Grayed out Saved as Jpeg

[Ziggy487]

Looking for help.  Using FTP as, the "Saved as Jpeg" is grayed out, can't use.  Why is this?  Was able to do this with the same file on my MAC, this is on Win XP.  Any clue or ideas would be helpful.

 

[Kirk Baker]

Looking for help.  Using FTP as, the "Saved as Jpeg" is grayed out, can't use.  Why is this?  Was able to do this with the same file on my MAC, this is on Win XP.  Any clue or ideas would be helpful.

Are you working with RAW files?  The Windows version has no RAW rendering capability whatsoever.  The Mac version can use Apple's ImageIO if present to render 'as shot settings' to a JPEG, TIFF, etc.

-Kirk

[Ziggy487]

You're kidding, for it was my first time using, and you are saying that Windows can't handle Raw, for I shoot with Canon raw.  There is no way.  That's terrible....

[Kirk Baker]

You're kidding, for it was my first time using, and you are saying that Windows can't handle Raw, for I shoot with Canon raw.  There is no way.  That's terrible....

Didn't you just say you used it on a Mac?

-Kirk

[Ziggy487]

Kirk,

First thanks for your fast replies, best of any support forum, i have ever had to deal with.  Mac is my main computer, but I got a ultra small PC for the field so I can send images live from an event.  When I first stated playing with PM, I saw how wonderful it was, added the data and all, but I guess I best be dead on with my exposure, for it will be Raw+jpg from now on. 

Just if photoshop can work with raw, if both Nikon and Cannon can have raw applications, why can't PM.  Just a little sad.   

Chris
 

[Kirk Baker]

Chris,

First thanks for your fast replies, best of any support forum, i have ever had to deal with.  Mac is my main computer, but I got a ultra small PC for the field so I can send images live from an event.  When I first stated playing with PM, I saw how wonderful it was, added the data and all, but I guess I best be dead on with my exposure, for it will be Raw+jpg from now on. 

Just if photoshop can work with raw, if both Nikon and Cannon can have raw applications, why can't PM.  Just a little sad.

Canon and Nikon know their cameras extremely well.  Writing a RAW converter application for either of them for solely their own file formats is a reasonable task.  Adobe spent a lot of time and resources reverse-engineering various RAW file formats when they developed ACR.

We're a small company and don't have nearly the resources of the three companies you mentioned.  We would like to have some sort of RAW rendering capability written by us but even if we did develop such a capability it is quite possible that some folks wouldn't like how our renderings look compared to their favorite RAW converter and would not use it anyway.

-Kirk

[RobertE]

Ziggy baby,

Just if photoshop can work with raw, if both Nikon and Cannon can have raw applications, why can't PM.  Just a little sad.

Is that a serious or a naive question? You may well ask why Adobe (the second biggest software company in the world) can't make Bridge as fast as Photo Mechanic? Or why don't Adobe have an option to write metadata to RAW files instead of just sidecar files? I'm raising funds to build a home for all the worlds orphaned XMP sidecars.

-- Robert.

[Hayo Baan]

Why does PM need to perform any RAW rendering at all?  The embedded JPG is fine and if you need advanced RAW rendering you can always use dedicated software like Bibble, Photoshop, Nikon Capture NX, etc.

To be honest, the fact that PM uses the embedded JPG instead of performing its own rendering was one of the reasons I choose PM over Lightroom!

My workflow is that I use Capture NX to perform my RAW editing.  Capture saves those edits (non-destructively) as edit steps inside the Nikon RAW file.  If PM would perform it's own rendering, it would render my edits useless (as it can't interpret them), resulting in the wrong image to show in the contact sheet.  Not good!

So: Hurray for PM for not performing RAW rendering

Besides: PM is NOT an image editor, just a (bloody good) image browser & tagger (and to be: catalogue) program.

Cheers,
    Hayo

[Ziggy487]

Just going to end with this, PM is a good program, just wish that if a feature is available in MAC, it should be able to be done in Win as well.

I will figure out how yo make this work for me.  Was just wondering.

[SamFrost]

Just going to end with this, PM is a good program, just wish that if a feature is available in MAC, it should be able to be done in Win as well.

I will figure out how yo make this work for me.  Was just wondering.

But that's because PM uses the OS-level RAW rendering available in Mac OS X.

[FVlcek]

Just going to end with this, PM is a good program, just wish that if a feature is available in MAC, it should be able to be done in Win as well.
I will figure out how yo make this work for me.  Was just wondering.

Hi, let me offer some help from another user like you. Sorry it's longwinded

Well, as others said, there is a difference between Image Browser and Raw Converter. PM is (very simply) "just" a browser.

But PM has features that allow for some working with RAW files. It can display them very fast, thanks to reading a full-size JPEG image that's inside the RAW. It's the exact same image your camera displays on its LCD. On Mac, you can choose in the preferences or by pressing Q key between reading the embedded JPEG or letting the OS X operating system render the RAW file itself. Just try it yourself, rendering the RAW is a lot slower than reading the embedded JPEG.

Another feature in PM is that it can take these embedded JPEGs in the RAW files and extract them, saving them as regular JPEGs, which you can FTP, edit in your photo editor, copy, whatever. To use this, just select all your RAW files you need to work with, go to Tools menu, choose Extract JPEG previews from RAW photos, keep every checkbox checked, and click extract. It will put the embedded jpegs alongside your main RAW files. Then you can Save As or do everything on these files because PM takes a JPEG+RAW as one, working on one of them according to your set preferences.

The embedded  JPEGs in most modern cameras are full-size and sufficient for wire use, I have made six-column frontpage photos from them in newspapers (don't ask - I forgot I was shooting RAW and didn't have ANY raw converter handy on my ultramobile PC - PM saved my day and my deadline  )

For work requiring more quality (glossy magazines,...), you should use a RAW converter, which allows you to convert that RAW files with all options of changing white balance, changing exposure, et cetera, which the simple operating support on Mac doesn't allow you.

I suggest you use the one made by your camera's manufacturer, for best quality, but their workflow is often slow and clumsy compared to offerings from Adobe and Capture One. So choose your picks.

Hope this helps, if you have any other questions feel free to ask in the forums.

Frantisek

[tourist]

Canon and Nikon know their cameras extremely well.  Writing a RAW converter application for either of them for solely their own file formats is a reasonable task.  Adobe spent a lot of time and resources reverse-engineering various RAW file formats when they developed ACR.

We're a small company and don't have nearly the resources of the three companies you mentioned.  We would like to have some sort of RAW rendering capability written by us but even if we did develop such a capability it is quite possible that some folks wouldn't like how our renderings look compared to their favorite RAW converter and would not use it anyway.

-Kirk

There is always dcraw.  It is a free, open source RAW converter.  Not looking for the worlds best conversions, just the ability to quickly convert images for proofs or email when the jpg is not acceptable.  Most people shoot RAW to allow for greater latitude with exposure and the ability to adjut color temp and white balance after the fact.  Having these simple tools at hand when proofing or emailing images would be a welcome addition for those of us stuck in a Windows world. 

http://cybercom.net/~dcoffin/dcraw/

[Hayo Baan]

Tourist, what camera are you using that produces inadequate embedded JPGs?  I find the JPGs that are embedded in the RAW file from Nikon camera's more than adequate; I can even zoom in to >100% without a real loss in quality.  Definitely enough for the purpose of selecting, rating, and tagging.

Note: this goes both for the embedded jpg created in-camera as well as the (supposedly even higher quality) embedded jpg as produced by Nikon Capture NX.

I would vote against making use of a RAW interpreter for the reasons I expressed earlier in this thread.

Cheers,
    Hayo

[tourist]

Tourist, what camera are you using that produces inadequate embedded JPGs?  I find the JPGs that are embedded in the RAW file from Nikon camera's more than adequate; I can even zoom in to >100% without a real loss in quality.  Definitely enough for the purpose of selecting, rating, and tagging.

Note: this goes both for the embedded jpg created in-camera as well as the (supposedly even higher quality) embedded jpg as produced by Nikon Capture NX.

I would vote against making use of a RAW interpreter for the reasons I expressed earlier in this thread.

Cheers,
    Hayo

Where did I say that the jpgs are inadequate??  Please read my post.

I simply stated that I shoot RAW because of the flexibility it allows for white balance and color temp after the fact.  I would like to be perfect all the time with both but I am not, hence the desire to be able to correct issues like these prior to proofing and/or emailing.   There is no downside to having the converter available inside of PM, as has already been discussed it is already there for those on the MAC platform.   Why shouldn't the same flexibility exist for those on Windows?

[Kirk Baker]

Tourist, what camera are you using that produces inadequate embedded JPGs?  I find the JPGs that are embedded in the RAW file from Nikon camera's more than adequate; I can even zoom in to >100% without a real loss in quality.  Definitely enough for the purpose of selecting, rating, and tagging.

Note: this goes both for the embedded jpg created in-camera as well as the (supposedly even higher quality) embedded jpg as produced by Nikon Capture NX.

I would vote against making use of a RAW interpreter for the reasons I expressed earlier in this thread.

Cheers,
    Hayo

Where did I say that the jpgs are inadequate??  Please read my post.

I simply stated that I shoot RAW because of the flexibility it allows for white balance and color temp after the fact.  I would like to be perfect all the time with both but I am not, hence the desire to be able to correct issues like these prior to proofing and/or emailing.   There is no downside to having the converter available inside of PM, as has already been discussed it is already there for those on the MAC platform.   Why shouldn't the same flexibility exist for those on Windows?

Because until Windows Vista came out, there was no similar functionality on Microsoft's OSes.  Apple provided ImageIO in 10.4.0 well over a year ago.  When Vista becomes more mainstream, we will likely support their manufacturer plugin supported RAW conversion API.

-Kirk