Author: Tim Grey

Today’s Question: If I make a mistake when renaming photos in Lightroom Classic is there a way to revert to the original filenames? The Undo command doesn’t seem to be an option for this.

Tim’s Quick Answer: Yes, you can revert photos to their original filename by renaming again with the preserved “Original Filename” metadata field, as long as the photos had been renamed using Lightroom Classic.

More Detail: While it is true that you can’t use the Undo command in Lightroom Classic to revert the filenames for photos after renaming, you can still correct filenames you’re not happy with. That could include simply renaming again using a different template for the filenames, or to rename using the “Original Filename” from metadata.

As long as you renamed photos either during or after import using Lightroom Classic, the original filename will be preserved in metadata in the “Original Filename” field. This field only updates the first time you rename, so it is only available for reverting to the original filenames from when the images were imported into Lightroom Classic.

If you want to revert to the original filenames for a set of photos, start by selecting those photos and choosing Library > Rename Photos from the menu. In the dialog that appears, click the File Naming popup and choose “Edit”. In the Filename Template Editor dialog clear out the large text field and add only the “Original filename” option from the second popup in the Image Name section. Click the Done button and then the OK button and the images will be renamed to reflect the original filenames preserved in metadata.

If you had simply made an error with the template or a custom field such as the Custom Text or Start Number values, you can simply rename again. In general, this would involve sorting the images by Capture Time, making sure there aren’t any filters that would restrict which photos are displayed, selecting all, and then using the Library > Rename Photos command. Just be sure to configure the renaming structure exactly as you want it, and you can update the renaming for the photos based on the changes you made.

Today’s Question: Do you think we’ve gotten to the point that AI tools can be used to produce good creative effects that go beyond what is available in Photoshop?

Tim’s Quick Answer: Yes, absolutely. In fact, I’m so impressed with the results that are possible with AI that I’ll be presenting a session on the topic soon as part of my “Ultimate Live Learning” series.

More Detail: While Photoshop is remarkably powerful, it doesn’t offer very many creative filter effects that I consider to be very good. And while there are other software tools (such as Snap Art from Exposure Software) that provide great creative effect options, I’ve been quite impressed recently with what AI tools are able to provide in terms of creative effects.

The basic process of using AI for creative effects is quite simple. You just upload the source image to your preferred AI platform and then provide an explanation of exactly how you want that image to be processed. This can include a general description of the style you want to mimic, such as an oil painting versus watercolor image. You can also include examples in your prompt for guidance, such as to reference a specific painter or piece of work as inspiration.

I’m actually so excited about the possibilities for creative effects using AI platforms that I am putting together a presentation on the subject for my “Ultimate Live Learning” series. I’ll also have a presentation on Snap Art software, which also provides some great creative effects based on analog artistic tools.

These presentations are available exclusively to subscribers to my GreyLearning Ultimate Bundle, and will be presented over the course of the next couple of weeks. Recordings will also be available for anyone who isn’t able to attend the live presentation or who wants to review the material again at a later date.

You can sign up to join me for the “Ultimate Live Learning” series at a discounted rate of just $99 per year for the GreyLearning Ultimate Bundle by using this link to get started:

https://www.greylearning.com/bundles/greylearning-bundle?coupon=golive

Today’s Question: In your September 1st “Printing Photos” Ultimate Live Learning session, you explained and demoed how to print to JPEG files. Is there a way to print to a PDF?

Tim’s Quick Answer: While there isn’t a built-in feature in Lightroom Classic that enables you to export a PDF document based on a print layout in the Print module, you can accomplish this task by using a PDF virtual printer.

More Detail: Lightroom Classic includes a feature in the Print module that enables you to save JPEG images reflecting the print layout you’ve defined. For example, you could generate JPEG images that reflect a contact sheet layout that spans multiple pages, and then share those JPEG images with a client via email rather than sending printed contact sheets.

While Lightroom Classic doesn’t include a built-in feature for generating a PDF document based on a print layout, you can still generate a PDF from the Print module using a PDF virtual printer via your operating system.

For Macintosh users there is an option to print to PDF built into the operating system. For Windows users you can add the Microsoft Print to PDF virtual printer, or the Adobe PDF virtual printer via Acrobat.

In the Print module in Lightroom Classic you would then set the “Print to” popup in the Print Job section of the right panel in the Print module to “Printer”. Then click the Printer button at the bottom of the right panel and use the feature to print to PDF, either by selecting the virtual printer in Windows or using the PDF popup at the bottom-left of the Print dialog on Macintosh.

When you print to PDF in this way, the exact same layout you’ve defined will be generated as a single PDF file, rather than potentially multiple printed pages if you printed to paper.

Today’s Question: You mentioned layer groups as a helpful feature for targeted adjustments in Photoshop, and I have to admit I’d never even heard of them. What do layer groups provide for targeted adjustments?

Tim’s Quick Answer: Layer groups are particularly helpful for applying targeted adjustments in Photoshop because they enable you to constrain the effect of multiple adjustment layers using a single layer mask. They can also be used to create combine more than one layer mask to constrain the effect of those multiple adjustment layers.

More Detail: Layer groups are available on the Layers panel in Photoshop, and they effectively serve as folders for grouping together multiple layers. This can be used, for example, to help reduce clutter on the Layers panel for particularly complicated images involving multiple layers.

In addition, however, layer groups can be incredibly helpful when applying targeted adjustments. That’s because you can add a layer mask to a layer group, which in turn will constrain the visibility of all layers contained within the layer group.

One of the key benefits of the use of a layer group for a targeted adjustment is the ability to use a single mask to constrain the visibility of multiple adjustment layers. For example, if you want to apply an adjustment to only the sky, you could select the sky and add an adjustment layer based on that selection. But if you repeated this process for multiple adjustment layers and then discovered there was a flaw with the sky selection you used, you would need to fix the layer mask for the sky for all the adjustment layers you used the same basic mask for.

If, on the other hand, you added the adjustment layers to a layer group, and added a layer mask based on the sky selection to the layer group, that single mask would constrain the effect of all the adjustment layers within the layer group. If you needed to refine the layer mask, you would only need to adjust the single layer mask associated with the layer group, rather than changing multiple layer masks for multiple adjustment layers.

It is also possible to put a layer group inside another layer group, with each of them having their own layer mask. This enables you to create a compound mask for targeted adjustments, such as to have one layer mask for the sky and another for a linear gradient. That would result in multiple adjustments affecting the sky, but affecting the sky in a gradient fashion.

Today’s Question: As a follow-up to your answer about Camera Raw versus Photoshop, I’m wondering if you think it would be worthwhile for someone like me who has been using Lightroom Classic but never used Photoshop, whether it would be worth learning Photoshop for the more advanced targeted adjustment capabilities. I don’t consider myself to be all that computer savvy.

Tim’s Quick Answer: If you’ve found yourself frustrated with the limits of the control you can exercise over targeted adjustments in Lightroom Classic or Camera Raw, I do think it is worth learning to leverage targeted adjustments in Photoshop. Just keep in mind that it will require time and effort to get comfortable with the tools in Photoshop, especially if you’re not particularly comfortable on the computer.

More Detail: There’s no question that Photoshop is more powerful than Lightroom Classic (or Camera Raw) when it comes to applying targeted adjustments to photos. There are many more tools and commands for creating and modifying selections in Photoshop. You can also exercise greater control over the layer masks used for applying targeted adjustments, such as through the user of layer groups.

However, Photoshop is also considerably more complicated and not as user-friendly as Lightroom Classic or Camera Raw. In other words, there can be a bit of a steep learning curve when it comes to leveraging the more advanced capabilities of Photoshop.

To be sure, if you’re not particularly comfortable on the computer and you’re perfectly happy with the results you’re getting for targeted adjustments in Lightroom Classic (or Camera Raw), you could certainly get by without learning to make use of Photoshop. However, if you work through the basics of targeted adjustments in Photoshop and gradually work your way up to more advanced techniques, I think you’ll find you’re able to go beyond the limitations of applying targeted adjustments in Lightroom Classic without too much difficulty.

For example, I covered selections and targeted adjustments over the course of six lessons in my “Photoshop Ultimate Live Learning” series, which is still ongoing. You can learn about this series on the GreyLearning website here:

https://www.greylearning.com/courses/photoshop-ultimate-live-learning

Today’s Question: When it comes to applying targeted adjustments in Photoshop, do you recommend using Camera Raw or Photoshop?

Tim’s Quick Answer: For targeted adjustments I would choose Camera Raw if you prefer a more streamlined workflow that is a little simpler, and choose Photoshop if you want to be able to exercise maximum control over the specific shape of your masks.

More Detail: Both Camera Raw and Photoshop provide features that enable you to define a specific area of the image and then apply adjustments that only affect that area. While the core concepts are the same, the user experience and capabilities are somewhat different.

Camera Raw provides a simpler set of tools for defining areas of an image. These include totally automatic options for creating selections of the sky, the key subject, and the background. There are also semi-automatic options for creating selections of objects or people, along with more manual controls such as for gradients and painting to define areas.

Photoshop includes similar selection tools, along with additional options that provide more granular control over the process of defining the area of the image you want to adjust. However, the more powerful capabilities of Photoshop come with an additional degree of complexity.

Put simply, Camera Raw is easier to use when it comes to applying targeted adjustments. If you’re able to get a good result using Camera Raw, whether it is for initial raw processing or using Camera Raw as a filter later in your workflow, it is probably better to take advantage of the easier workflow with Camera Raw. However, if you’re not satisfied with the results you’re getting with Camera Raw, you can absolutely get a better result with Photoshop. Doing so, however, might involve a bit more knowledge of the specific features involved and effort to refine a selection or mask to perfection to get the results you’re after.

Today’s Question: Virtual copies in Lightroom Classic are so useful, and I believe that they don’t take a lot of memory. Should Lightroom ever disappear, would my virtual copies be gone too?

Tim’s Quick Answer: Yes, if Lightroom Classic disappeared you would no longer have access to your virtual copies. However, you could preserve those virtual copies by creating copies of images.

More Detail: A virtual copy in Lightroom Classic represents a second set of metadata for the same source image. For example, you might have processed the original raw capture in color, then create a virtual copy that you convert to black and white.

If you lost access to Lightroom Classic, you would lose your virtual copies in the process. However, assuming you have at least a little bit of warning, there are some relatively options for making sure you don’t lose the adjustments and other metadata for your virtual copies.

First, let’s assume for the sake of argument that Adobe were to discontinue Lightroom Classic, even though there are absolutely no credible rumors that this might happen. You could simply export virtual copies using the “Original” option for the Image Format popup in the File Settings dialog. This would create a copy of the (presumably) raw capture plus the sidecar files that contain the metadata and Develop adjustments.

The scenario above assumes that if Lightroom Classic were no longer available, that Camera Raw or the non-Classic version of Lightroom were still available. If so, you could access your exported copies based on the virtual copies from Lightroom Classic using either of those applications, and metadata and Develop adjustments from Lightroom Classic would be available.

If you’re concerned about losing access to any Adobe applications, that would mean that your Develop adjustments wouldn’t be accessible, since those are proprietary to Adobe software. But to address that concern you could export copies of your images in a non-raw format. That could include, for example, exporting as TIFF or DNG files from Lightroom Classic. In this latter and more extreme scenario, you would want to export all (or at least many of) your raw captures to preserve the adjustments you had applied. In this case, however, the adjustments would be “baked into” the new derivative files you had created, whereas in the previous example you could still modify your original adjustments using Camera Raw or the non-Classic version of Lightroom.

But again, I don’t expect that we need to worry about Adobe photography applications being discontinued anytime soon, and even if one or more were to be discontinued, I’m sure we’d have enough warning to do manage the necessary process of preserving the adjustments applied to photos in Lightroom Classic or other applications.

Today’s Question: What type of problems will I run into if I uninstall and then re-install Lightroom Classic? I will back up my catalog prior to the uninstall step.

Tim’s Quick Answer: If you choose the “Keep” option for preferences during the uninstall step, you won’t lose anything with this process. In particular, uninstalling and reinstalling Lightroom Classic won’t have any impact on your catalogs or photos.

More Detail: When you uninstall Lightroom Classic using the Creative Cloud application (which is the recommended approach) you’ll be asked if you want to keep or remove the preferences for Lightroom Classic. As long as you choose the “Keep” option you won’t cause any issues with Lightroom Classic.

If you’re having issues where you suspect that preferences files are corrupted, which is the reason you want to uninstall and reinstall, you can choose the “Remove” option instead of “Keep”. That means you’ll lose the settings for Preferences and Catalog Settings, causing those to revert to the default settings when you reinstall Lightroom Classic.

While losing your settings for Preferences and Catalog Settings can be a bit of an inconvenience, that just means you need to go through those two dialogs and update the settings based on your own preferences.

But again, this process won’t affect your catalog files or your photo storage, so the only potential issue would be having Preferences and Catalog Settings revert to their default settings.

Today’s Question: Is it better to rename photos upon import into Lightroom Classic, or after the photos are already imported?

Tim’s Quick Answer: The best answer here depends on your priorities. Renaming on import ensures consistent filenames from early in your workflow. Renaming later enables you to avoid gaps in filename numbering if you have deleted outtake photos after import.

More Detail: If you’ll be sharing photos with others, such as clients or print providers, then you may want to rename your photos during the process of importing them to your Lightroom Classic catalog. This ensures consistency in that the only time there had been different filenames was on the media card from your camera. If this is a priority, I recommend renaming upon import.

If you will be deleting outtake photos, you may want to rename later in your workflow. If you had renamed during import and then deleted outtakes, you will have gaps in the filename sequence, assuming you used a sequence number as part of the file renaming template.

Of course, if neither of the issues above apply to you, then the timing of renaming your photos is less important. In fact, if neither issue applies, you might simply choose not to rename the photos at all, unless the not-so-meaningful filenames created by most cameras bother you enough that you prefer to rename all photos anyway.

Not to further confuse the issue, but it is also worth noting that when you initially rename photos in Lightroom Classic, whether on import or later, the original filename is preserved in metadata. You can find that filename in the Original Filename field, which for example can be found by selecting “EXIF and IPTC” from the popup to the left of the Metadata heading on the right panel in the Library module.

Today’s Question: I’ve enjoyed your answers over the past couple days about what I think some general misconceptions about photography, and wonder if you could help clarify another one that has confused me. Is it true that long lenses compress a scene?

Tim’s Quick Answer: No, long lenses do not compress a scene. The distance of the camera to the subjects is what alters the compression of the scene. The longer focal length is simply cropping that view.

More Detail: It has long been said in photography that “long lenses compress a scene”, meaning they make distant subjects appear closer to near subjects than they would if a shorter focal length lens had been used. This isn’t how this issue of compression works at all.

Rather, it is the position of the camera (and by extension the photographer) from the subjects in the frame that affects perspective related to the compression of a scene. The focal length of the lens determines the field of view, or cropping of the scene, not the compression of that scene.

For example, let’s assume you want to photograph a person with a barn in the background. If you are very close to the person, the barn will appear relatively small. If you back away from the person, the barn in the distance only appears to get a little bit smaller, while the person you are no longer very close to appears to get smaller to a larger degree. You can think of this as being a situation where the farther you back away from the foreground subject, the closer the foreground and background subjects get to each other in size.

Of course, if you’re going to back away from the subject to visually compress the scene, you’re likely going to want to use a longer focal length lens to crop the scene so the foreground subject is still framed at about the same size. This might lead you to assume that the long lens is compressing the scene, but it isn’t. Moving away from the foreground subject compressed the scene, and the longer lens cropped the field of view.

You can watch me demonstrate this issue, and see me looking quite a bit younger, in a video from ten years ago where I provide a visual example of how this perspective compression actually works. The video is on my “Tim Grey TV” channel on YouTube here:

https://youtu.be/wFqukptuwmg