I'm no expert but my guess would be no you can't. If Fuji software handles writing edits to jpegs like LrC does then edits are baked into the file. The only sidecar files I've ever seen for jpeg are .modd files which were generated by a program called BreezeBrowser and the .modd was just exif information. Besides, and no judgment, why would you want the jpeg edits as a sidecar? You already have the jpegs that you've edited how you like. It's no different than editing raw files in LrC then exporting them as jpegs. Just import both the raws and jpegs into LrC and make sure have the preferences set to treat jpegs and raw files as separate files. That way you have the edited jpegs for sharing or printing and the raw files in case you want to re-edit non-destructively. Hope that makes sense. I'm sure the gurus on this website will have a better answer than I.
Thanks for your input.
I must admit that your workflow is one I've never seen before, and I though I'd seen it all !
Fir st of all, I think you're headed for a dissappointment. By definition a RAW image is unprocessed (or more accuratly, un-rendered). This means that it has no pixels. Instead it has readings off of the sensor that have not yet been converted to colors and brightnesses. I don't know if this is true but I think the values are actually voltages provided by the sensor. In order for you to see an image from a RAW file, a program must take these sensor readings and decide what color and brightnees to show you on a screen. This is a process called "Rendering".
When you import a RAW image into LrC, it is rendered using code developed by Adobe programmers. When you get a JPG from the camera, like your Fuji, programmers working for Fuji wrote the code to render the image. But, it gets more compicated. When images are rendered, there isn't just one answer. In the camera you can tell the camera how to render the image. I don't know what this is called in a Fuji, but Canon calls it "Picture Style" but we can just call it by the generic term "profile". For example, Normal, Vivid, Monochrome, natural, Etc. Which profile you use in the camera alters the rules used to render the image and thus the look of the image. Likewise what profile you use with LrC will change the looks of the rendered image when applied to a RAW file.
So, in your case, the JPG image was rendered according to what profile (style) you had set in the camera when you shot the image. This is the starting point for your Develop Module adjustments. You then layered additional changes to that rendered JPG in the Develop module. The problem you are going to face in your desired workflow is that if you take your develop module tweaks that were applied to a Fuji rendered JPG image, and apply them to a RAW version of the image rendered by LrC using an Adobe created profile, that may or may not be close match to the fuji profile, your results may be markedly different. Now, you should first assure that the LrC profile used with the RAW file is the Adobe programmed version of what Adobe thinks the selected Fuji profile was when shot. With luck this may be close enough.
But, your question was how do you do that. First of all your LrC edits done to a Jpg do not generate seperate XMP files. Rather the XMP data is stored in the catalog and optionally stored inside the JPG file itself - not in a seperate XMP file. This means that you don't have an XMP file to use with the RAW file. So, 2nd option is to use the XMP date stored in the catalog with the RAW file.
Here's how to do this. You'll of course have to do this image by image
- import the RAW file and set the profile to the Adobe equivilent of the Fuji profile used in camera to geneate the Jpg
- in the Library Module, Grid View, select both the JPG and RAW versions of the image, with the JPG version being the active (most selected) of the two
- Click the Sync Settings button at the bottom of the right panel group
- in the pop up dialog box, check the develop module features that you want copied from the JPG to the RAW image
Let us know if the results are close to what you expect.
Thanks for the input.
I shall clarify the point a little better as I may have rushed it first time round, you will see the approach I want is actually fairly logical and sound.
First of all... Fuji.
Fuji is fairly unique I feel with it's colour filmsims and styles available in camera. It is so popular that many forums and groups have strict rules for sharing images, images that have only come straight from camera (SOOC) or practically SOOC (some light polishing of the Jpg only). The whys for this sort of thing vary hugely depending on user. It is not meant to be a Jpg vs RAW argument or point (those arguments are silly). For the groups and forums perspective it is to see the vast array of
in camera colours and styles that are natively built in without possibly even needing an advanced post processing editor. This allows newbies to see what Fuji and the camera user is possible to achieve alone without post processing or minimal.
You can see examples here and how popular this principle is;
https://fujixweekly.com/fujifilm-x-trans-iv-recipes/
So now imagine this power in the hands of skilled and experienced photographers. They are snapping at the event or job and getting
instant feedback of an image that would normally be quite flat and dull looking (RAW) and instead taking on the life of something that more closely resembles a finished edit in LR.
Now imagine taking those files into LR or some other editor and just 'tidying them up', 10secs per image, a few Presence and Tone adjustments on the sliders, done. This makes for a super fast turnaround/job vs essentially starting from scratch with a RAW (jpgs tend to also work faster on slower machines in post).
This DOES NOT mean this approach should be universal. RAW will always be necessary for
many other jobs and applications, but I just wanted to cement first the idea of working from Jpgs being the priority here, and the RAWs secondary and that it's not insanity but gaining popularity quickly, especially in the professional market where time is money. It makes good business sense, a small amount of set up time in camera (call it 'prepost processing') for a super fast turnaround of images for the client/job.
So now we (I) have 200+ Jpgs culled and lightly edited in LR... but think about things for a minute. If the edits made and applied to the Jpg (which has less maneuverability than the RAW) were ok and fine, then it's a good bet the SAME type of changes made to their RAW counterpart would also make sense, at least from a starting point. For example, if the Jpg was underexposed, lacking in contrast, and bumping up contrast and raising exposure fixed or improved that image, then it's a good bet the same approach will be needed for the Jpgs counterpart RAW file, right? I mean not always, you might want to steer the image another direction, in which case you could just hit 'Reset', but you get the point. Changes made to the Jpg are likely going to be changes you'd make to the RAW.
Or what about other things like say you applied a certain grain that worked, a certain crop, a certain vignette etc etc. So I'm not necessarily saying I would want all the boxes ticked for the sync of Jpg to RAW but certainly a few and my choice.
But LR is pretty great with Fuji files anyway. If for example I shot a RAW+Jpg in Acros (a monochrome render in camera), then the RAW will start off as that Acros profile anyway.
So why RAW at all? Because sometimes you get a great shot, and you might want to give it as a triptych or something to the client. Same image, 3 different versions. Or you might decide the dynamic range of the Jpg version struggled a little and the RAW was needed for this particular image, and so on so forth.
1) So now I am pondering the
workflow going forward for this approach. I could continue as I have done and then handpick the RAWs I deem worthy or need and import into LR and then manually sync the changes made previously to the Jpg to the RAW (for each of those files Zzz...).
2) Or perhaps in future I import both Jpgs and RAWs, ensure that Jpgs are treated separately from the RAWs and when I make my changes have All Sync on and the RAW counterpart selected as well, that sounds like the best strategy for next time.
I dunno if there is a way to click the Jpg (have it selected as the working file) whilst simultaneously having the RAW highlight automatically for you (and All Sync on)? That would be ideal I think, a kind of 'background syncing' without having to engage the brain and constantly ensure you're always highlighting the partner file (though they should in theory be next to one another in the film strip, I could colour label them to help distinguish the file types etc).