Category: Ask Tim Grey

Today’s Question: I now have a bunch of downloaded new photos, each with a red label from using my ‘preset import’ for adding a red label. Then I go through them all my downloaded images and assign a 1-star rating to those with potential. When that’s done, does that mean that I can delete/remove all the remaining red label images?

Tim’s Quick Answer: In concept, yes, once you have identified your best photos from a given photo shoot, you can delete the outtakes. Of course, you’ll want to consider whether you actually want to delete your outtakes, versus simply using a filter to hide those outtakes from view when you want to review only your favorite photos.

More Detail: During one of my recent presentations as part of the GreyLearning Webinar Series, I presented my workflow for making sure I review every photo when identifying my favorite images from a given trip or photo shoot. You can view a recording of the full presentation on my “Tim Grey TV” channel on YouTube here ( https://youtu.be/2I73Eq2r7E8 ):

One of the techniques I use to make sure I review every photo is to add a color label to all photos upon import, marking the images as needing to be reviewed. After reviewing a batch of photos and assigning star ratings to my favorites, I can remove the red color label from those photos, so I know all of the images were reviewed.

At that point, any images that have been reviewed but don’t have a star rating assigned to them can be assumed to be outtakes. At that point, assuming you’re confident in your review process, you could delete all photos that have already been reviewed (those that don’t have a red color label in my workflow) and that don’t have a star rating assigned to them.

Of course, you’ll also want to consider whether you want to delete the photos, or keep them in your catalog and instead use filters to view only images with star ratings assigned to them when you want to work with only your favorite photos from a trip or photo shoot.

Today’s Question: After photographing with my iPhone I would like to post-process the image in Photoshop. The only way I know to do this is to export the image from Apple’s Photos application which gives me two options: “Unmodified Original” or simply as JPEG, TIFF, or PNG. Which do you recommend if extensive post-processing is intended? The unmodified file was JPG at 1.8 MB and the TIFF file was 34MB, but all other characteristics were the same, such as pixel dimension, and color mode.

Tim’s Quick Answer: In this type of scenario I suggest exporting as a TIFF image, since you will likely want to save the final result from Photoshop with various layers intact. Also note that choosing a file format rather than “Unmodified Original” will also ensure that adjustments you’ve applied in Photos will be included as part of the exported image.

More Detail: In this scenario the original capture was a JPEG image, rather than the newer HEIC format or an Adobe DNG file (such as for images captured using the Lightroom CC mobile app). That means you are starting out with 8-bit per channel data, and pixel data that has been compressed to reduce file size. In other words, you aren’t starting out with an image that was optimized for image quality.

In concept that means you could continue working with a JPEG image, since that is what you started with. However, applying significant adjustments and possibly re-opening the image several times to make revisions can have a further negative impact on image quality.

If you are going to process a JPEG capture there isn’t a significant benefit to converting to the 16-bit per channel mode, because you have already started with 8-bit per channel data. However, you will likely want to take advantage of adjustment layers and perhaps additional image layers in Photoshop, which would require a TIFF or PSD file format.

In addition, converting to something other than a JPEG image will ensure you are applying additional image compression when the image is modified and re-saved. That additional compression can further degrade overall image quality.

So, since you would likely want to save the final result as a layered image in Photoshop, to me it makes sense to convert to a TIFF file right from the point of exporting the image from the Photos app. Note, however, that you can choose to have that TIFF image in the 8-bit per channel bit depth, which will provide a TIFF image that is half the size it would be in the 16-bit per channel mode.

Today’s Question: I am getting a bit challenged by file sizes from my new camera. My raw files are typically about 52MB. If I do nothing other than open one in Photoshop and save it as a PSD file the size jumps to over 250MB, 5 times the raw file size. When I work with the image it gets to over 1GB. The file 16-bit, ProPhoto RGB, 300 ppi. Do I just have to suck it up and get a large, fast SSD drive?

Tim’s Quick Answer: My personal recommendation would be to accept the larger file sizes for your master images after processing. There are, however, some things to consider if you want to reduce overall file storage requirements.

More Detail: The relatively large size of your raw captures reflects primarily the resolution of the image sensor in your camera. As a very general rule the raw file size in megabytes will approximately match the number of megapixels on your camera’s image sensor. There are, however, a number of variables that can impact this file size, such as compression applied as part of the raw capture format.

The file size of the processed image reflects the fact that the raw capture has been processed to contain all available pixel data. Generally speaking the base-level processed image without compression will be three times the size of the original raw capture. That is because for most raw capture formats each pixel only stores one value (red, green, or blue) rather than the full RGB data for the processed image.

If you are opening the raw capture via Camera Raw as a Smart Object, that will also increase the file size, because the original raw capture is then embedded as part of the master image.

If you use the Maximize Compatibility option when saving a Photoshop PSD (or PSD) file, that will double the base file size for the image. For example, a PSD file saved without layers that is 120MB in size would become 240MB in size if you use the Maximize Compatibility option. Note, however, that Maximize Compatibility is required for PSD images you want to import into Lightroom.

Within Photoshop each additional layer you add will also increase the file size. Adjustment layers have very little impact on file size, but duplicating an image layer will have a big impact. It is therefore a good idea to avoid duplicating a layer when you don’t need to. For example, for image cleanup you can generally use an empty image layer for the cleanup work, rather than making a copy of the Background image layer.

Another option that impacts file size is the bit depth. The base file size will be doubled when you choose a 16-bit per channel bit depth rather than 8-bit per channel. However, especially if you need to apply relatively strong adjustments to the image after the initial raw processing, using an 8-bit per channel bit depth can lead to a loss of smooth gradations of tone and color in the image.

Of course, if you’re comfortable with the idea you could flatten the final version of your image and then convert it to the 8-bit per channel bit depth. Saving that final version and discarding the larger master image that includes layers would result in less storage space consumed. But it also means you couldn’t return to your layered master image if you decided to make changes to the image at a later date.

If you’re using a high-resolution digital camera, you’re going to end up with large files. And if you use a non-destructive layer-based workflow in Photoshop, your master image files are going to be quite large. Some of the steps noted above may help reduce the overall size of files you’re creating, but at the end of the day you’re probably going to just need to accept that you are going to consume a lot of hard drive space with your images.

Today’s Question: Do you recommend auto-stacking photos by capture time in Lightroom Classic CC?

Tim’s Quick Answer: I don’t find the auto-stacking feature in Lightroom to be especially useful, in part because it doesn’t provide a preview of how the images are actually going to be stacked. To me this feature is mostly helpful when you have already segmented photos into those you want to stack, rather than trying to stack an entire set of photos from one trip, for example.

More Detail: The auto-stacking feature in Lightroom enables you to group images together into stacks based on capture time. In other words, groups of photos that were captured in a given amount of time can be stacked together, and those stacks can be collapsed to help streamline the process of browsing your photos.

For example, stacking can certainly be appealing for bracketed exposures. However, getting those bracketed exposures properly stacked can be a bit of a challenge.

If you apply auto-stacking to an entire folder of images captured during the course of several days, for example, it can be difficult to determine what amount of time between stacks should be selected. The only feedback you get about the setting is how many stacks will be created and how many images will not be included in a stack.

Even filtering the images first can be a little challenging. For example, I filtered a group of photos so I was only working with a batch of 95 images, most of which were part of bracketed exposure sequences for HDR (high dynamic range) images. At a time setting of 40 seconds for the auto-bracketing there would be 19 stacks with two images unstacked.

However, reducing the time value all the way down to zero seconds still resulted in 19 stacks of photos, but with 37 images unstacked. Adjusting the time value in between this range left me with the same 19 stacks, but a varying number of photos that would be unstacked.

Without an effective preview, in other words, finding the right setting for auto-stacking can be challenging. Even if you have filtered images to help reduce those being auto-stacked to only those that you really want to stack, it can be difficult to find the right setting to use.

Because of these issues, I tend to only use manual stacking for my bracketed exposures, or I will have the images stacked as part of the process of creating HDR or panoramic images. Instead of relying on stacks, I use filters based on star ratings so that I am only viewing my favorite photos at any given time. This provides a much more manageable number of photos to be working with, at which point creating stacks manually as needed is not cumbersome.

Today’s Question: Each evening when I am traveling I will import my photos from the day into Lightroom [Classic CC]. If I have time, I will then start working on those photos adding keywords, applying basic adjustments and deleting those I do not want. The next time I import from the same card the photos I previously deleted will appear again. How can I prevent this from happening in the future?

Tim’s Quick Answer: In this type of situation I would recommend that instead of deleting photos during your travels, that you mark them with a Reject flag in Lightroom Classic CC. Then, when the trip is over and you have imported and reviewed all photos, you can delete all of the photos you marked with a Reject flag.

More Detail: When importing photos into Lightroom Classic CC you have the option to not import photos that are suspected duplicates. However, duplicates are identified based on the photos that are currently in your Lightroom catalog. If you had deleted photos from Lightroom but then attempt to re-import those photos from your media card, the photos will not be interpreted as being duplicates. In other words, the photos you had previously deleted will be re-imported into your catalog.

Of course, you could format the media card in your camera after each import, making sure you have an additional backup copy of all photos before doing so. But many photographers understandably prefer to keep all photos on the media card as an additional backup while traveling. In this case a workflow that makes use of the Reject flag can provide a good solution.

With this approach, instead of deleting outtakes during your review while traveling, you would assign a Reject flag to any photo you would otherwise delete. You can apply a Reject flag to the currently selected image by pressing “X” on the keyboard. If you have selected multiple photos and are in the Grid view (rather than the Loupe view, for example) you can press “X” to assign a Reject flag to multiple photos at once.

When you import additional photos with the “Don’t Import Suspected Duplicates” checkbox turned on in the Import dialog, photos still on the memory card that have already been imported will not be imported again. That is because even photos you would have otherwise deleted will still be in the catalog, marked with a Reject flag.

When you’re back home and have finished your review of all photos from the trip, you can navigate to the folder in question within Lightroom so you can delete the photos marked with a Reject flag. To remove the photos, go to the menu and choose Photo > Delete Rejected Photos. This will bring up a dialog asking if you want to remove the photos or delete them from the disk. I recommend deleting the files altogether, which means clicking the “Delete from Disk” button. This will delete all photos in the current folder that have a Reject flag assigned to them.

Note that you can also filter photos based on having a Pick flag (or no flag at all), so that you won’t see the photos you’ve applied a Reject flag to as you are reviewing photos during (or after) your travels.

Today’s Question: Why would someone want to apply adjustments during an import [into Lightroom Classic CC]? I must be missing something here because I don’t have a clue as to what adjustments that I would want to occur across the board during an import. Can you provide some examples of what adjustments you would typically use during an import?

Tim’s Quick Answer: I think the best way to think about applying adjustments during import into Lightroom Classic CC is that you’re actually just changing the default adjustment settings. For example, Lightroom does not apply profile-based lens corrections automatically, and so including this adjustment as a preset applied during import is a convenient way of establishing your preferred default adjustment settings.

More Detail: I often hear photographers talking (sometimes in heated tones) about how they don’t want to globally apply adjustments during import into Lightroom, and how they definitely don’t want to apply any automatic adjustments. My response is that these photographers should consider that Lightroom is already applying adjustments to your photos, by virtue of providing a different baseline interpretation of your raw captures than the way the camera interpreted the image.

As noted above, one of the adjustments I apply during import is the profile-based lens correction adjustment. This enables me to have the profile for the specific lens used to capture each photo used as the basis of an automatic adjustment. Note that this means the correct profile is used for each photo based on the lens used, and that no correction will be applied to photos captured with a lens for which there is no profile available.

I also tend to include an increase in the Smoothness value for color noise correction, since I find that doing so greatly improves the quality of noise reduction.

I like to apply the Auto adjustment (found in the Basic section of adjustments) as part of my import preset, in large part because I find it provide a better preview for my photos. I can then go back and refine the specific adjustment settings for those photos I am most happy with.

Some photographers may prefer to convert all images to black and white interpretations during import, or perhaps apply a basic vignette effect. A slight “S-curve” with the Tone Curve is preferred by many, and a small boost in the value of Clarity is also popular.

Admittedly, there aren’t all that many adjustments that I feel need to be applied during import in order to modify the default interpretation of photos in Lightroom. However, I do feel that there are some adjustments that are worth applying during import through the use of a preset created in the Develop module.

Today’s Question: Please let me know what the term “Thunderbolt” implies in relation to external hard drives.

Tim’s Quick Answer: Thunderbolt is a type of hardware interface that is used on some external hard drives and other devices. In concept a Thunderbolt data connection implies fast speed, but in reality the hard drive itself prevents the maximum theoretical speed to be achieved. In other words, you will typically get about the same transfer speed with Thunderbolt or USB C.

More Detail: Thunderbolt is a hardware interface originally created by Intel in conjunction with Apple, used to connect various hardware devices together, such as to provide a data connection between a computer and an external hard drive. Thunderbolt had been common on Apple computers, but has more recently been somewhat replaced by the latest version of the USB standard.

The latest hardware often makes use of a USB C connector, which is used for both USB and Thunderbolt connections. The latest version of USB provides a theoretical maximum speed of 1.25GB per second, while Thunderbolt 3 offers 5GB per second). However, top drives typically provide maximum throughput speeds of about 500MB per second. In other words, similar performance could be expected with a USB C or Thunderbolt connection because the interface provides higher speeds than the actual storage device can keep up with.

While the latest Thunderbolt interface makes use of a USB C connection, there are differences beyond the maximum potential speeds noted above. For this reason, not all devices will be compatible across all connections.

Also note that many of the external hard drives currently available that offer Thunderbolt are making use of an older version of Thunderbolt. Those drives offer performance closer to what USB is capable of today. But again, in either case the bottleneck for data transfer is generally the hard drive, not the data connection used to connect the drive to the computer.

Ultimately I recommend selecting hard drives with a data connection that suits the ports available on your computer. And I recommend selecting a computer based on your more general needs. I wouldn’t consider Thunderbolt to be a critical factor in selecting a computer or peripheral, considering the excellent performance that is also available with USB connections.

Today’s Question: Maybe this is a bit too much of “reading the tea leaves”, but it has been a topic I’ve been thinking of. Do you think the fact that you address more questions about Lightroom than about Photoshop is an indication that photographers are no longer using Photoshop as much as they used to?

Tim’s Quick Answer: Quite simply, yes. My sense is that photographers are not using Adobe Photoshop anywhere near as much as they used to. That certainly is true for me personally, in part because Lightroom Classic CC has improved so much over the years.

More Detail: Photoshop has certainly been a graphics powerhouse for a number of years. The original release of Photoshop 1.0 was almost 30 years ago (in 1990). In the world of software, that is a very long time indeed.

In the meantime, other software has been released, including more “modern” options such as Lightroom. As many readers know, I am currently using Lightroom Classic CC to manage my overall photography workflow.

Over the years, other software such as Lightroom has improved to provide rather sophisticated tools for optimizing photos. Especially since Lightroom offers image-management tools, it makes sense that photographers using Lightroom to manage their photos would also perform at least their initial optimization adjustments within Lightroom.

In the early days of Lightroom, many photographers would continue sending photos to Photoshop to apply their most significant adjustments. Over time, as Lightroom expanded the range of optimization tools, Photoshop became a less important part of their workflow.

Based on the questions and feedback I get from readers, and the interest I see at various events I speak at, it most certainly appears at least anecdotally that many photographers are using Photoshop much less than they used to.

At this point I am able to apply the vast majority of my adjustments to the vast majority of my photos using only Lightroom Classic CC. It is very rare for me to need to send a photo to Photoshop, and when I do it is generally to take advantage of the superior image-cleanup tools in Photoshop. I expect that if Adobe were to add Content-Aware cleanup technology to Lightroom Classic CC, I would almost never need Photoshop for optimizing my photos.

Today’s Question: When I open Lightroom (or other software such as Word) on my Macintosh, clicking on the green circle in the upper-left corner causes it to open full-screen, using all of the display area. When I open Photoshop and click the green circle it does not completely open to full screen, instead leaving a bit of desktop real estate at the bottom of the screen. Can Photoshop be put in full-screen mode like the other applications?

Tim’s Quick Answer: Photoshop doesn’t support the full-screen mode that is part of the Macintosh operating system. However, Photoshop does include its own variation on a full-screen display.

More Detail: In terms of the full-screen mode in the Macintosh operating system, software developers must add support to their applications if they want to make use of this feature. Adobe has thus far not updated Photoshop to support this Macintosh feature for full screen mode. So, when you click the green button to maximize the window in Photoshop, instead of going full screen the application will simply fill the available space without covering up the menu bar or the dock.

One option to help make the most of the available screen real estate for Photoshop on the Macintosh platform is to have the dock automatically hide and reveal. From the Apple menu (Apple logo) at the far left of the menu bar, choose System Preferences. In the System Preferences dialog choose Dock. Then turn on the “Automatically hide and show the Dock” checkbox. The dock will then disappear from view.

To bring back the dock, simply drag your mouse to the edge of the screen where the dock is docked (the bottom of the screen is the default location). When you maximize Photoshop, for example, it will then take up the space that was previously occupied by the dock.

In addition, Photoshop and Lightroom offer some full screen view modes of their own.

In Photoshop the full screen mode behaves a little bit differently than that available within the Macintosh operating system or Lightroom. Within Photoshop you’ll find the three options on the View > Screen Mode submenu. When you switch to one of the Full Screen options for Photoshop (with or without a menu bar), the title bar for the Photoshop window will disappear. In addition, however, the canvas area (where the image is) will no longer be what is essentially a separate window pane.

In other words, the image will be able to float freely behind the panels. Some users prefer this approach, and others (like me) find it a bit distracting. Note that you can hide the panels in Photoshop by pressing the Tab key on the keyboard. You can also present only the image itself in a full-screen preview by pressing Shift+F on the keyboard. If you prefer to work in the standard window display mode you can choose View > Screen Mode > Standard Screen Mode from the menu.

In Lightroom you can press Shift+F to cycle through three view modes. The first is the window mode that is the default view. The second is full screen with a menu bar at the top of the Lightroom interface. The third is to have Lightroom full screen without the menu bar. This last mode is the one I prefer. Even in full-screen mode in Lightroom you can access the menu at any time by simply sliding your mouse up to the very top of the display.

Today’s Question: I was at a camera club meeting last week and the presenter said we should always use back-button focus because it works differently than half-depressing the shutter release and results in sharper focus. I’ve always seen BBF as simply a convenience not something different technically that gives better results. Am I missing something?

Tim’s Quick Answer: With all cameras I am familiar with, the back-button focus option makes use of the exact same autofocus settings as focusing with the shutter release button, so either will result in the same sharpness for your photos. You decision of which approach to use should be based purely on which method best meets your photographic needs.

More Detail: Back-button focus refers to an option available on many cameras, where you can use a button on the back of the camera to activate autofocus. In other words, this enables you to separate the functions of focusing and capturing the photo. As a general rule, I recommend using back-button focus because it enables you recompose to take a picture without altering the autofocus setting.

If you use back-button focus (and have disabled focus for the shutter release button), I then recommend setting your camera to continuous autofocus. Then, to focus continually you press and hold the button for back-button focus. If you want the equivalent of “one shot” autofocus, you can press the button for back-button autofocus until focus is established, and then release the button to effectively lock the focus setting.

When you release the button for back-button focus with the process outlined above, pressing the shutter release button to check exposure or capture a photo will not cause the focus setting to change.

Of course, you may prefer having autofocus enabled for the shutter release button, and if that works for your needs it is perfectly fine. There is no need to choose one over the other to ensure better autofocus quality, as both will employ the same camera settings and features for establishing autofocus.