Cloud Backup

Facebooktwitterlinkedin

Today’s Question: What role does a service like iCloud play in the backup scenario?

Tim’s Quick Answer: To me the various cloud-based storage and synchronization options should be treated as a supplemental backup option, not a replacement for a local backup workflow. That said, cloud-based services such as iCloud can be very helpful as a supplemental backup solution.

More Detail: One of the key attributes of a good backup workflow is having a backup that is stored on a separate storage device and in a completely separate physical location relative to the original data you are backing up. A cloud-based backup certainly fits both of those criteria, since the backup in that case would be stored at a completely different location. In fact, in most cases with an online backup you probably won’t have any idea where the backup is actually stored.

However, one of my concerns about an online backup is that you don’t know where the backup is stored, you don’t know how it is being managed, and you don’t have physical control over the backup. In other words, you’re putting a lot of faith in the online backup since you can’t actually verify the existence of that backup.

Because you don’t have any direct control over an online backup, I recommend treating this type of backup as a supplemental backup rather than a primary backup. In other words, I recommend that all photographers create their own backup copies of all photos and other important data, storing the backup on a separate storage device and ideally in a separate location from the original source data.

However, a cloud-based backup service (such as is possible with iCloud synchronization) can absolutely be helpful as a secondary backup solution to supplement your local backup workflow. In other words, I most certainly take advantage of an online storage solution to supplement my local backup workflow. But I would never ignore my local backup workflow just because I am also taking advantage of an online backup solution.

Copyright and Social Media

Facebooktwitterlinkedin

Today’s Question: I am part of a photography organization that recommends we post our photos for visibility. I’m always concerned in doing so I will forfeit the rights to my photography. Who actually owns the photography that we post on Facebook and Instagram?

Tim’s Quick Answer: When sharing on Facebook or Instagram (which is owned by Facebook) you still retain the copyright to your photos and other content you share. However, you are also giving these services the right to make use of your content with no compensation to you. Therefore, you’ll need to balance the potential benefit with the potential risks. That said, I do find it worthwhile to share my photos on these services.

More Detail: Most online services have terms and conditions that are somewhat similar. In general, you retain the copyright to your own content, but you also provide a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free, transferrable right to use or license your content with no compensation to you.

First, let’s consider the pragmatic issue at play here. When you share a photo on Instagram, for example, the whole point is that anyone in the world can view (and like) your photos. They can also follow you, so they are more likely to see future content in the future. This type of sharing represents the publication of your photos anywhere in the world for anyone to see. That type of publishing requires your permission as the copyright holder.

In other words, Instagram couldn’t make your photos visible to others if you didn’t provide very broad licensing terms to Instagram.

However, it is altogether possible that Instagram (or other online sharing services) could then profit from your photos. Since you are providing a very broad license in exchange for the ability to share your photos on their platform, Instagram could theoretically take advantage of those terms in ways you would not be happy with.

For example, it is conceivable that Instagram could start a stock photography licensing service and make money licensing your photos to others. Instagram could profit from this arrangement, with absolutely no compensation to you.

At least for now (as far as I know) this sort of activity isn’t happening right now. But it could. So you need to decide if the value of sharing your photos online is greater than the potential risks involved.

Personally, I enjoy sharing my photos with others, and believe that sharing my photos benefits my business. For example, when I post photos I’ve captured in locations where I lead photo workshops, I get inquiries about joining me for a future photo workshop. So, I feel the benefits of sharing my photos are more important than the potential risks involved with the terms of use for services such as Instagram.

Naturally, each photographer will need to make these decisions for themselves, and I encourage reading the (very long) terms of service in detail to make sure you’re comfortable with the decision you make.

And if you decide you’d like to be involved in the Instagram community, be sure to follow me. You can find me with user name @timgreyphoto, or view (and like) my photos by visiting the Instagram website here:

https://www.instagram.com/timgreyphoto/

Pro Camera to Instagram

Facebooktwitterlinkedin

NOTE: This blog post was updated based on feedback from readers of the Ask Tim Grey eNewsletter, with options for publishing photos to Instagram directly from a computer.

Today’s Question: I have a question that probably everyone younger than me knows how to do, but I can’t figure out. In Instagram, how do I post pictures from my professional digital camera or any pictures from my laptop?

Tim’s Quick Answer: Instagram was originally created for the purpose of sharing photos from a mobile device. There are a variety of limitations that remain with Instagram, limiting your flexibility when sharing photos that were captured with something other than a mobile device. However, you can share to Instagram in a variety of ways from your computer, which makes it possible to share photos captured with a camera other than a smartphone.

More Detail: While it is possible to share photos to Instagram from a computer, I prefer to have the photos I share to Instagram available directly on my smartphone, so I can share them with others easily on my phone even when I’m not connected to the Internet. Therefore, I synchronize the photos I want to share on Instagram to my smartphone, and then post to Instagram from there.

There are a variety of ways you can get your photos from a computer to a smartphone. The approach I prefer is to synchronize a folder of photos from my computer to my smartphone. For example, with an iPhone you can use the iTunes app to specify folders containing photos that you want synchronized to your phone. Android users can drag-and-drop photos to their smartphone once it is connected to a Windows computer, or use a variety of applications to synchronize photos to the smartphone.

With my iPhone, for example, the first step is to copy the photos I want to share on Instagram to a folder on the computer. Since I use Lightroom Classic CC to manage my photos, I simply export photos from Lightroom to an “Instagram Share” folder. Then, within the iTunes app, I make sure my “Instagram Share” is selected as one of the folders that should be synchronized with my iPhone. Whenever I have added a new photo to the “Instagram Share” folder on my computer, I can simply plug in my iPhone with a USB cable and synchronize via iTunes. The new photos will then be in the “Instagram Share” album on my phone, which I can then use as the source of sharing photos on Instagram.

In addition, however, there are a variety of ways you can post photos to Instagram directly from your computer. For example, Lightroom users can install a plug-in that enables you to publish directly to Instagram from your Lightroom catalog. You can find the LR/Instagram plug-in here:

https://www.lrinstagram.com

Another great option is to simply have your web browser simulate a mobile device, so you can access all of the Instagram features (including sharing a new photo) directly from your computer’s web browser, as though you were using the Instagram app on your smartphone.

I’ve published an article on the GreyLearning blog showing you how to make your computer’s web browser behave like a browser on a mobile device. This will enable you to share photos to Instagram directly from your computer, and you can find the article here:

http://greylearningblog.com/how-to-share-photos-on-instagram-from-a-computer/

Don’t forget to follow me on Instagram, check out my photos, and tap the heart icon to “like” any of my photos you feel are especially good. You can find me using the Instagram app on your mobile device under user name @timgreyphoto, or through the Instagram website here:

https://instagram.com/timgreyphoto

Clarity and Noise

Facebooktwitterlinkedin

Today’s Question: I’ve been using the Clarity slider (at a value of 40) to bring up detail in my photos. However, I processed a high-resolution series of photos and noticed quite a bit MORE noise than any one of the original captures. I stopped using Clarity and everything has been fine since. Should I avoid using Clarity?

Tim’s Quick Answer: By virtue of enhancing local contrast in a photo (and altering tonality in general), increasing the value for Clarity in Camera Raw or Lightroom can most certainly emphasize noise in an image. However, in general I find the benefits of a Clarity adjustment to be worthwhile for many images, and so recommend continuing to use Clarity but revisiting your Noise Reduction adjustments as well.

More Detail: The Clarity adjustment in Camera Raw and Lightroom is similar in concept to sharpening. Both of these adjustments enable you to enhance contrast among neighboring pixels. One of the key differences is that sharpening applies at a very fine scale, while Clarity operates at a slightly larger scale. You can think of Clarity as being somewhat similar to sharpening applied with a relatively high value for Radius (and a correspondingly low value for Amount).

Because sharpening and the Clarity adjustment are both enhancing local contrast, they can enhance the appearance of noise that is present in the image. In other words, the Clarity adjustment isn’t actually adding noise to the photo, but rather is just making the existing noise easier to see.

While we generally want to avoid the appearance of noise in our photos, we also may often want to enhance local contrast for some of our photos. Many photos can benefit from an increase in the value for the Clarity adjustment.

When a photo has a fair amount of noise, you may want to apply less of a Clarity adjustment than you otherwise would have if the image did not have significant noise. More importantly, you’ll want to revisit the settings for Noise Reduction, including both color and luminance.

To be sure, you may find it can be a challenge to balance the settings between Clarity and noise reduction. If you raise the value for Clarity too much, you’ll reveal more noise. But if you raise the noise reduction strength too high, you’ll diminish the appearance of texture and detail in the photo. And if you use a Clarity setting that is too low, you might feel the texture in the photo hasn’t been enhanced enough.

The bottom line is that I don’t think you should avoid using the Clarity adjustment. It can, after all, be tremendously helpful to many photos. However, especially when an image exhibits considerable noise, you may need to tone down your Clarity adjustment or get a little more aggressive with your application of noise reduction for a photo.

Detail for Sharpening

Facebooktwitterlinkedin

Today’s Question: Could you talk about the Detail slider [for sharpening in Lightroom Classic CC and Adobe Camera Raw]? I understand that high settings of Detail shift the sharpening to deconvolution (as opposed to sharpening like Unsharp Mask at lower settings). It would help to understand more about the difference.

Tim’s Quick Answer: The Detail slider for sharpening in Lightroom or Camera Raw controls the extent to which you are enhancing fine detail in the image. A low value will help retain smooth areas of a photo, while a high value will cause fine texture (and noise) to be enhanced.

More Detail: When you apply sharpening to an image you are enhancing contrast between neighboring pixels that already have some degree of contrast. In other words, if neighboring pixels have different values, sharpening will increase the differences between the pixel values. This results in greater contrast among those pixels, which increases perceived sharpness and texture.

Increasing the value for the Detail slider will cause contrast to be enhanced among neighboring pixels even when there is minimal difference between those pixels. For those familiar with the Unsharp Mask filter in Photoshop, the Detail slider in Lightroom or Camera Raw operates much like the Threshold slider, but in reverse. A low value for Detail is similar to a high value for Threshold, and vice versa.

In general I recommend using a relatively low setting for Detail. The default value is 25, and for most images going much higher than that can be problematic. If you are really trying to enhance fine detail, you could use a higher value for Detail, but then you would need to use a very low setting for Amount.

In concept, the sharpening in Lightroom’s Develop module and in Camera Raw is intended to compensate for softness in the original capture. That type of sharpening is often referred to as deconvolution, and is different from creative sharpening or output sharpening. Using a relatively high value for the Detail slider can certainly help enhance the sharpening effect, but it can easily lead to an image that has too much fine texture and noise.

In other words, even though the sharpening controls in Lightroom and Camera Raw don’t enable you to apply extreme sharpening, there is still a risk of negatively impacting the appearance of an image by being too aggressive with sharpening. And one of the ways sharpening can quickly become too aggressive is by using a high value for the Detail slider.

Collections Instead of Folders?

Facebooktwitterlinkedin

Today’s Question: I am re-organizing my photos in Lightroom Classic. In the past, I have relied upon folders and subfolders as basic building blocks. However, I have just read an article that strongly emphasizes that one should have a collections-based workflow from the time of initial import into Lightroom and relying on folders is definitely not recommended. Is this a valid concern and what is your recommendation?

Tim’s Quick Answer: I strongly recommend using the folder structure as a primary method of organizing your photos in Lightroom Classic CC. Features such as star ratings (or pick/reject flags or color labels) can be used as a secondary tool for identifying favorite images. Collections are a tertiary tool, which I recommend using for project-based organization and other specialized tasks, rather than as a primary organizational tool.

More Detail: If you were using the cloud-based Lightroom CC (rather than Lightroom Classic CC) it would be necessary to use collections as a primary tool for organizing your photos. That is because with Lightroom CC you don’t have any control over the folder structure being used to store your images. Instead, you can organize photos based on date or collections.

With Lightroom Classic CC you don’t have the limitation of not being able to control the overall storage structure for your photos. In other words, you can define your own folder structure on the hard drive(s) containing your photos. As such, to me it is perfectly logical that you would use folder structure as a primary foundation of your overall organizational workflow. After all, if photos are already organized into folders on your hard drive, why wouldn’t you leverage that folder structure for organizational purposes within Lightroom?

Collections can be thought of as something like “virtual” folders, enabling you to organize photos from a wide variety of folders into a single collection. That can be tremendously helpful when working on a specific project, for example, but I don’t find it as useful as a primary organizational tool.

In addition, it is worth noting that folders reflect the actual storage structure on your hard drive. Collections in Lightroom, by contrast, only exist within the Lightroom catalog. In other words, if you lost your Lightroom catalog you would still have your folder structure, but you would no longer have your collections.

I therefore highly recommend using folders as a primary tool in your organizational workflow. Other metadata such as star ratings can be used as secondary tools to help you locate specific photos when they are needed. And additional tools such as collections can help you organize photos for specific projects, especially when you need to work with photos that are actually stored across a variety of different folders.

Raw Capture Sharpening

Facebooktwitterlinkedin

Today’s Question: So for us Photoshop users, do all of the settings you mentioned [about sharpening in Lightroom] still apply?

Tim’s Quick Answer: Yes, the settings I recommended for sharpening in the Develop module in Lightroom Classic CC would apply in Photoshop, in the context of initial processing in Adobe Camera Raw. Creative or output sharpening would then be applied later in your workflow, such as by using the Smart Sharpen filter.

More Detail: The same adjustments can be found in both Adobe Camera Raw and Lightroom’s Develop module. That means you can apply the same adjustments with the same results using either software. It also means that the same settings can be used with both, with equal results.

If you missed the tips on sharpening settings for Lightroom (and thus Camera Raw), you can review the information in this article:

https://asktimgrey.com/2019/01/14/over-sharpening-risks/

One of the advantages of Photoshop over Lightroom is that you have greater control over the final sharpening you apply to a photo before printing or otherwise sharing it. You also have a preview of the output sharpening effect in Photoshop, which Lightroom does not provide.

So, the basic concepts apply equally in both Camera Raw and Lightroom. The only real difference is the specific workflow involved, and the fact that Photoshop provides additional tools above and beyond those available in Lightroom.

Output Sharpening

Facebooktwitterlinkedin

Today’s Question: In discussing sharpening in Lightroom [Classic CC], you mention that Lightroom sharpening is intended for compensating for factors that reduce sharpness in the original capture, not for finalizing a photo for output such as printing. That raises the question of where and how do you do, and how do you evaluate, output sharpening?

Tim’s Quick Answer: In Lightroom Classic CC the final output sharpening is applied at the point you are actually producing your output. The evaluation of the result therefore must be performed after the output is actually created.

More Detail: When you are actually producing output from Lightroom Classic CC, you are able to apply output sharpening. For example, you can adjust the sharpening for a print with the settings available in the Print module. You can also select sharpening options when using the Export feature. In all cases of establishing settings for output sharpening in Lightroom, there is no preview that enables you to evaluate the final result.

Instead, you must create your output (such as a print or an exported image file) and then evaluate the sharpening effect in that output. If you aren’t satisfied with the result, you can adjust your settings and create the output again. Naturally, this can lead to a bit of trial-and-error. However, with time you’ll get a sense of the settings you typically want to use for various output types.

For images being shared online, the output sharpening options generally work perfectly well, even without a preview of the effect. For printing, however, it can be more challenging to create a great result without being able to preview the sharpening effect.

For these reasons, when exporting images to share online I will use the sharpening options that are available within Lightroom. However, when creating a print I will generally send the final image to Photoshop from Lightroom, so I can resize and apply sharpening before creating the final printed output. This enables me to preview the actual sharpening effect in Photoshop before actually creating a print of the image.

Color Space Mismatches

Facebooktwitterlinkedin

Today’s Question: I’m confused about the color space info I’m seeing. My Canon 5D recommends shooting in the sRGB color space. But my Preferences in Lightroom 5 under the External Editing Tab is set at ProPhoto RGB. After processing a photo in Lightroom, if I want to export the file I choose Color Space Adobe RGB. But here’s what I don’t understand: sRGB is supposed to be a more limited color space. So, if I’m capturing my original RAW image in the sRGB color space, how do Lightroom and Photoshop find those “missing” gradations that sRGB fails to capture? How can you produce a ProPhoto RGB file from a more limited sRGB file? Or is that sRGB choice is only for JPEGs and totally irrelevant because I shoot RAW? Can you clear this up for me?

Tim’s Quick Answer: The color space in your camera only applies to JPEG captures, not to raw captures. Within Lightroom you aren’t able to change the color space. When you send a photo to Photoshop or another application, or when you export a copy of an image, you can choose which color space you want to use. In this context I recommend using ProPhoto RGB if you will be exporting a 16-bit per channel image for extensive editing. For photos that will be printed the Adobe RGB color space is generally a good choice. The sRGB color space should be used for images that will be shared digitally, such as online.

More Detail: The color space for an image defines the specific range of colors that are available. As a very simple example, a Grayscale color space would contain only shades of gray, while an RGB color space could contain all of the colors of the rainbow.

When processing photos, it is generally advantageous to have the largest range of colors available, to provide greater flexibility for editing and smoother gradations of tone and color in the final image.

For raw captures, the color space in the camera does not alter the actual pixel data. Only JPEG captures would be affected by the in-camera color space.

The ProPhoto RGB color space is the largest among the standard color spaces. However, because it is so large it should only be used for images with a 16-bit per channel (or higher) bit depth. For 8-bit per channel images (such as JPEG images), one of the other color spaces should be selected. If you are sending a photo to Photoshop for extensive editing, for example, you may want to use the ProPhoto RGB color space.

For images you intend to print, the Adobe RGB color space is also a good choice. The Adobe RGB color space is appropriate for 8-bit or 16-bit per channel images. So, for example, if you were sending an image to Photoshop to prepare it for printing, you could use the Adobe RGB color space.

The sRGB color space is the smallest, but it is also closest to the typical color space for a computer monitor display. This is one of the reasons it is a good choice for images that will be shared digitally, such as online or in a digital slideshow. For these types of output, the sRGB color space is a good option.

So, for raw captures the image itself will not be affected by the in-camera color space. In Lightroom you don’t have the option to change the color space for editing photos. However, you can choose a color space when sending a photo to an external editor or exporting a copy of an image.

To learn more about color management in the context of photography, take a look at my “Color Management for Photographers” course on the GreyLearning website here:

https://www.greylearning.com/courses/color

Duplicate Storage with One Catalog

Facebooktwitterlinkedin

Today’s Question: I used to have two identical hard drives with all my photos and the catalog on each one, using GoodSync to synchronize them. This way I was able to run Lightroom Classic CC from either hard drive. Now I moved the catalog away from the hard drive to my laptop computer. I want to work with one hard drive in my office and the other hard drive at home, synchronizing them regularly. I will move the computer between locations, using a different hard drive at each location. The problem is that the catalog does not find the photos after I have worked with the other drive. Is there a solution to work with one central catalog in the computer and either of the two identical drives with my photos?

Tim’s Quick Answer: This is a challenging scenario, in that it involves using one catalog on one computer, but wanting to use a different hard drive with that computer at two different locations. Provided you keep the drives properly synchronized with each other (with a two-way synchronization), the key is to make sure the hard drive has the same drive letter (Windows) or volume label (Macintosh) when you are actually using those drives with Lightroom.

More Detail: Lightroom Classic CC makes use of a catalog to manage the information about your photos. When using one catalog, of course there is no confusion about where your metadata is, since all updates will be stored within the catalog.

However, in the scenario outlined in today’s question, the aim is to use two different drives at two different locations. The unique twist here is the desire to store all of the photos on two different hard drives, with one drive stored at each location.

The first step here is to make sure both hard drives remain synchronized with each other. This requires a two-way synchronization, so that changes on either drive will be reflected on the other drive. This is an option you can employ with GoodSync (http://timgrey.me/greybackup), for example.

In order to connect two hard drives to the same computer to perform a synchronization, the two drives must have a different drive letter (Windows) or volume label (Macintosh). In other words, it must be clear to the computer that the drives are two different drives.

Once the drives are synchronized, however, having a different drive letter or name for both drives means Lightroom will be confused. For example, let’s assume the drives are called “Home” and “Office”, and that Lightroom expects to find the photos on the “Office” drive. When you go home and launch Lightroom with the “Home” drive connected, all photos will appear to be missing.

To correct for this confusion, you could rename the “Home” drive to “Office”, even though it isn’t really your office drive. Then, when you want to synchronize again, you would need to change the name of the home drive back to “Home”.

As you can probably appreciate, this process can be a little cumbersome and potentially confusing. For this reason, you might find it simpler to move a hard drive from one location to another, rather than going through this synchronization process. Of course, with a rather large hard drive, this can be more cumbersome than a synchronization workflow.

Another option would be to consider Lightroom CC rather than Lightroom Classic CC. With Lightroom CC your photos and updates can be synchronized across multiple computers and devices. There are some drawbacks in terms of the overall features available in Lightroom CC and the lack of control over the specific folder structure used to store your photos.