You can't convert JPGs to camera-type RAWs in Photoshop, like a CR2 or NEF. Photoshop RAW is something different than a camera-type RAW file and unless you have a specific reason to use Photoshop RAW, then don't.
Since you are starting out editing JPGs from a point-and-shoot camera, I wouldn't worry about saving as anything other than highest quality (12) JPGs. If you are really concerned about it, then save as TIF or PSD, but the size of your images will increase dramatically for minimal gain.
1 person found this helpful
The description "raw" means what it says: raw data. In this case it is not an acronym but an adjective.
You can make a JPEG out of a raw file but you can't do the reverse! You can edit JPEGs in ACR though.
As ssprengel says, there is unfortunately a format called Photoshop Raw (*.RAW) just to confuse everyone.
The link you sent me is very helpful. I shall look at this page quite often - there is so much to learn about RAW.
What you want to do is convert your jpg's to DNG files. Do all of your parametric editing in ACR and Be Happy. No loss of detail. Lots of great tools.
When you need to you can export the file as a 16bit psd (or tif) and do more edits in Photoshop if needed. I've got a Nikon Coolpix P&S which only generates
jpg's so this is the route I take with that camera. I also do this when friends/family send pics that they want me to 'fix'. I only do a conversion back to jpg as a final step,
just like printing.
Note that you are not re-creating a non-existent camera raw file. You are creating a new one based on a jpg image instead of sensor data. The quality is not the
same but it is far better than editing the jpg directly in photoshop.
What you want to do is convert your jpg's to DNG files. Do all of your parametric editing in ACR
What advantage does this method offer over just editing the JPG in ACR.
Thanks very much. That's a great help and just what I needed to know. I had an idea it would improve the pictures, but wasn't sure. I will do as you say and compare the two pictures.
You could just edit the JPGs in ACR. I don't know if there is any appreciable difference in image quality versus a JPG converted to DNG. It's probably something I should test.
For me, it is more of a workflow issue. I always do my initial photo edits in ACR then move to PS. Editing JPGs directly in ACR was always awkward. I would occasionally forget
that the image was a JPG/ACR image and wonder why Preview or Irfan kept showing me the wrong image. I don't have that problem with DNGs. I also would never accidentally
email a set of DNG files to some who was expecting finished JPGs.