Ask Tim Grey

Today’s Question: When I create a virtual copy of one of my photos in Lightroom Classic, the count for “All Photographs” increases. So that total includes both original captures and virtual copies. Is there a way to determine how many original photos are in my catalog, excluding virtual copies?

Tim’s Quick Answer: Yes, you can use a filter to view only master photos (which excludes virtual copies) while browsing the “All Photographs” collection found in the Catalog section of the left panel in the Library module in Lightroom Classic. Just be sure that you have also expanded all stacks so you’re getting a true count of the total number of master photos.

More Detail: The Library Filter Bar provides a wide variety of filter options, which can be tremendously helpful when you are looking for a particular photo. These filters are also helpful when you want to get a count of photos that meet certain criteria.

Among the available filter options, the Library Filter Bar enables you to filter for master photos versus virtual copies. These two are mutually exclusive in the context of still photos, meaning a master photo is by definition not a virtual copy, and a virtual copy is not a master photo. Note that when you filter for master photos, videos are excluded unless you specifically choose to include videos.

The Library Filter Bar is available at the top of the grid view display in the Library module. If the Library Filter Bar is not visible, you can press the backslash key (\) on the keyboard or choose View > Show Filter Bar from the menu.

Choose the All Photographs collection from the Catalog section of the left panel in the Library module to make sure you are browsing all photos in your entire Lightroom catalog. Then expand all stacks, so you can see a count of all images even if they are included in a stack, assuming that is your preference. You can expand all stacks from the menu by choosing Photo > Stacking > Expand All Stacks. Note that you can collapse all stacks by choosing the “Collapse All Stacks” command from the same menu.

On the Library Filter Bar, choose the Attribute tab. In this context you would want to make sure no other filter categories are enabled. At the far right of the Attributes section of filter controls you’ll find the Kind setting. The first button can be turned on to view master photos. With the second button turned off, virtual copies will be excluded from view. You can also choose whether you want to enable the third button, to include video files in the filter criteria.

Once you have set the desired filter criteria, such as to select only the master photos option in this case, you can view the total count of images with the summary text above the thumbnail display on the Filmstrip (the bottom panel in Lightroom Classic). You will see an indication there for “All Photographs”, meaning you are browsing the All Photographs collection. To the right of that, you will see two numbers, presented as “X of Y”, where “X” is the number of photos meeting the criteria you’ve established (master photos in this case), and “Y” is the total number of photos in the location you’re browsing (the entire catalog in this case).

Today’s Question: What is the easiest way to transfer photos from Lightroom Classic to my iPad [or other mobile device]?

Tim’s Quick Answer: In my opinion the easiest way to transfer photos to a mobile device from Lightroom Classic is to add those photos to a collection and then enable synchronization for the collection. You can then view that collection of photos using the Lightroom mobile app on your device.

More Detail: Many photographers seem to associate the Lightroom app for mobile devices with the “cloud” version of the Lightroom desktop application, rather than with Lightroom Classic. The reality is, the Lightroom mobile app can be used in conjunction with both Lightroom Classic and the “cloud” version of Lightroom.

For Lightroom Classic users, the synchronization feature of Adobe Creative Cloud provides a great solution for getting photos to your mobile device so they can easily be shared with others, for example.

In Lightroom Classic synchronization is handled via collections. So, the first step is to add the photos you’d like to have available on your mobile device to a collection in the Collections section of the left panel in the Library module. If you want to create a new collection for this purpose, you can click the plus (+) symbol to the right of the Collections heading on the left panel and choose “Create Collection”.

In the Create Collection dialog you can enter a name for the collection, and adjust any other settings based on your preference for the collection. You can also turn on the “Sync with Lightroom” checkbox, so that synchronization will be enabled for this collection. Click the Create button to create the collection.

If you are working with an existing collection, you can turn synchronization on (or off) at any time. To the left of each collection (but not smart collections or collection sets) you’ll see either an empty box or a double-headed arrow synchronization icon. You can click in the space to the left of a collection name to toggle the synchronization status. The empty box means synchronization is disabled, and the double-headed arrow means synchronization is enabled.

Of course, you also need to add the applicable photos to a collection that has synchronization enabled, so that those photos will be synchronized to the Adobe Creative Cloud.

You can then install the Lightroom mobile app on your mobile device, from either the Apple App Store or the Google Play Store. Sign in with your Adobe Creative Cloud account, and the photos synchronized from your computer will magically appear in a collection in the Lightroom mobile app.

Today’s Question: I have marked lots of images as rejected (X) [in Lightroom Classic] but changed my mind. Now I’d like to batch uncheck rejected (X) those photos. How can I do that?

Tim’s Quick Answer: You can remove the Reject flag in Lightroom Classic with the “U” keyboard shortcut, for “unflag”. If you want to unflag multiple selected photos at one time, just be sure you are in the grid view (not the loupe view) before pressing “U” on the keyboard.

More Detail: The Pick and Reject flags in Lightroom enable you to review photos and make a “yes” or “no” decision about whether each photo is a favorite. You can add a Pick flag by pressing the “P” key, or a Reject flag by pressing the “X” key. If you change your mind and want to remove either flag, you can press “U” to unflag. This will remove either the Pick or Reject flag from the image, as applicable.

If you want to remove a Pick or Reject flag (or otherwise apply metadata updates) for multiple images, I recommend working in the grid view. If you are in the loupe view, even with multiple photos selected, by default only the single image shown in the loupe view will be updated when you use a keyboard shortcut for a metadata change. In the grid view all of the selected photos will be updated when you apply a metadata change.

Because of this behavior, I recommend switching to the grid view (by pressing “G” on the keyboard) before selecting multiple photos. You can then apply the desired change for all selected photos.

Note that I generally recommend using star ratings rather than Pick and Reject flags in Lightroom Classic, because star ratings are standard metadata that can be saved out to the actual image files. Pick and Reject flags can only be included in your Lightroom catalog, not in the metadata for the actual images. I do use Reject flags as an interim step before deleting outtakes, but for managing my photos in terms of “favorite” status, I use star ratings.

Today’s Question: One problem I am having is that I sometimes shoot in both Raw and JPEG captures. So, I have two copies of the same image. I am having difficulty in importing the JPEG images into Lightroom [Classic]. It imports my raw images just fine, but not the JPEG. Yes, I have unchecked the box to not import duplicates. How can I import the JPEG along with the raw?

Tim’s Quick Answer: If you want to import the JPEG component of a Raw+JPEG capture into Lightroom Classic, you need to enable the option to treat JPEG images next to a raw capture as separate files. However, I don’t actually recommend importing those JPEG captures, nor capturing with the Raw+JPEG option in the first place, for photographers who are managing their workflow with Adobe Lightroom Classic.

More Detail: By default, when you import Raw+JPEG captures into Lightroom Classic, both the raw and the JPEG will be copied to the destination folder you’ve specified, but only the raw capture will actually be imported into your Lightroom catalog.

If you want to import the JPEG version of the Raw+JPEG set, you need to first turn on the “Treat JPEG files next to raw files as separate photos”, which can be found on the General tab of the Preferences dialog, in the Import Options section of the General tab.

However, I don’t recommend using Raw+JPEG capture (or importing the JPEG captures for such image sets) when you are using Lightroom Classic to manage your workflow. There is simply no real benefit to using Raw+JPEG capture in the context of Lightroom Classic, in my view.

When you import raw captures into Lightroom Classic, I recommend using the Standard option (or the 1:1 option if you prefer) for the Build Previews popup in the File Handling section of the right panel in the Import dialog. With one of these options enabled, Lightroom will generate JPEG previews for all of your photos, for faster browsing and to enable you to review your photos even if the source raw captures aren’t currently available. For example, those JPEG previews can be seen even if an external hard drive containing the raw captures is not currently connected to your computer.

If you need a JPEG version of the original capture for some other purpose, such as for sharing a photo, you can simply use the Export feature to create a JPEG copy of your raw original. And I highly recommend using the raw capture as the basis of all adjustments you apply to a photo, not a JPEG copy of the raw capture.

Put simply, as far as I’m concerned there is no benefit to using the Raw+JPEG capture option if you are using Lightroom Classic to manage your photos.

Today’s Question: I got a marketing email promoting a new release of the Nik Collection of plug-ins, now from DxO. I can’t find any information on new features for the plug-ins that are included in this collection. Have you had a chance to look at these, and if so share whether it is worth the upgrade?

Tim’s Quick Answer: I have to say that I am disappointed in this upgrade to the DxO Nik Collection, in that it only adds one new plug-in, without any substantive updates to any of the existing plug-ins in the collection. I do not recommend paying for the upgrade.

More Detail: Many readers are aware that I had been a big fan of the Nik Collection, and I still am a fan of a couple of the plug-ins in this set. However, there have been very few updates of any significance, in my opinion, since the collection was acquired by DxO.

The major addition included with this update to the Nik Collection is Perspective Efex. I consider this to be a high-quality plug-in that is able to provide great perspective corrections for photos. However, I don’t feel it is any better than the Guided Edit for perspective correction that is included in Lightroom Classic and Adobe Camera Raw (and by extension, included in Photoshop).

The Miniature effect available in Perspective Efex enables you to create a miniaturization effect that mimics what can be achieved with a tilt-shift lens. But you can achieve an equally good effect with the Tilt-Shift blur filter in Photoshop. A similar effect can be created in Lightroom Classic with a combination of Graduated Filter adjustments.

There are a handful of other new features included with this update to the Nik Collection from DxO. However, considering the existing plug-ins haven’t been updated with new features, and only one new plug-in has been added, I don’t consider this upgrade to be worth the price.

If you have not previously used the Nik Collection, it is still worth considering this package as a new purchase. However, with the lack of any significant updates to the plug-ins included in the Nik Collection, I can’t recommend such a purchase all that highly. I still think Silver Efex Pro (for creating black and white images) and Analog Efex Pro (for simulating analog film effects) are excellent. Sharpener Pro is very good, especially for photographers who are not comfortable with sharpening. And HDR Efex Pro is good, but I would say that Aurora HDR from Skylum Software is a better choice at this point.

I would love to see DxO release a significant update to this entire collection of plug-ins, several of which had been among the top tools I would recommend. Until then, I recommend considering other options first.

Today’s Question: How necessary is Long Exposure Noise Reduction for night sky pictures?

Tim’s Quick Answer: I consider long exposure noise reduction to be very helpful in terms of reducing overall noise, and so do highly recommend using it for night photography or any other scenario where exposure time will be longer than about one second.

More Detail: A wide variety of cameras support long exposure noise reduction, though the specifics of when this noise reduction get implemented vary. Some cameras will even determine whether noise is likely to be an issue with a long exposure based on current conditions, and only apply the noise reduction when it is needed.

The key benefit of long exposure noise reduction compared to applying noise reduction in post-processing with software, is that in-camera long exposure noise reduction is measuring the actual signal from the image sensor to calculate (and subtract) the noise.

The process of in-camera long exposure noise reduction involves essentially capturing two photos instead of one. First, the actual exposure is created, and then the camera captures another exposure of equal duration, but without actually recording light from the scene (such as by keeping the shutter closed). The noise from this “dark exposure” can then be subtracted from the original capture.

Of course, there is a drawback to long exposure noise reduction. Because each exposure is doubled, you won’t be able to respond as quickly to changing conditions to capture a photo that is optimally timed. A 30-second exposure, for example, will require a full minute. I can tell you from personal experience that the time added for the long exposure noise reduction capture can prove very frustrating! But in many cases, of course, the timing of an additional capture is not especially critical.

I consider the benefit of long exposure noise reduction to outweigh the additional time that is required. In-camera noise reduction can greatly improve the overall quality of the image and helps ensure that much less noise reduction will be needed (if at all) in post-processing.

Today’s Question: When shooting Raw with my Fujifilm cameras, should I shoot Lossless Compressed or Uncompressed? The Fujifilm manual states that if I shoot on Lossless Compressed, “Raw images are compressed using a reversible algorithm that reduces file size with no loss of image data.” Which would you use?

Tim’s Quick Answer: I recommend using Lossless Compressed when such an option is available for raw captures on your camera, provided the software you’re using to manage your photos supports that compressed raw capture format.

More Detail: I think just about all photographers are familiar with the raw capture option available with most digital cameras, and hopefully most photographers are taking advantage of this option. A variation on a normal raw capture that is available with a variety of camera models is a compressed raw format. That generally involves a compressed format that is “lossless”.

When compression is lossless, it means that no information is lost as part of the compression. In other words, the information is described in a more efficient way, without actually altering the underlying information. For example, instead of describing a row of ten pixels, all of which are blue, by repeating “blue pixel, blue pixel, blue pixel” until you’ve listed off ten blue pixels, you could simply say “ten blue pixels”.

Obviously, the actual process is a bit more complicated in the context of a full digital photo recorded in a raw capture format. But the point is that with lossless compression there is no risk of losing any of the original data, based on how the algorithms are written.

And, of course, by making use of lossless compression you will be able to fit more captures on your media cards and download those smaller files to your computer more quickly.

The only caveat of lossless compression for raw capture is that some software may not have been updated to support the lossless compressed format in addition to the uncompressed raw format. However, in my experience this is not an issue. For example, Adobe Lightroom Classic and Adobe Photoshop support compressed versions of various raw capture formats.

So, my recommendation is to make use of the lossless compression option for raw captures if your camera supports that option, and if the software you’re using to manage your photos also supports that format.

Today’s Question: You mentioned that “most” digital cameras only capture one color value for each pixel. Does that mean there are cameras that capture all three color values for each pixel? If so, would such a camera provide better image quality?

Tim’s Quick Answer: There are cameras that record full-color for every pixel. The only example I know of would be Sigma cameras with a Foveon sensor. However, my testing has shown that these sensors provide inferior image quality compared to other camera models.

More Detail: It would be reasonable to assume that an image sensor that records all three color values (red, green, and blue) for each pixel would provide superior image quality compared to an image sensor that only captures a single color value for each pixel. However, in my experience that is not a reasonable assumption.

The first time I tested a camera with a full-color Foveon sensor was in 2002. The initial tests were impressive, but this was also very early in the context of digital photography. I anticipated at the time that these full-color sensors might be the wave of the future. I was wrong.

More recently I had the opportunity to test a camera with a Foveon sensor, and I was quite disappointed. The captures were among the noisiest I had ever seen, regardless of the ISO setting used.

While it may seem unbelievable that a camera that records only a single color value for each pixel would produce photos of high quality, the reality is that this approach works quite well. Put simply, stacking up multiple photodiodes for each pixel actually diminishes quality more than the processing required to create a full-color image from a capture where only one color value is recorded for each pixel.

What all of this means to me is that the underlying technology is less important than the actual results you can achieve. When it comes to image sensors in today’s digital cameras, a sensor that records only one of three (red, green, or blue) color values for each pixel is capable of producing excellent image quality, even compared to sensors that record all three color values for each pixel.

Today’s Question: I’m not all sure what a “variable” ND [neutral density] filter is. I typically have used the ND filters that are either full ND filters (entire filter is one density) or split or graduated ND (one density on top that gradually or abruptly changes to another density on bottom). Is a variable neutral density filter a split or graduated filter? What is the mechanism for using a variable ND filter? Are they like circular polarizers?

Tim’s Quick Answer: A variable neutral density (ND) filter generally consists of two circular polarizing filters attached in a way that they can rotate relative to each other, creating a variable amount of light-blocking depending on the angle of alignment of the two filters.

More Detail: I often describe solid neutral density (ND) filters as being “sunglasses” for your lens. The primary purpose of this type of filter is to reduce the amount of light entering the lens so that the exposure time (shutter speed) can be extended. For example, I’ve often used a ten-stop neutral density filter to achieve exposures of up to about 30 second during daylight conditions.

Such a solid ND filter has a single density, meaning it blocks a specific amount of light. The density of the filter is often described based on how many stops of light get blocked, or how many stops you would need to extend the exposure time by once you have added the filter.

As the name implies, a variable ND filter enables you to dial in a variable amount of light blocking. These filters have two circular polarizing filters attached to each other in a way that enables the two filters to be rotated relative to each other. The angle of alignment between the two polarizing filters determines the degree to which light will be blocked. You can therefore use a single filter to achieve different effects, which would normally require a variety of solid ND filters.

One of the challenges of using a variable ND filter is that you can’t precisely determine how much light you are blocking with any given setting. Furthermore, especially with high effective densities, the exposure meter for your camera won’t necessarily be accurate. As a result, it can be a little tricky to get an accurate exposure with a variable neutral density filter.

That said, variable neutral density filters enable you to have a single filter that could effectively replace several solid ND filters.

You can see a sample of a variable neutral density filter here (just be sure you select the right filter size for the lens you intend to use):

https://timgrey.me/variablend

Today’s Question: In a recent Ask Tim Grey eNewsletter you made reference to the “demosaicing” of a raw capture. What exactly is “demosaicing”?

Tim’s Quick Answer: The term “demosaicing” refers to the process of calculating the “missing” color values for each pixel in a raw capture, due to the fact that most raw captures only record a single color value for each pixel in an image.

More Detail: When you capture in raw mode on most digital cameras, the sensor is only recording a single color value for each pixel. For example, many digital cameras use a sensor that employ the “Bayer pattern” for the color values. In this configuration, for each four pixel values there will be two pixels that record only the green color value, along with one pixel recording the red value and one pixel recording the blue value.

The lack of full RGB color information for each pixel is a product of the image sensor in the camera, not the raw capture format. For photos captured with an actual image format, such as JPEG, the data gathered by the image sensor still only represents one out of the three required color values for each pixel. The difference is that with a JPEG capture, for example, the camera calculates the “missing” values for each pixel. With a raw capture, the “missing” color values are not calculated at the time of capture.

Therefore, with a raw capture, part of the process of rendering the raw capture into an actual image file is calculating the “missing” color values for each pixel. That process is referred to as “demosaicing”.

It may be hard to believe that software could “magically” calculate two-thirds of the “missing” data for a given pixel. However, when you consider the context for these calculations, it is I think much easier to understand. Let’s consider the green channel, for which half the pixels have information that was gathered by the image sensor and half the pixels have no information.

If you imagine a black and white photo where half of the pixels are missing, I think it isn’t all that difficult to imagine that software could figure out appropriate values for the “missing” pixels somewhat easily. Even for the red and blue channels where three-quarters of the pixels are missing, you can probably appreciate that software could calculate the values for the missing pixels based on the context of those pixels that do exist, again without too much difficulty.

This is the actual process behind the scenes with demosaicing. And considering we’ve all been happy with the photographic results we’re able to achieve with raw captures, obviously the process of demosaicing actually works in the real world.