Ask Tim Grey

Today’s Question: Is it possible to search on words within a keyword to find photos in Lightroom Classic? For instance, I would like to find all photos that contain Manhattan as part of their keyword. Would it find the photo with the keyword “Johnny-Manhattan-01152022”?

Tim’s Quick Answer: Yes, you can search for all images that include specific text within keywords, so that for example searching for “flo” would return images that have either “Florida” or “flower” as a keyword. You can also search only for photos that include a specific keyword in its entirety.

More Detail: In Lightroom Classic there is quite a bit of flexibility when searching on the Text tab of the Library Filter bar above the grid view display in the Library module. Note, by the way, that if the Library Filter bar is not displayed you can press the backslash key (\) on the keyboard to reveal it.

On the Text tab of the Library Filter bar you can start by selecting Keywords from the first popup if you want to search specifically within the Keywords field in metadata. If you want the search results to include any images with keywords that include the partial text you’ve entered, you can select “Contains” from the second popup.

With these settings established, for example, if I enter the text “Manhattan” in the textbox the search results will include photos with the keyword “Manhattan” as well as photos that include the keyword “Manhattanhenge”.

If, on the other hand, you want to search for a specific word within the Keywords field without including keywords that contain the word you’ve typed, you can use the “Contains Words” option from the second popup when searching with the “Keywords” option.

With “Contains Words” selected, for example, if you enter “Manhattan” into the textbox the results will only include photos that have “Manhattan” as a keyword. Photos that only have “Manhattanhenge” in the Keywords field (and not the keyword “Manhattan”) will not appear in the search results.

Today’s Question: I’m wondering why you don’t use the cloud service built into GoodSync?

Tim’s Quick Answer: I use Backblaze (https://timgrey.me/onlinebackup) for my cloud-based backup, and GoodSync software (http://timgrey.me/greybackup) for my local backups. The primary reason I don’t use GoodSync for my cloud-based backup is that the storage cost is considerably higher than with Backblaze.

More Detail: I have been using GoodSync (http://timgrey.me/greybackup) for a number of years to back up my hard drives locally. I maintain two backup copies of each external hard drive, so that I have a primary drive (such as a “Photos” drive) along with a “Photos Backup 1” drive and a “Photos Backup 2” drive.

More recently I started using Backblaze (https://timgrey.me/onlinebackup) for my cloud-based backup, which makes it easy to have a backup that is stored offsite. I’ve been very happy with the Backblaze service, and feel more comfortable knowing I have a backup of my important data stored at a remote location.

GoodSync also offers a cloud-based storage option, enabling you to back up your data to a remote server location. I would be perfectly comfortable using GoodSync for this purpose, since I have been so happy with their backup software. However, their cloud-based storage is considerably more expensive than Backblaze.

The Backblaze personal backup service starts at $7 per month, which comes out to $84 per year. You can get a lower annual cost by paying for one or two years at a time. The Backblaze subscription provides unlimited backup storage.

GoodSync, by contrast, charges based on how much storage you use. Based on my storage needs, I would need to opt for their 8TB plan, which would cost about $700 per year. Therefore, I continue to use Backblaze as my cloud-based backup solution.

Note that GoodSync is not more expensive at all storage levels. For example, if I were only backing up the internal hard drive on my laptop I would only need to opt for the 1TB storage option, which would cost about $100. But as a photographer of course I want to back up much more data, so Backblaze represents the better value.

Today’s Question: Is there a way to find the source for images that Lightroom Classic will not let me import anew because they are already in the catalog, yet I cannot find them?

Tim’s Quick Answer: In this case I recommend importing a second copy of the duplicate images into a temporary holding folder, and then using those duplicates to track down the source photos. The duplicate images could then be deleted.

More Detail: I generally recommend keeping the “Don’t Import Suspected Duplicates” checkbox turned on when importing photos into Lightroom Classic. This checkbox is found in the File Handling section of the right panel in the Import dialog. With the checkbox turned on if Lightroom Classic determines that some of the photos you’re attempting to import are already in the catalog, those duplicates won’t be imported.

In this case, of course, this beneficial feature is causing a problem. If you’re not sure where the original versions of the images that are being flagged as duplicates are located, you obviously can’t review those existing photos within your catalog.

You could, of course, review the metadata of the images you’re trying to import to help you locate the originals. For example, you could look at the capture time in metadata and then use a filter for that capture date while browsing the “All Photographs” collection in the Catalog section of the left panel in the Library module.

However, this process can be streamlined by importing the photos even though they are duplicates, and then using those imported copies to locate the originals.

So, during the import turn off the “Don’t Import Suspected Duplicates” checkbox. Just be sure to turn it back on for future imports. I suggest copying the photos to a folder that will be obvious as a temporary holding location, such as by importing to a folder called “Duplicate Search” on your desktop.

After the photos have been imported, navigate to the folder where they were copied to, and make sure that one of the photos that you believe has a duplicate is selected. Then select the “All Photographs” collection from the Catalog section of the left panel in the Library module. Switch to the grid view and set the sort order on the toolbar below the grid view to “Capture Time”.

At this point you’ll still see the selected photo, and all other photos will be displayed (as long as you haven’t applied a filter) and they will be listed in order of capture time. This should cause the duplicate to appear right next to the photo you selected from the most recent import. You can then right-click on the source photo that was a duplicate and choose “Go to Folder in Library” to automatically navigate to the folder that contains the source photo.

Once you’ve located the source images and have moved or otherwise managed them as needed, you can delete all of the photos that were imported as duplicates from within your Lightroom Classic catalog.

Today’s Question: When I import images from my iPhone 12 Pro Max into Lightroom Classic, each image is accompanied by a 2-second video of itself. I wonder why that is happening and how to stop it. When I look at images on the phone, the videos are not there (or at least not obvious).

Tim’s Quick Answer: The photos with short accompanying videos are from the “Live Photo” feature on the iPhone. You can disable that within the Camera app on your iPhone for future captures.

More Detail: The iPhone Camera app includes a feature called Live Photo that is something of a cross between a photo and a video. It is like a 3-second video, but not exactly the same in terms of the number of frames and the quality of the frames beyond the primary capture.

Live Photo captures can’t be shared with the animation intact with all forms of sharing. However, if you swipe back and forth between Live Photo captures in the Photos app on your iPhone you’ll notice the movement of the subject of the photo briefly.

The animation effect of Live Photo captures can be used for various creative effects, including a looping playback and a long exposure effect. However, they aren’t easy to share with this type of effect intact outside the Apple Photos ecosystem.

Personally, I prefer to capture normal photos or video clips, not Live Photos. One of the reasons Live Photos tend to create confusion is that it is easy to accidentally enable the feature. You can turn it off (or on) by tapping the icon that has several concentric circles, almost looking like a target. The location will vary depending on your phone and operating system version, but you will likely see it at the top-right of the screen in the Camera app.

When you turn off the Live Photo feature there will be a slash through the icon for the Live Photo button. That will ensure you’re only capturing normal photos (or videos) rather than Live Photos. That, in turn, will mean that you no longer have an extra video file accompanying your still photo captures.

Note that you can filter your photos in Lightroom Classic to show only videos by clicking the “Videos” button associated with the Kind control on the Attributes tab of the Library Filter bar at the top of the grid view display in the Library module. That can make it easier to locate the videos that came along with your Live Photo captures. Just be sure that you’re only deleting videos from Live Photos, not videos you intentionally captured as videos.

Today’s Question: I do HDR [high dynamic range imaging] by the old method of collecting three exposures in Raw, then using Photoshop or Aurora HDR to combine them. However, I have a Canon D6 [https://bhpho.to/3JTaax7] that can do it in-camera, but then I have to use JPEG. From the standpoint of image quality, is it better to keep doing the HDR by the old method, or accept the loses of the in-camera method? I sometimes make enlargements up to 17×22”, but mostly the maximum is 13×19”.

Tim’s Quick Answer: I strongly recommend not using in-camera HDR unless you are using a camera that retains the original raw captures when you create an HDR image. With your camera I recommend continuing to capture bracketed exposures to assemble into an HDR result later.

More Detail: When you are photographing a scene with a great range of tonal values than your camera can record in a single photograph, you can capture bracketed exposures and assemble those into a final HDR image that retains maximum detail.

Some cameras provide an in-camera HDR option. This can be convenient, but it can also be problematic for a variety of reasons.

If your camera enables you to capture an in-camera HDR but also retain the bracketed raw captures used to assemble the HDR image, using this option can be helpful in terms of previewing the effect on the camera while still being able to maximize quality by assembling the bracketed raw captures into the final HDR image.

However, many cameras with in-camera HDR will not retain the original raw captures. If the camera doesn’t do a good job creating the HDR image, you don’t have a way to create your own HDR image later. In my experience, by the way, HDR software (such as Aurora HDR, https://timgrey.me/aurora) does a significantly better job assembling an HDR image that any camera I’ve ever tested.

For cameras that don’t retain the raw captures and that create a JPEG image for the HDR, the situation is even worse. A JPEG image will only feature a bit depth of 8-bits per channel, rather than the potential of 16-bits per channel for a TIFF image, for example. There is a very high likelihood that you will need to apply adjustments to the HDR capture, and often those adjustments will need to be quite strong. This can lead to a significant degradation in image quality for the JPEG HDR capture.

Therefore, I highly recommend using software after the capture to create your HDR images, capturing bracketed raw captures as the source of that HDR image. While this creates some additional work compared to being able to capture an HDR image in-camera, this approach will ensure much better HDR images. As a result, I most certainly would not call this an “old method”, as it is still the best method in my view.