------



## Pollok Shields (Mar 17, 2016)

clee01l said:


> Treating JPEGs next to RAW as separate files. Mikes then unique. When the check boxes unchecked, the JPEGs are not cataloged but copied and referenced as a sidecar file to the RAW.



Yes, I remember now, thanks Cletus. In fact come to think I remember moaning about LRs handling of raw and JPEG pairs before. I think Aperture's way of doing this was better. Both files appeared as a single thumbnail but you could choose which you wanted to edit. Adobe clearly want everyone to convert to DNG format so I can't see them making life easier for those who want to keep proprietary raw files in their workflow.


----------



## DGStinner (Mar 17, 2016)

Pollok Shields said:


> Yes, I remember now, thanks Cletus. In fact come to think I remember moaning about LRs handling of raw and JPEG pairs before. I think Aperture's way of doing this was better. Both files appeared as a single thumbnail but you could choose which you wanted to edit. Adobe clearly want everyone to convert to DNG format so I can't see them making life easier for those who want to keep proprietary raw files in their workflow.


If Adobe wanted everyone to convert to DNG format, that would be the only choice for importing raw files into Lightroom.  I have to disagree with your statement regarding Adobe not making life easier for those wanting to keep raw files in their workflow.  I only used Aperture for a short time so I don't recall how it handled files when someone chose to shoot raw+jpg.  I don't see why someone would choose to edit the jpg instead of the raw other than cropping.


----------



## Johan Elzenga (Mar 17, 2016)

I agree that Adobe does not push anyone towards DNG at all, but I also agree that Aperture handles raw+jpeg pairs way better than Lightroom. It is not so much that you can edit the jpeg (why indeed would you want to do that), but you can choose which one to use as master. If the jpeg is fine and doesn't need editing, you can use it as master so you don't have to edit anything. If the jpeg is not that good, you can switch to the raw file, edit it and use it as master.


----------



## Pollok Shields (Mar 17, 2016)

DGStinner said:


> I I only used Aperture for a short time so I don't recall how it handled files when someone chose to shoot raw+jpg.  I don't see why someone would choose to edit the jpg instead of the raw other than cropping.



Aperture showed a single thumbnail for the raw/JPEG pair. Much the same way as LR does when you choose not to show JPEGs as separate photos. My beef with Adobe is that I sometimes need to shoot JPEG and raw and when I do so I naturally want the metadata to be the same for each file type. If I set LR not to treat JPEGs as separate files it only imports the raw so when it comes to captioning, only my raw files are updated. If I import the JPEGs I need to ensure I select both the raw and JPEG when updating my metadata. That fine for one or two pictures but if you have more and they are spread out on your thumbnail grid its easy to select the wrong JPEG.

Why do this? Because sometimes the JPEGs are 'good enough' to quickly send out. But I may want to come back later and process the raw files to make better looking files. And I don't want to have to input the caption all over again.

Aperture's simple raw+JPEG pair handling worked well.


----------



## Pollok Shields (Mar 17, 2016)

JohanElzenga said:


> I agree that Adobe does not push anyone towards DNG at all



I don't think I said "push" but I would say they are nudging people in that direction. But then again, what the difference between pushing and making it difficult to do something another way...


----------



## clee01l (Mar 17, 2016)

Pollok Shields said:


> I don't think I said "push" but I would say they are nudging people in that direction. But then again, what the difference between pushing and making it difficult to do something another way...


Here I disagree. I've never felt compelled to convert my proprietary RAW files to DNG and I resist any suggestion that there is an advantage for me to convert.
I agree that it would be nice to import the JPEGs as a Sidecar file and be able to crop it or otherwise edit it without cluttering up the catalog with RAW+JPEG pairs.  As I it now, I no longer see a benefit in shooting RAW+JPEG as the SOOC RAW file need no development other that that applied at import and if I need a JPEG that looks like what I shot, I can export it from the RAW as fast as I can export it from the SOOC JPEG. What I'm saying here is that my newly imported NEFs look as good as the SOOC JPEG.


----------



## Johan Elzenga (Mar 17, 2016)

Pollok Shields said:


> I don't think I said "push" but I would say they are nudging people in that direction. But then again, what the difference between pushing and making it difficult to do something another way...



I don't even think they nudge you. I don't see at all how they 'make it difficult' to use proprietary raw files. I use proprietary raw files, so I am not saying this because I'm a 'DNG fan' or want to defend Adobe. It's just not true.


----------



## sizzlingbadger (Mar 18, 2016)

I'd like to import RAW + JPG and keep the JPG's as the masters and the raw as sidecars. That way I have access to the RAW if I need it but can use a JPG workflow 99% of the time. Aperture used to allow this


----------



## Pollok Shields (Mar 18, 2016)

clee01l said:


> Here I disagree. I've never felt compelled to convert my proprietary RAW files to DNG and I resist any suggestion that there is an advantage for me to convert.



But we agree about so much! No, I don't see any reason to convert my NEFs to DNG either. I only see disadvantage.



> As I it now, I no longer see a benefit in shooting RAW+JPEG as the SOOC RAW file need no development other that that applied at import and if I need a JPEG that looks like what I shot, I can export it from the RAW as fast as I can export it from the SOOC JPEG.



You'll need to share your secret then! My unprocessed raw NEFs never look as good as the SOOC JPEGs. I can match the colour and contrast with my import settings but for a lot of situations I need a shadows or highlights correction (no, I'm not talking HDR!) to match the camera file. Which is why I shoot JPEG: I want to send the pictures out ASAP and come back to fine tune the NEFs later. (And, BTW, if I need to move raw files quickly I'll use Adobe Camera Raw via Photoshop to process them so I don't have to wait for LR to import.)


----------



## Pollok Shields (Mar 18, 2016)

JohanElzenga said:


> I don't even think they nudge you. I don't see at all how they 'make it difficult' to use proprietary raw files. I use proprietary raw files, so I am not saying this because I'm a 'DNG fan' or want to defend Adobe. It's just not true.



Its difficult to use raw and JPEG pairs in Lightroom.

There appears to be a lot of people saying you really must use DNG because you never know when your proprietary format will die (look at PhotoCD) or you mustn't write metadata into the file because you could damage it or a number of other reasons which I'm sure came from the DNG developers but may have been somewhat overblown by others.

Meanwhile as a NEF user I have to store my metadata in a separate XMP file. That makes things difficult. I have twice as many files to look after and backup. And if I need to move files in the OS I have to be careful to keep the raw and XMP pair together. And I can't/shouldn't give you or someone else my NEF file to process without the XMP - it contains all the caption and ownership information. It would be much easier if Adobe allowed me - gave me the option as other applications do - to write my metadata into the NEF file.


----------



## Roelof Moorlag (Mar 18, 2016)

Pollok Shields said:


> It would be much easier if Adobe allowed me - gave me the option as other applications do - to write my metadata into the NEF file


Maybe easier but it would not be save. That's the reason PIEware exists in the first place. To be careful, not to harm proprietary images.


----------



## Johan Elzenga (Mar 18, 2016)

Pollok Shields said:


> Its difficult to use raw and JPEG pairs in Lightroom.



True, but that has nothing to do with DNG or RAW. Some cameras can shoot in DNG. If you shoot DNG+JPEG with such a camera, you'll have exactly the same problem as when you shoot RAW+JPEG.



> There appears to be a lot of people saying you really must use DNG because you never know when your proprietary format will die (look at PhotoCD) or you mustn't write metadata into the file because you could damage it or a number of other reasons which I'm sure came from the DNG developers but may have been somewhat overblown by others.
> 
> Meanwhile as a NEF user I have to store my metadata in a separate XMP file. That makes things difficult. I have twice as many files to look after and backup. And if I need to move files in the OS I have to be careful to keep the raw and XMP pair together. And I can't/shouldn't give you or someone else my NEF file to process without the XMP - it contains all the caption and ownership information. It would be much easier if Adobe allowed me - gave me the option as other applications do - to write my metadata into the NEF file.



And then lots of people start barking that you should never write anything into proprietary raw files because you don't know every aspect to that file format. Using XMP is a lot safer than writing in the RAW file. It's also better for backups, because you only need to copy the XMP file again if you've changed anything. That is actually an advantage of RAW over DNG...


----------



## Pollok Shields (Mar 19, 2016)

JohanElzenga said:


> It's also better for backups, because you only need to copy the XMP file again if you've changed anything. That is actually an advantage of RAW over DNG...



I think I probably agree with everything you say there! Its true, I'm only upset because LR doesn't treat the raw+JPEG pair as well as it could. Then again LR doesn't give me the option of writing metadata into a raw file. Even if I accept the danger. So it is pushing me to do things in certain ways.

But like I say, I'm really only unhappy about raw+JPEG thumbnails. Fair point about backups for XMPs.


----------



## Pollok Shields (Mar 19, 2016)

Roelof Moorlag said:


> Maybe easier but it would not be save. That's the reason PIEware exists in the first place. To be careful, not to harm proprietary images.



I've never believed the FUD about the danger of writing metadata into CRW or NEF or whatever files. These raw files are at the end of the day simply a form of TIFF and nobody has any problem updating metadata in TIFFs. I have a couple of hundred thousand digital files of various proprietary formats as well as TIFFs and a few DNGs. I have less than half a dozen corrupted files. Want to guess what file format they are?


----------



## Victoria Bampton (Mar 19, 2016)

Pollok Shields said:


> I've never believed the FUD about the danger of writing metadata into CRW or NEF or whatever files.



Want an example?  Fix Corrupted Nikon NEF Images


----------



## Pollok Shields (Mar 19, 2016)

Victoria Bampton said:


> Want an example?


That seems to about importing causing a corruption, perhaps by using outdated software. I was banging on about writing metadata in to TIFF type files. I think most Nikon users have a fair idea how good their software is.


----------



## clee01l (Mar 19, 2016)

Pollok Shields said:


> That seems to about importing causing a corruption, perhaps by using outdated software. I was banging on about writing metadata in to TIFF type files. I think most Nikon users have a fair idea how good their software is.


Yes, this was Nikon's own Proprietary software that corrupted the NEFs from newer camera models.  You would think that since there was a risk of corruption that the new cameras would have come with a warning to ONLY use the revised version of *ViewNX 2* that shipped with the camera  It did not.  After all the corruption was caused by simply reading the image file on the camera card and writing it to the disk drive. It did not supposedly involve updating the metadata. 
So, what chance does a third party like Adobe have of writing software that won't corrupt new versions of the CR2 or NEF if Nikon can't even prevent it. If you check the users profiles here, you will see lots of people using outdated versions of LR.  It is for this reason that ACR updates do not work on future camera models.  The risk of failure (not considering damage) is too great.


----------



## PhilBurton (Mar 19, 2016)

It's not just "corruption."  It's "interoperability."  A straight from the camera NEF or CR2 can be read by lots of software.  A NEF modified by Nikon Capture, not so much.  That is, a modified NEF is not interoperable with other RAW editors.  Writing to your RAW files almost guarantees that you are locked in to Lightroom or whatever is your current RAW editor.  If that's OK with you, then have at it.


Pollok Shields said:


> I've never believed the FUD about the danger of writing metadata into CRW or NEF or whatever files. These raw files are at the end of the day simply a form of TIFF and nobody has any problem updating metadata in TIFFs. I have a couple of hundred thousand digital files of various proprietary formats as well as TIFFs and a few DNGs. I have less than half a dozen corrupted files. Want to guess what file format they are?


----------



## Pollok Shields (Mar 19, 2016)

PhilBurton said:


> Writing to your RAW files almost guarantees that you are locked in to Lightroom or whatever is your current RAW editor.


I don't think thats true Phil. (Maybe you mean another raw editor being as Lightroom won't write to raw - other than DNG - files.) Over the years I've had other software (Photo Mechanic and Aperture, possibly iView Media Pro come to mind) write metadata into my raw CR2, ORF and NEF files. All of those 'modified' files have migrated into my Lightroom catalogue where they reside quite happily.


----------



## Roelof Moorlag (Mar 19, 2016)

Pollok Shields said:


> iView Media Pro come to mind) write metadata into my raw CR2, ORF and NEF files.


 I'm quite sure Medio Pro is a PIEware app too that does not alter the RAW file


----------



## Pollok Shields (Mar 16, 2016)

I have folders with NEF and JPEGs (I've been shooting raw plus JPEG). I thought you couldn't filter on import so why can't I get the JPEGs to show up in Lightroom?

I can see the JPEGs in Finder (on my Mac).

If I try to synchronise the folder from within LR I don't see the JPEGs in the import window. Its as if they aren't there. But JPEGs in a sub-folder I can see and import...

I've checked all the Preferences and filters  (set to "none" and "filters off").

Where am I going wrong?


----------



## Pollok Shields (Mar 19, 2016)

Roelof Moorlag said:


> I'm quite sure Medio Pro is a PIEware app too that does not alter the RAW file


Possible but I was thinking of iView Media Pro as was. Before they sold themselves to Microsoft, before Phase One subsquently acquired it.


----------



## britrecko (Mar 19, 2016)

Pollok Shields said:


> I have folders with NEF and JPEGs (I've been shooting raw plus JPEG). I thought you couldn't filter on import so why can't I get the JPEGs to show up in Lightroom?
> 
> I can see the JPEGs in Finder (on my Mac).
> 
> ...


I have a similar problem with my canonCR2 files not being uploaded from my Canon G3X camera. The jpeg files upload. I use Lr6 and on another mac Lr 5.7.Laura Shoe notes this newer version of LR6 does recognise my G3X camera ?Help please.


----------



## Jim Wilde (Mar 19, 2016)

The G3X was first supported in LR6.1.1, so your 5.7 system won't recognise the raw files from it. Your LR6 system, however, should be OK provided you are running 6.1.1 or later. What version are you running?


----------

