Color Space Compromise

Facebooktwitterlinkedin

Today’s Question: It seems that the standard color space is Adobe RGB. But if the vast majority of my photos are printed by a lab that will only accept images in the sRGB color space, it seems to me that I should synchronize the color spaces on my camera, monitor, and software to sRGB. But if I do, how much do I lose when viewing images on a monitor or projecting them to a plasma or LCD TV?

Tim’s Quick Answer: If most of your printed output is generated with a workflow that revolves around sRGB, it is perfectly reasonable to standardize your overall workflow on the sRGB color space, with very little risk of losing significant color or detail in your photos.

More Detail: The sRGB color space is often referred to as being a “small” color space, when in fact it is simply smaller than the other commonly used color spaces of Adobe RGB and ProPhoto RGB. The sRGB color space is still perfectly adequate for printing photos and is especially well-suited to images being displayed electronically, such as on a monitor or digital projector.

There’s no need to set your camera to the sRGB color space if you are shooting in raw (as I highly recommend doing). You can, however, set the in-camera color space to sRGB to get a bit of a more accurate preview of the image based on the sRGB color space.

In Lightroom Classic you don’t have control over the color space being used within Lightroom Classic, as a variation on ProPhoto RGB is always used in the background. When sending images to Photoshop you could certainly use the sRGB color space.

My personal preference in this type of workflow would be to use the ProPhoto RGB color space in Photoshop. Then use sRGB whenever you are exporting photos to be printed by the printer, or for digital sharing.

There’s no inherent benefit to using the sRGB color space through your full workflow, as color management in your workflow will ensure you are getting an accurate preview of the colors in your images. So, my recommendation in general is to use a larger color space for editing, and then the appropriate color space when preparing photos for specific output. That said, there’s certainly not any significant risk in converting photos to the sRGB color space when they will ultimately be printed or otherwise shared using that color space.

Impact of Converting to DNG

Facebooktwitterlinkedin

Today’s Question: Years ago, I thought it would be easy to give up the XMP sidecar [files associated with my proprietary raw captures] and started converting my raw files to DNG as part of my workflow. Am I losing something by doing this?

Tim’s Quick Answer: When converting to DNG you will retain your source capture data and the metadata you’ve added. You may, however, be giving up some proprietary metadata from your camera, and creating a minor issue with your backup efficiency.

More Detail: While you won’t lose any actual image data when converting a proprietary raw capture to the Adobe DNG (Digital Negative) file format, you may lose some proprietary metadata from the original capture. This would relate to special features of your camera that result in custom metadata being added, and that require software from your camera manufacturer to make use of.

For example, one of my cameras has a built-in dust removal feature. When I enable this option, the camera records data about dust on the sensor at the time of capture and embeds that information in the private metadata for the photo. Other software such as Photoshop and Lightroom are not able to make use of this information. Instead, you would need to use the software from the camera manufacturer to make use of that proprietary metadata, such as in this case to automatically remove dust spots from the image.

If you convert that proprietary raw capture to the Adobe DNG file format, you will likely lose any proprietary metadata. I say “likely” because there is an option to embed the original raw capture in the DNG file, but to me that would eliminate much of the benefit of converting to DNG, since the file size would be about double what it otherwise would be.

With metadata stored in the DNG file rather than an XMP “sidecar” file associated with a proprietary raw capture, your backup workflow may be affected as well. When you apply metadata updates, your backup software may need to copy the entire relatively large file for each DNG file you updated, rather than only needing to back up a small XMP file for each proprietary raw capture that you updated, since in the latter context the proprietary raw capture file would not have been updated.

So, overall, I would say that I still prefer to retain the original proprietary raw captures from my camera rather than converting to the Adobe DNG file format. That said, if you prefer to convert you aren’t risking the loss of too much information that would be of concern.

Impact of Converting to DNG

Facebooktwitterlinkedin

Today’s Question: Years ago, I thought it would be easy to give up the XMP sidecar [files associated with my proprietary raw captures] and started converting my raw files to DNG as part of my workflow. Am I losing something by doing this?

Tim’s Quick Answer: When converting to DNG you will retain your source capture data and the metadata you’ve added. You may, however, be giving up some proprietary metadata from your camera, and creating a minor issue with your backup efficiency.

More Detail: While you won’t lose any actual image data when converting a proprietary raw capture to the Adobe DNG (Digital Negative) file format, you may lose some proprietary metadata from the original capture. This would relate to special features of your camera that result in custom metadata being added, and that require software from your camera manufacturer to make use of.

For example, one of my cameras has a built-in dust removal feature. When I enable this option, the camera records data about dust on the sensor at the time of capture and embeds that information in the private metadata for the photo. Other software such as Photoshop and Lightroom are not able to make use of this information. Instead, you would need to use the software from the camera manufacturer to make use of that proprietary metadata, such as in this case to automatically remove dust spots from the image.

If you convert that proprietary raw capture to the Adobe DNG file format, you will likely lose any proprietary metadata. I say “likely” because there is an option to embed the original raw capture in the DNG file, but to me that would eliminate much of the benefit of converting to DNG, since the file size would be about double what it otherwise would be.

With metadata stored in the DNG file rather than an XMP “sidecar” file associated with a proprietary raw capture, your backup workflow may be affected as well. When you apply metadata updates, your backup software may need to copy the entire relatively large file for each DNG file you updated, rather than only needing to back up a small XMP file for each proprietary raw capture that you updated, since in the latter context the proprietary raw capture file would not have been updated.

So, overall, I would say that I still prefer to retain the original proprietary raw captures from my camera rather than converting to the Adobe DNG file format. That said, if you prefer to convert you aren’t risking the loss of too much information that would be of concern.

Keywording Multiple Photos

Facebooktwitterlinkedin

Today’s Question: Is it possible to sync keywords across an entire folder of images, all at once, in Lightroom Classic? It seems when I try it only applies to one photo even though all are selected.

Tim’s Quick Answer: You can indeed assign keywords to multiple selected photos all at once in Lightroom Classic by making sure you are in the grid view (not the loupe view).

More Detail: The issue you’re running into is what I refer to as the “Loupe View Snafu”. When you are in the loupe view in Lightroom Classic by default you are only working with a single image, even with multiple images selected. In other words, if you select many images but are in the loupe view, when you add a keyword only the image shown in the loupe view display will actually have the keyword added. The other selected photos will not be updated.

If you have multiple photos selected while in the grid view display, metadata updates such as keywords will apply to all of the selected photos. Therefore, I recommend making sure you are in the grid view when you select multiple photos and want to apply the same metadata updates to all of the selected photos.

You can also synchronize metadata across multiple images using the Sync Metadata button at the bottom of the right panel in the Library module. But in general I find it easiest to simply make sure you are in the grid view display with multiple photos selected when you want to update metadata for those selected photos.

Difficulty Selecting Skin Tones

Facebooktwitterlinkedin

Today’s Question: I’ve tried using the “Skin Tones” option for the Color Range selection in Photoshop, and most of the time I don’t get very good results. Am I doing something wrong, or is there some trick to using this feature?

Tim’s Quick Answer: In general, I don’t find that the “Skin Tones” option for the Color Range command in Photoshop provides very good results, though turning on the “Detect Faces” feature and fine-tuning the Fuzziness value can help improve the selection.

More Detail: There are quite a few selection tools in Photoshop that provide excellent results with a streamlined workflow. In my experience, however, the option to select skin tones in photos in a relatively automated way does not work very well.

I find that many photographers are surprised that it is even reasonable to expect Photoshop to be able to automatically identify skin tones in a photo. However, this is often feasible because in many cases skin tones will fall into a predictable range of color values.

However, I am rarely able to get a good initial selection using the “Skin Tones” option for the Color Range command. Quite often the skin tones are only partially selected, and other areas of the image with similar ranges of color values also get included in the selection.

The first step within the Color Range dialog (found on the menu at Select > Color Range) is to choose the “Skin Tones” option from the Select popup at the top of the dialog. This will provide an initial selection of skin tones based on an analysis of the image. I recommend turning on the “Detect Faces” checkbox, which in most cases will improve the selection for skin tones within the photo.

Fine-tuning the Fuzziness setting can also help. I typically find that the initial Color Range selection for skin tones does not include enough of the overall skin tone areas within the photo, and so increasing the value for Fuzziness will expand that selection. However, you can also reduce the value for Fuzziness if you need to restrict the range of color values that are being selected in order to reduce the selection size.

Keep in mind that the Skin Tones option for the Color Range selection command really is focused on selecting skin tones, not just faces or people. That said, I do find that this selection option provides very mixed results, and so I generally resort to the “Sampled Colors” option for the Color Range command, or to the use of other selection tools such as the Quick Selection tool.

Camera versus Light Meter

Facebooktwitterlinkedin

Today’s Question: The in-camera light meter tries to take everything middle gray so if you take a picture of a white wall in auto mode the wall will appear gray, not white. So you would have to overexpose by 2-3 stops to get the wall white as it should be. What happens when you meter with a external light meter such as Sekonic. The same?

Tim’s Quick Answer: A hand-held light meter provides the same basic function as the meter in your camera, though the specifics of how you deal with the information provided will vary depending on the type of meter.

More Detail: An exposure meter enables you to measure the light level illuminating a scene and determine appropriate camera settings that will ensure a good exposure for that scene. The general way these light meters are described is that they are trying to determine the average light level illuminating the scene and determine an exposure that will ensure that a middle gray card in the scene will appear as middle gray in the final exposure.

Of course, you can meter off something other than a middle gray card, which means your metered exposure won’t necessarily provide an optimal final exposure. For example, if you meter off snow on a bright sunny day, the meter will attempt to set an exposure where the snow will appear gray. You’ll generally need to compensate by increasing the exposure by about two stops to ensure the snow will appear white rather than gray.

There are some differences with accessory versus in-camera light meters in terms of the options available. In general, both will offer options for the size of the area being metered, such as spot metering versus evaluating a larger area of the scene. In addition, handheld meters (unlike in-camera meters) may offer the ability to measure incident light rather than reflected light.

In other words, with some handheld exposure meters you can position the meter in the area where the subject you’re photographing is located and therefore illuminated by the light, to measure the light actually reaching the subject. Other meters, including those in the camera, will measure light reflected by the scene rather than being emitted toward the scene.

The overall concept, however, is the same in terms of a light meter only measuring light based on the settings you’ve established and the method for that measurement. Regardless of the type of meter being used, you will generally need to consider how you may need to compensate for the meter reading you obtain. This is less true for an incident meter, since an incident meter is actually measuring how much light is reaching the subject as opposed to measuring how that light is reflected off the subject. But some degree you’ll need to compensate for the meter reading regardless of the particulars.

Most photographers will be able to get by perfectly well with their in-camera exposure meter, taking into account how you may need to compensate for the area of the scene you’re metering off of. In some cases, however, it can be helpful to use a handheld meter, and especially an incident meter, such as when photographing a subject that is illuminated by a series of strobes rather than natural light.

Loss of Raw Benefits

Facebooktwitterlinkedin

Today’s Question: I shoot raw and I export images as JPEGs in Lightroom Classic for general uses such as a screensaver, a website, a digital photo album, and printing smaller-sized prints. How much of the benefits of shooting raw am I losing in the raw to JPEG conversion and final output?

Tim’s Quick Answer: In this context you aren’t actually losing benefits of raw capture, since you would have optimized the photo based on the raw capture and the JPEG format was (mostly) well-suited to the type of sharing.

More Detail: Raw capture provides a number of benefits over JPEG capture, including higher bit depth for greater dynamic range, the lack of JPEG compression artifacts, and more. With a photo that has been properly exposed the benefits of raw capture aren’t exactly huge, but there are benefits.

In particular, raw capture provides greater tonal range latitude and dynamic range. That translates to greater flexibility with adjustments in post-capture processing. For example, because of the higher bit depth of a raw capture you can apply stronger tonal adjustments without the risk of as much loss of detail, such as a loss of smooth gradations that can occur when applying strong adjustments to a photo at a lower bit depth.

Naturally, a JPEG capture will contain less overall information than a raw capture, and will often exhibit at least minor evidence of the visible grid pattern that results from JPEG compression. In the case of sharing online you will typically be saving the final image as a JPEG regardless. That means you would still be sharing an image that doesn’t contain as much information as the raw capture, but you would have still gained the potential benefits of the raw capture in the first place.

In other words, even if you’re going to be sharing a photo as a JPEG for online sharing or other purposes, I still recommend using raw capture in the first place. Note, however, that when printing photos I recommend using a file format without compression that will potentially degrade the quality of the image, such as is the case with JPEG capture. So, for printing I would export the photo as a TIFF file, but for other digital sharing I would export as a JPEG, but still use raw capture for the original photos.

Changes to a Virtual Copy

Facebooktwitterlinkedin

Today’s Question: If I create a virtual copy in Lightroom Classic and then edit the photo, do the changes get reflected in the original photo?

Tim’s Quick Answer: No, the changes you make to a virtual copy are not reflected in the original photo from which the virtual copy was created.

More Detail: When you create a virtual copy in Lightroom Classic, that virtual copy inherits the metadata from the original photo. So, for example, the information about camera settings would be duplicated from the original in the virtual copy, as would other metadata from the original capture. Any updates you had made to the original image before creating the virtual copy, such as keywords and star ratings, would also be inherited by the virtual copy.

However, once a virtual copy is created, changes made to metadata from that point forward are not synchronized automatically between the virtual copy and the original. So, for example, if you update metadata for a virtual copy, those changes are not reflected in the original photo. And if you update metadata for the original photo, those changes will not be reflected in the virtual copy that had been created previously.

The idea is that a virtual copy represents a second interpretation of the original photo, including both metadata updates and adjustments. So a virtual copy inherits the settings from the original when it is created, but from that point forward the virtual copy and the original behave as though they were two different photos, just based on the same original raw capture.

Note that you can synchronize metadata across multiple images, including virtual copies. So it is possible to make updates to metadata or adjustments that apply equally to both a virtual copy and the original photo the virtual copy is based on.

Keyword List Synchronization

Facebooktwitterlinkedin

Today’s Question: When I use a traveling catalog [in Lightroom Classic], I find the keyword structure always ends up being different than my desktop catalog. How do you “synch” the keywords between catalogs, preferably BEFORE the trip?

Tim’s Quick Answer: You can synchronize keywords from your primary catalog to a traveling catalog by exporting keywords from your primary catalog and importing them to your traveling catalog. This will ensure that all keywords on the Keyword List in your primary catalog will be readily available to you during your travels.

More Detail: The Keyword List on the right panel in the Library module in Lightroom Classic includes all keywords that have been added to all images in the current catalog, or that were added to the catalog regardless of whether they have been assigned to any images.

When you create a new empty catalog, such as to use on a laptop when traveling for photography, there will initially not be any keywords on the Keyword List. As a result, you can’t simply turn on the checkbox for a given keyword on the Keyword List when you want to add keywords to photos you import to your traveling catalog.

Fortunately, it is possible to effectively synchronize your list of keywords from the primary catalog to a catalog you’ll use while traveling.

To get started, open your primary catalog. From the menu choose Metadata > Export Keywords. In the dialog that appears you can choose where to save the exported keywords list and give that list a name. I recommend saving the list on a storage device you’ll be able to easily connect to your laptop computer, for example. You could also simply save on the desktop and then email the list to yourself. You can use a meaningful name for the keyword list, just to make sure you know where that list came from.

Next, you need to get the exported keyword list file to your laptop. You can use an external hard drive or other storage device, of course, or simply email the file to yourself since it won’t be a very large file.

With the exported keyword list on your laptop, you can then open (or create) your traveling catalog in Lightroom Classic. Then go to the menu and choose Metadata > Import Keywords. Navigate to the location where the exported keywords list is located and import that list.

At this point the Keyword List on the right panel in the Library module will include all of the keywords from your primary catalog. You can therefore assign keywords from this list to your photos while traveling. When you then merge the photos from your traveling catalog to the primary catalog back at home the keywords assigned while traveling will be included as part of that process.

Why Not Use a ColorChecker?

Facebooktwitterlinkedin

Today’s Question: You said you prefer to use adjustments in Lightroom Classic rather than something like the ColorChecker Passport. Can you expand on why that is the case? It seems that the ColorChecker would help ensure more accurate colors in photos.

Tim’s Quick Answer: A product such as the ColorChecker Passport (https://timgrey.me/colorchecker) from X-Rite Photo can indeed help ensure more accurate color in your original captures. However, in many cases this will not actually provide optimal color, since in most cases we don’t want our photos to appear to have been illuminated by pure white light.

More Detail: On the surface it seems like the notion of capturing “accurate” color in your photos is rather straightforward. In fact, however, it can be a little tricky to capture truly accurate color, or to define exactly what we mean by accurate color in this context.

Products such as the ColorChecker Passport from X-Rite are primarily aimed at helping you achieve truly accurate colors in your photos. The problem is that accurate color in this context is generally defined as having the subjects of your photos appear as though they were captured under a perfectly white light source.

In most cases I think it is fair to say that photographers aren’t truly looking for “accurate” color, but rather “pleasing” color that reflects how a scene actually appeared.

For example, if you are photographing during “golden hour” just before sunset, you most likely want to retain the color influence of the golden light illuminating the scene. A product such as a ColorChecker Passport will attempt to remove the golden color of the light in order to ensure more “accurate” color.

There are, of course, situations where you absolutely want to ensure the colors in your photos are an accurate reflection of the subject you were photographing, such as with product photography. In many cases, however, that is not your true goal.

If you you do indeed want the colors of objects in your photos to match the subject as though there was not any color case caused by the lighting illuminating a scene, then the ColorChecker Passport can be a perfect solution. You can learn more here:

https://timgrey.me/colorchecker

Note that I discussed some of the ways you can achieve more accurate colors right at the time of capture in the article “Capturing Accurate Color” in the June 2021 issue of my Pixology magazine. You can learn more about the magazine on the GreyLearning website here:

https://www.greylearning.com/courses/pixology-magazine