Ask Tim Grey

Today’s Question: I need to purchase a new Apple computer. I don’t understand unified memory and how much I need. I may run Photoshop, Lightroom, and Bridge, along with possibly Denoise AI and Helicon Focus at the same time.

Tim’s Quick Answer: Unified memory refers to a single pool of memory in a computer used for both the main processor and for the graphics processor. This means you should opt for more memory than you otherwise assume you need, because there is not separate memory for the graphics processor.

More Detail: It has long been the case that computers featured both system memory (RAM) and video memory (VRAM), with the former being primarily used for the main processor (CPU) and the latter being used exclusively by the graphics processor (GPU). More recently, these lines have been blurred.

To start with, many applications (including those from Adobe) can leverage the GPU and the associated memory for additional processing power. This can greatly improve performance for certain tasks.

In addition, some computers (especially but not exclusively laptops) employ unified memory, where a single pool of memory is used for both the CPU and the GPU. Therefore, when considering how much unified memory you need, you should add the amount of system memory and video memory you want or need.

For example, for Adobe recommends a minimum of 8GB of system memory, with 12GB being recommended. They also recommend 2GB of video memory. So in reality, with a computer that uses unified memory, the recommended amount would be 14GB (the two recommended amounts added together).

However, in my view these recommendations are based on only running a single high-demand application at a time. If you’re going to run Lightroom and Photoshop at the same time, along with possibly other applications, I recommend opting for more memory. In this specific scenario I would consider 16GB to be an absolute minimum, and would recommend upgrading to 32GB of unified memory. And, of course, if money is no object you could opt to upgrade to even more memory.

Today’s Question: Can you explain why you recommend leaving the “Rename parent folder” checkbox turned off when renaming a catalog within Lightroom Classic? Wouldn’t you want the folder name to match the catalog name?

Tim’s Quick Answer: Leaving the “Rename parent folder” checkbox turned off when renaming a catalog is simply a precaution. As long as you’re sure there aren’t any photos stored in the same folder as the catalog you can indeed rename the folder along with the catalog.

More Detail: In Monday’s newsletter I addressed a question about the Lightroom Classic catalog having a filename that didn’t match the current version of Lightroom Classic. As part of my answer I explained how you can now easily rename the catalog, thanks to a new feature Adobe recently added.

In that answer I mentioned that I recommend keeping the “Rename parent folder” checkbox turned off. But this was really just out of an abundance of caution, and I certainly understand that many photographers might want to have the folder containing the catalog have the same name as the catalog itself.

The issue is that if you happen to have photos that are being managed by the catalog stored in the same folder as the catalog, then renaming the catalog parent folder will cause all folders and photos stored within that parent folder to appear as missing in Lightroom Classic. That’s because renaming the parent folder would cause the path to the photos to change, so the catalog would no longer be pointing to the right location.

For example, one of my readers had consolidated his overall storage so that his primary photo folder (and therefore all the folders containing all his photos) was in the same folder as the catalog. When he renamed the parent folder as part of the process of renaming the catalog, every single folder and photo was suddenly missing in Lightroom Classic. Reverting the name of the parent folder where the catalog was stored solved the issue.

Most photographers don’t store any of their photos in the same folder as the catalog. But if you do, renaming the folder that contains the catalog would cause problems. So, as long as you’re sure that all your photos and their respective folders are in a storage location other than the folder containing the catalog, you can most certainly turn on the “Rename parent folder” checkbox in the dialog for renaming the catalog (accessed from the menu at File > Rename Catalog) so that the folder containing your catalog will be renamed to match the name you are renaming the catalog to.

Today’s Question: Is it possible to scan a photo print directly into Photoshop rather than using the software that came with my scanner? I know I’ll want to retouch the old prints I plan to scan, so scanning into Photoshop would be more convenient.

Tim’s Quick Answer: Yes, you can scan images directly into Photoshop by using the Import command found on the File menu.

More Detail: While you can scan images directly into Photoshop, this process actually involves scanning using an operating system feature, but the result can be an image that opens directly in Photoshop so you can get right to work retouching the image.

To get started, choose File > Import from the menu in Photoshop. From the Import submenu choose “Images from Device” if you’re on Macintosh, or “WIA Support” if you’re on Windows. This will bring up a window where you can adjust the scanner settings, such as the resolution and file format to use.

You can then initiate the scan, and the image will appear in Photoshop, ready for you to start working on immediately.

Today’s Question: I have Lightroom Classic version 14.1.1 but my catalog name still references version 13.3. Is this normal or should a 14.1 catalog have been created? If so, what should I do?

Tim’s Quick Answer: This is the new normal, in that Lightroom Classic will no longer rename your catalog when it is updated for a new version of the software. As a result, a high percentage of photographers have a catalog filename referencing version 13.3 even though they’ve updated to Lightroom Classic version 14 or higher.

More Detail: When there is a major update to Lightroom Classic, the catalog often needs to be updated to reflect some of the changes for the new version. Over the years there have been a couple of ways the update catalog filename was changed. In early versions a “-2” would be appended to the new catalog name, which unfortunately led to many photographers having catalog filenames along the lines of “Lightroom Catalog-2-2-2”.

More recently, the filename would be update to reflect the version number of Lightroom Classic, such as to add “-v13” for Lightroom Classic version 13. But this could result in a filename such as “Lightroom Catalog-v12-v13-3”, for example. Or if you had used the same catalog for a while, you might end up with something like “Lightroom Catalog-2-2-2-v13-3”.

Thankfully, Adobe recently updated Lightroom Classic to no longer rename your catalog during an upgrade. This will streamline things moving forward, but it does mean that many of us might have a catalog filename along the lines of “Lightroom Catalog-v13-3” even though we’ve updated to Lightroom Classic version 14.

So, nothing needs to be done. However, you might want to rename the catalog to something more generic, so the filename will make sense for the long term. To do so, in Lightroom Classic go to the menu and choose File > Rename Catalog. Update the catalog name to your liking in the New Name field. I recommend keeping the “Rename parent folder” checkbox turned off. Then click the Rename button and your catalog will be updated with the name you designated. Note, by the way, that this Rename Catalog command is also new.

Based on the latest update, your updated catalog will remain for the long term, because Lightroom Classic no longer renames the catalog when an update requires an upgrade to the catalog itself.

Today’s Question: Do you have a recommendation for a program/method that would fairly accurately calculate the distance (miles/yards/feet/inches) between objects in a photo? For instance, if you had a photo of a field with two telephone poles in it, could you determine the real-life distance between those poles?

Tim’s Quick Answer: You can use the Ruler tool in Photoshop to measure distances within an image, but there are some important caveats that affect the accuracy of your results.

More Detail: The Ruler tool in Photoshop enables you to measure within an image, including being able to set the scale based on the size of a known object within the frame. However, there can be significant challenges with an accurate measurement based on issues related to perspective and relative distances.

Using the example from today’s question, let’s assume that you know the poles are exactly 35 feet tall. You could use the Ruler tool to set the reference measurement to the height of the pole, designating that as being 35 feet. To do so, go to the menu and choose Image > Analysis > Set Measurement Scale > Custom. In the dialog that appears, enter the real-world dimension of the object you measured in the Logical Length field, and enter a name (such as “Feet”) in the Logical Units field. Click OK to apply the change. This establishes a relationship between the number of pixels in the image and a real-world measurement.

With that reference set, you could then use the Ruler tool to measure the distance between the poles, with the result shown as the “L1” value (for length) on the Options bar.

Put another way, if you took a picture of me standing next to a building, you could set the reference distance to my height, which is six feet. Based on that reference you could then measure the building. Let’s assume it is ten times as many pixels as I am tall, which means the building is 60-feet tall.

There are important caveats to consider here, however. With the power pole example, if the two poles are not aligned perpendicular to the line of the lens, then the distance you’re trying to measure is actually a diagonal within the scene, so you aren’t truly measuring the distance between the poles. Similarly, with the example of me standing beside a building, if I had been positioned halfway between the camera and the building, I’m not right next to the building, and therefore you can’t use my height as an accurate reference for the height of the building.

So, if the lines, angles, and distances in the image are such that you can use the height of one object to calculate the height of another object, the Ruler tool in Photoshop can be very helpful. But under more real-world conditions there is a strong chance that the measurement would not be as precise as you might like.

Today’s Question: Although I have always removed older versions of Photoshop, I am still left with files in the “Settings” folder [stored in a folder structure in the AppData folder on Windows or the Application Support folder on Macintosh]. For multiple previous versions some of these (e.g. Brushes.psp) can be quite large. Am I doing something wrong in my installs of Photoshop that these relics of previous version clutter up my hard drive?

Tim’s Quick Answer: To remove the additional storage space from presets and other preferences for earlier versions of Photoshop, be sure to choose the “Remove” option in the “Photoshop preferences” dialog that appears when you uninstall the earlier version.

More Detail: When you uninstall a version of Photoshop, you’ll be prompted about whether you want to remove the user data that is collectively referred to as preferences. This would include things like interface settings, plugins, and other installed items and preferences.

The first thing I recommend is to confirm that you have everything you need in the latest version of Photoshop, such as to make sure that plug-ins are functioning correctly and that you have any custom items such as brushes you may have purchased or created available in the current version.

Then, when you initiate the uninstall of the earlier version of Photoshop (which I recommend doing from the Creative Cloud application) you’ll be prompted whether you want to keep or remove the preferences files. If you click the Keep button, those preferences will remain even though they won’t actually be available unless you apply them to the current version of Photoshop or reinstall the earlier version.

If you click the Remove button, those preferences files will be removed, freeing up hard drive space that would otherwise still be consumed. This can add up to a fair amount of space depending on how much customization you’ve done and how many older versions of Photoshop are still installed.

Even if you click the Remove button, there will be folders that remain for the earlier version of Photoshop. However, those folders should not actually consume any hard drive space, and you can remove them through the operating system if you’d like. And if you had previously chosen the Keep option when uninstalling a version of Photoshop, you can remove the folder through the operating system as long as you’re sure that all plugins and preferences you need are already available in the current version of Photoshop.

Today’s Question: What’s the best option for getting rid of or discarding all those old Kodachrome and Fuji color slides? Just the garbage can? I did recycle the boxes.

Tim’s Quick Answer: To my knowledge, there is no option for recycling color slide film, though the slide mounts can be removed and recycled. It is possible, on the other hand, to recycle black and white film.

More Detail: In terms of analog photos, the primary potential for recycling is the silver in black and white negatives. As far as I know, there isn’t a way to recycle color slides. So, beyond the mounts and boxes, the slide film can only be discarded in the trash.

Of course, you might also consider whether the analog photos might be of value to someone else, such as a nature conservatory or historical organization. Depending on the subject matter of the photos, there may be an organization that would be happy to take the images of your hands. Of course, they also might be just as happy to have digital versions of the images, rather than taking the analog originals.

I imagine there are other options, but one company I found that apparently still recycles black and white film is GreenDisk, although you do pay to have that film processed. You can get more details here:

https://www.greendisk.com/gdsite/accept.aspx

Today’s Question: Does the “Create Saved Print” tab in the Print module do the same thing [as exporting from Lightroom Classic and adding the exported image back to the catalog]?

Tim’s Quick Answer: No. A saved print in Lightroom Classic preserves the print layout, but that does not create a new file that has all the adjustments applied. Rather, the saved project is a collection with a reference to the source images used for the print layout.

More Detail: Today’s question is a follow-up to the question from February 12th, where the photographer who asked the question wanted to “lock in” the adjustments applied to an image for a print as a separate derivative image. My recommendation was to export a copy of the original and add that exported image back to the catalog by turning on the “Add to This Catalog” checkbox in the Export dialog.

When you create a saved print in the Print module, you’re preserving the print layout (via a collection) while maintaining a reference to the image(s) used in the print layout. This does not create a derivative image with the adjustments applied. In fact, if you were to modify the source image that was included in a saved print and then returned to the saved print, the changes to the original would be reflected in the print layout.

For example, let’s assume you saved a print that included only one image that was in color. Then you go to the source image that was used in the saved print layout and convert it to black and white. At that point if you return to the saved print, the layout will show the image in black and white rather than color.

So, a saved print is really just a way to preserve a specific print layout, not to create a derivative copy of an image that has the adjustments previously applied “baked in” to that image.

Today’s Question: If I need to replace the external hard drive that I am using for Time Machine because it is full, is there a way to move those backups to the new hard drive so that I can maintain all my backups on one drive?

Tim’s Quick Answer: Yes, you can migrate to a new and larger hard drive for Time Machine (for MacOS users) by disabling the backup, copying the backups to the new drive, and adding the new drive to Time Machine and enabling automatic backups again.

More Detail: Because the Time Machine backup maintains multiple versions of the files you back up, it can consume considerable storage space over time. For this reason, I generally recommend using a hard drive that has at least double the capacity of the drive you’re backing up with Time Machine. For example, if you have a 2TB internal hard drive you’re backing up with Time Machine, I recommend using a 4TB hard drive for that backup.

Note, however, that just because the Time Machine drive gets full doesn’t mean you need to replace it. If the date range for available backups shown in the Time Machine settings in System Settings goes back far enough for you to be comfortable, you can just continue using the current drive. Time Machine will automatically delete older backups as needed. The only reason to upgrade to a larger hard drive for Time Machine is if the backups don’t go back as far as you would like them to due to a lack of adequate storage space.

If you need to migrate to a larger hard drive, you could simply add the new drive in Time Machine, but that would not retain the historical backups on the same drive. So before adding the new drive to Time Machine, you’ll need to take a couple of other steps first.

Start by disabling the automatic backup, so that changes aren’t being made while you copy the files. To do so, go to System Settings, choose General from the left panel, and then choose Time Machine from the right panel. Click the Options button and set the Backup Frequency popup to Manually. Click Done to apply the change.

Next, copy the contents of the existing Time Machine drive to the new drive. Once that copy has finished, click the plus (+) button at the bottom of the Time Machine settings in System Settings and add the new drive as a backup drive in Time Machine. Then to back to the Options dialog and enable automatic backups. I recommend using the “Automatically Every Hour” setting for the automatic backup.

You can then continue using the new drive as your Time Machine backup drive, including the ability to go back in Time Machine to files that had originally been backed up using the prior hard drive.

Today’s Question: I read with interest your post on digitizing analog photos. There’s a company called “Negative Supply” that has a lot of products (on the B&H website) which look like they’ll do a decent job. Any insight or comments on this do-it-yourself sort of approach, other than the time involved?

Tim’s Quick Answer: You can most certainly scan your own photos rather than using a service such as ScanMyPhotos (https://www.timgreyphoto.com/scan). The main drawback is of course the time you’ll spend scanning the images, the need to buy some additional gear, and the precision that can be required in setting up your camera to photograph the slides or negatives.

More Detail: If you want to scan your film images yourself rather than pay someone else to do that work, there are certainly options available. The three basic categories of hardware for this purpose are film scanners, flatbed scanners, and accessories that enable you to photograph the slides and negatives.

The products from Negative Supply (https://bhpho.to/4gwULCg) revolve around the latter option, where you use your camera to photograph the slides or negatives. This involves an illumination source to backlight the slides and negatives, a mount to hold the film perfectly flat, and a stand to mount your camera above the film you’re photographing. You could also use a tripod for this purpose, but this does make it a little more challenging to get the camera lined up properly. That said, this is absolutely a viable approach, and many photographers have used variations on this type of setup to digitize their analog originals.

I prefer the use of a dedicated film scanner, in part because this makes it much easier to scan images with minimal effort, and the scan quality is generally very good. One scanner I’ve had the opportunity to test and got good results with is the Plustek OpticFilm 8200i film scanner (https://bhpho.to/3qIfxdX). There are other options, though not as many as there had been in the earlier days of the transition from film to digital.

Many flatbed scanners also support scanning slides and negatives, but this is generally not my preferred solution. In many cases the quality is not as good as can be achieved with other means, and it can be a little more labor-intensive to get properly aligned scans. That said, a flatbed scanner that supports scanning transparencies via a built-in backlight does provide a relatively economical solution to scanning slides and negatives. I just prefer to use a dedicated film scanner, using a flatbed only when scanning photo prints and documents.