Ask Tim Grey

Today’s Question: Do you recommend splitting photos managed by Lightroom Classic between two external hard drives? Or is it preferable to purchase a larger external drive?

Tim’s Quick Answer: In general, I would prefer to have all photos stored on a single hard drive. However, due to practical limitations that isn’t always the best solution, leading me to split my photos between two hard drives.

More Detail: I prefer (and generally recommend) a workflow that is as streamlined as possible. That means using only a single catalog for Lightroom Classic, and ideally storing all photos on a single hard drive. However, a single hard drive isn’t always the best solution.

For example, I prefer to use portable bus-powered hard drives for my data storage, in large part for convenience when it comes to traveling with my drives. However, that also means that my storage capacity options are limited. Most bus-powered external hard drives max out at around 4TB of storage capacity, any my photos take up closer to 8TB. The 8TB hard drives that are available are generally either not bus-powered, don’t have a form factor that meets my needs, or are at a price point that makes them far less appealing.

As a result, I’ve opted to store my photos across two hard drives, even though I’d prefer them to all be on the same hard drive.

In Lightroom Classic, the only issue with having photos stored on two drives is that you’ll have two hard drives (and therefore two sets of folders) listed in the Folders list on the left panel in the Library module. All other features behave normally. For example, you can add photos to collections regardless of which hard drive the source images happen to be stored on.

So, if it isn’t practical to use a single large hard drive to store all the photos you’re managing with Lightroom Classic, you can most certainly use more than one hard drive for that storage. I just recommend coming up with some logical way to define which photos are on which hard drive, so it will be easier to know where to start looking for a particular folder of photos, for example.

Today’s Question: In Bridge, if a stack of images is collapsed and dragged to another folder, only the top image moves, and the others are left behind. If the stack is not collapsed both images get moved, but in both cases, the stacking information is lost. What am I missing?

Tim’s Quick Answer: If the stack is collapsed in Adobe Bridge, you need to be sure to select the full stack and not just the top image. If the stack is expanded, you need to make sure to select all photos in the stack in order to retain the stack.

More Detail: Admittedly, I consider Adobe Bridge to be a little finicky when it comes to the behavior of stacks. This can be especially challenging when it comes to a stack that is expanded rather than collapsed.

If a stack is expanded and you select some (but not all) the photos in the stack, if you drag-and-drop the images to a different folder only the selected photos will be moved, and they will no longer be in a stack. To retain the stack, you need to select exactly the images in the stack, not just a portion of them.

For a stack that is collapsed the behavior is a little easier to manage, but there is a “trick”. When you collapse a stack the frame around the thumbnail will have two frames that overlap, resembling two images stacked atop one another. If you click on the thumbnail, only the upper frame will be selected, which actually means only the top image in the stack is selected. If you drag-and-drop the image, only that top image will be moved, leaving the other images behind.

If you instead click the lower frame, which only appears on the right and bottom sides of the thumbnail, you’ll select the entire stack. This will be indicated by both frames having a colored highlight to indicate both frames are selected, meaning all images in the stack are selected. If you drag-and-drop with the full stack selected in this way, all images in the stack will be moved and the stack will be retained.

Today’s Question: When I export images from my iPhone to my computer, if I export them as Unmodified Originals they come onto my computer as HEIC files at 1.7 MB. If I export as JPEGs they are 3.2 MB files, and if I export them as TIFFs they are 36.6 MB files. My inclination would be to export as TIFF and get the largest amount of data but I’m not sure where the data came from??

Tim’s Quick Answer: The differences in file size relate primarily to how the information is stored, not how much information was captured. In this context I recommend transferring the original capture format as the best starting point.

More Detail: The HEIC and JPEG capture formats are similar in concept, though different in the underlying technology and who created them. Both, however, enable image data to be stored at smaller sizes based on image compression technology. You can think of HEIC as being something of a more modern version of a JPEG image, providing higher quality overall.

If you save an HEIC file as a JPEG image, you can select a Quality setting that will affect file size, but in most cases the JPEG image will be smaller than the HEIC image. However, because this is achieved through stronger lossy compression, image quality will suffer to some extent.

If you save the image as a TIFF file, the file size will grow exponentially. This is because very different compression is applied with TIFF image, and in some cases no compression is used at all. Among other things, this generally means that every single pixel is described with a TIFF image, while with HEIC and JPEG images the pixel data can be described more efficiently.

While TIFF files have the potential to maintain better image quality, this isn’t necessarily worth the additional file size at least as a starting point for an image being transferred between devices. If you later decide you want to make full use of Photoshop to optimize an image, for example, you can always save as a TIFF or PSD (Photoshop document) file to preserve special features such as layers and masks.

Today’s Question: I am into star trails and wondered if there was a way to remove objects (stars/star trails) based on their intensity as I would like to remove the less intense/less bright objects and control to what extent.

Tim’s Quick Answer: Yes, you could define a mask based on brightness values to select the specific areas you wanted to affect, and then either perform cleanup or apply an adjustment to tone down or remove those areas.

More Detail: While this technique can work very well for star trail photography, the same concept could apply to a variety of situations where you can identify specific areas of an image based on their tonal value relative to the rest of the image.

In this example you could define a mask based on a luminance range, such as in Camera Raw (including the Camera Raw filter in Photoshop) or Lightroom Classic. Select the Luminance Range (under the Range option) for the mask. Then define a range that will include only the tonal values between the bright star trails and the dark night sky.

Once you’ve defined that mask, you could use adjustments to help hide the affected areas, such as by using a tonal adjustment (including possibly a Tone Curve adjustment) to darken the areas based on the mask. This would effectively hide (or greatly diminish) the areas of the image that were competing with the star trails a bit, by being darker than the trails but brighter than the night sky.

Note that if you preferred to use an image-cleanup tool to remove these areas, you could similarly create a mask based on tonal range (for Midtones) using the Color Range selection tool. That could then be used as the basis for a mask on an image cleanup layer to protect the rest of the image.

Today’s Question: Is there any downside to going back to photos I edited a long time ago [in Lightroom Classic or Camera Raw], and updating them to the current [process] version for the purpose of, for example, reducing noise and possibly making a few “tweaks”?

Tim’s Quick Answer: The only real risk of changing the process version for a photo that had previously edited is that doing so can alter the appearance of the photo, in some cases rather significantly.

More Detail: The process version in Lightroom or Camera Raw can be thought of as representing the version of the set of adjustments that are available. That not only includes new features that get added over time, but also changes in the algorithms that determine the specific behavior of individual adjustments.

For example, in the first process version the basic tone adjustments included Exposure, Recovery, Fill Light, Blacks, Brightness, and Contrast. In the current process version (version 6) those have been updated to Exposure, Contrast, Highlights, Shadows, Whites, and Blacks.

If you had made a series of modifications to the tonal adjustment settings for an image using process version 1, and then updated that image to the latest process version, there could be a rather strong change in the appearance of the image. You could certainly then refine the adjustment settings based on the updated process version, but this adds a degree of work and in some cases it may be difficult to get the image back to the look you wanted.

To help manage this issue, when you want to update an image to a new process version I recommend first creating a virtual copy. Then, on the assumption you’re more likely going to want to retain the final image with the newer process version, I recommend leaving the virtual copy as a reference image that reflects the original adjustments, and then updating the adjustments for the original image including the update to the latest process version.

By creating a virtual copy for this purpose, you’ll be able to easily compare the previous and current versions of the image, and also revert to the earlier version of the image should that become necessary.

Today’s Question: I have two folders that have some of the same photos in Lightroom Classic. Is there an easy way to identify the duplicates so I can remove them from one of the files?

Tim’s Quick Answer: In my view the only real option that can be trusted for identifying duplicates is to browse the full group of photos at the same time, sort by capture time (and possibly filter the images), and then review the images to confirm which are duplicates. You can then compare the duplicate images to identify which should be kept and which should be discarded.

More Detail: Unfortunately, there isn’t a reliable and automatic method for removing duplicates in this context. There are a couple of plug-ins that purport to do this, but they only mark suspected duplicates and don’t have good algorithms for figuring out which of the duplicates is the better version to keep, for example.

Therefore, I would suggest browsing both folders and reviewing the images manually.

Start by selecting one folder in the Folders list on the left panel in the Library module and then hold the Command key on Macintosh or the Ctrl key on Windows while clicking on the other folder. In the grid view make sure the sort order is set to Capture Time. This will provide a great starting point for identifying duplicates, because duplicate images will be next to each other, assuming the capture time hadn’t ever been modified for the images being reviewed.

Of course, just because the thumbnail is the same doesn’t mean you can be certain that one of the apparent duplicates needs to be deleted. For example, you might have an original raw capture as well as a virtual copy or perhaps a TIFF or PSD file that was created via Photoshop. However, you can review the file types in this context to get a sense of whether there is a duplicate that should be deleted.

If you have true duplicates, such as two raw captures that are obviously the same image in different folders, the next step is to decide if one should be prioritized over the other. For example, you can review whether one or the other was optimized in the Develop module or had specific metadata updates such as star ratings or keywords. If there is one clear “winner”, the other image can be deleted. If there have been updates to both, you may want to apply metadata updates across the two images to get one of them updated with the most (and most recent) info.

Ultimately this process can be a bit time-consuming, but in my view it is important to be sure you’re deleting the right duplicate to avoid losing metadata updates or other important changes. In the future, hopefully there will be more powerful tools for reliably determining which images can truly be deleted as duplicates in Lightroom Classic without as much effort.

Today’s Question: I was checking my settings in Catalog Settings for Lightroom Classic, and noticed the “Import Number” and “Photos Imported” fields both show a value of one, even though I’ve imported many photos many times. Do these fields serve some sort of purpose, and if so why do the numbers never change?

Tim’s Quick Answer: The fields in question relate to the option of being able to rename photos to include a number based on how many times you’ve imported photos, as well as a number based on the total number of photos imported. The options in Catalog Settings allow you to change the current number for each field if needed.

More Detail: Lightroom Classic includes a variety of options for defining a template to rename photos. It is worth noting, especially in the context of today’s question, that there are different options for renaming based on whether you access the Filename Template Editor from the Library module or the Import dialog.

In the import dialog if you choose Edit from the Template popup in the File Renaming section of the right panel, the Filename Template Editor dialog that appears will include a Numbering section where you will find popups for “Import #” and “Image #”. For each you can select an option between one and five digits, to allow for leading zeros that will help ensure proper sort order when sorting by filename.

If you use the “Import #” token in a template for renaming photos, each time you import a batch of photos into Lightroom Classic the number will increment by one. That, in turn, means the value you see for “Import Number” in the Catalog Settings dialog will increment to reflect the updated number.

The same concept applies for the “Image #” token for renaming photos, except that this option relates to the total number of images imported that included the “Image #” token as part of the template for renaming. Therefore, when you use this token to rename images, the value for “Photos Imported” in the Catalog Settings dialog will increment based on the total number of photos you’ve imported while renaming with the “Image #” token.

Of course, if you don’t use the “Import #” or “Image #” tokens for renaming photos upon import, then the values shown in the Catalog Settings dialog will remain at zero. That is the reason you’re seeing both fields with a value of one, because that is of course the starting value, and you’ve not used either token that would cause those values to increment.

Today’s Question: My catalog is nearing capacity on my 4TB external drive, and I want to split it between two drives. Do I plug in the new (empty) drive, let Lightroom Classic discover it, then just drag and drop folders onto it? This frightens me a bit.

Tim’s Quick Answer: In this scenario I recommend first creating a new top-level folder on the new hard drive from within Lightroom Classic. At that point the new folder would be visible within Lightroom Classic, and you would be able to drag folders from the existing drive to the new folder on the new drive.

More Detail: The most important thing to keep in mind for this task is that all the work should be done within Lightroom Classic. If you attempt to move folders and photos from one drive to another outside Lightroom Classic, the folders and photos will appear as missing within your catalog, and you’ll have a bit of a mess on your hands.

I should also hasten to add that before performing any of this work I recommend updating your backup of all photos. Hopefully that goes without saying since I tend to write a lot about backing up photos!

After connecting the new hard drive to the computer, you can click the plus icon (+) to the right of the Folders heading and choose “Add Folder” from the popup menu. Navigate to the new hard drive, then click the “New Folder” button. Create a new top-level folder with a meaningful name, such as “Photos”. When you click the Choose button the new hard drive and the new folder will appear within the Folders list on the left panel in the Library module.

You can then drag-and-drop individual folders from the original hard drive to the new folder on the new hard drive. Note that it is possible to select multiple folders at a time from the old drive and drag them all at once to the new location. However, if you’re going to do so I recommend dragging in relatively small batches. Otherwise, if an error occurs it can be more challenging to get things back on track.

I also recommend creating some form of logic or strategy for choosing which folders and photos will be on the new drive versus the original drive. Doing so can make it easier to keep track of where specific photos belong and can therefore be found between the two drives. This can be especially helpful if you might tend to have just one of the two hard drive connected in certain situations. You could divide photos based on older versus newer images, higher versus lower priority, or some other criteria that makes sense for you.

Today’s Question: Long ago, when I was first learning to use Photoshop, I found a way I could lighten or darken a particular area of an image and then “brush” that effect gradually into neighboring areas. Either my memory has failed me (quite possible), or the tools have changed, but I am unable to duplicate that process now. What am I missing, or messing up?

Tim’s Quick Answer: This is indeed a good technique that is still available in Photoshop. The process involves adding a new image layer with specific attributes, and then using the Brush tool to paint with black and white at a reduced opacity to darken and lighten areas of the image, respectively.

More Detail: The flexible dodging and burning technique is probably one of the adjustments I’ve been using (and teaching) in Photoshop the longest. It provides greater flexibility and control than using the Dodge and Burn tools by making use of the Brush tool instead.

To get started, select the top-most image layer (which could be the Background image layer) on the Layers panel by clicking on its thumbnail. Then hold the Alt key on Windows or the Option key on Macintosh while clicking on the “Create a new layer” button (the plus within a square icon) at the bottom of the Layers panel.

In the New Layer dialog, enter a meaningful name in the Name field, such as “Dodge and Burn”. Set the Mode popup to Overlay, set the Opacity to 100%, and turn on the “Fill with Overlay-neutral color (50% gray)” checkbox. Click the OK button to create the new layer.

Next, choose the Brush tool from the Tools panel. On the Options bar click the brush popup (the third icon from the left) and set the Hardness value to 0%. Make sure the Mode popup on the Options bar is set to Normal, and set the Opacity value to somewhere around 10% to 20%.

Set the colors to their default values of black for the foreground color and white for the background color by pressing the letter “D” on the keyboard. As needed you can press the letter “X” to exchange the foreground and background colors.

With everything configured, you can adjust the brush size as need by pressing the left square bracket (“[“) key to reduce the brush size and the right square bracket key (“]”) to increase the brush size. Then paint with black over areas of the image you want to darken, and paint with white over areas you want to brighten.

The result is a non-destructive layer-based approach to dodging and burning an image with great flexibility.

Today’s Question: I keep all my images on a 6TB external hard drive, which is quickly running out of space, and would like to back it up to an external 20TB hard drive. What software do you recommend and why?

Tim’s Quick Answer: I would use software such as GoodSync (http://timgrey.me/greybackup), though there are some very important issues that need to be kept in mind when performing this work.

More Detail: There are a variety of ways you could migrate photos to a larger hard drive. However, I recommend using software that is designed for this type of purpose to avoid problems and frustrations.

If you’re using Lightroom Classic you’ll of course need to keep in mind that if the overall path to the photos changes, you’ll need to reconnect the “missing” folders after the migration. This is best done by reconnecting a single top-level folder, such as by having a “Photos” folder that can be used as the single folder to reconnect above all others.

I don’t recommend simply copying (or moving) the photos, because this can result in problems and frustration if there are any photos that aren’t able to be transferred for any reason. This process can be managed much more easily by creating a backup job for this purpose with software such as GoodSync (http://timgrey.me/greybackup).

One significant caveat to be aware of with GoodSync is that it will make the destination location look exactly like the source location, which can include deleting existing files if you’re not careful. For example, if you have existing files and folders on the destination drive, but then select the existing photos drive as the source and the top-level (root) of the larger hard drive as the destination, GoodSync will delete existing files on the larger hard drive so that it matches what is on the source drive. In this case you should use a new parent folder on the larger drive to serve as the destination for the backup.

While the overall process of migrating photos to a new and larger hard drive is rather straightforward, there are also risks involved if you’re not familiar with the specific process involved. In that case I would recommend having someone who is familiar with this workflow take care of the process for you. Even more important, if you’re using Lightroom Classic I consider it critically important to make sure that anyone who helps you with this type of computer work is very familiar with Lightroom Classic.