Author: Tim Grey

Today’s Question: I’ve enjoyed your answers over the past couple days about what I think some general misconceptions about photography, and wonder if you could help clarify another one that has confused me. Is it true that long lenses compress a scene?

Tim’s Quick Answer: No, long lenses do not compress a scene. The distance of the camera to the subjects is what alters the compression of the scene. The longer focal length is simply cropping that view.

More Detail: It has long been said in photography that “long lenses compress a scene”, meaning they make distant subjects appear closer to near subjects than they would if a shorter focal length lens had been used. This isn’t how this issue of compression works at all.

Rather, it is the position of the camera (and by extension the photographer) from the subjects in the frame that affects perspective related to the compression of a scene. The focal length of the lens determines the field of view, or cropping of the scene, not the compression of that scene.

For example, let’s assume you want to photograph a person with a barn in the background. If you are very close to the person, the barn will appear relatively small. If you back away from the person, the barn in the distance only appears to get a little bit smaller, while the person you are no longer very close to appears to get smaller to a larger degree. You can think of this as being a situation where the farther you back away from the foreground subject, the closer the foreground and background subjects get to each other in size.

Of course, if you’re going to back away from the subject to visually compress the scene, you’re likely going to want to use a longer focal length lens to crop the scene so the foreground subject is still framed at about the same size. This might lead you to assume that the long lens is compressing the scene, but it isn’t. Moving away from the foreground subject compressed the scene, and the longer lens cropped the field of view.

You can watch me demonstrate this issue, and see me looking quite a bit younger, in a video from ten years ago where I provide a visual example of how this perspective compression actually works. The video is on my “Tim Grey TV” channel on YouTube here:

https://youtu.be/wFqukptuwmg

Today’s Question: I was on a photo workshop with an emphasis on landscape photography, and there was a lot of talk about focusing one-third of the way into the frame for maximum depth of field. Is there any truth to this notion, and if so, why?

Tim’s Quick Answer: The advice you’re referring to is based on a reasonable rule of thumb relating to the concept of hyperfocal distance for maximizing depth of field. However, it isn’t universally true that focusing a third of the way into the frame will maximize depth of field.

More Detail: Hyperfocal distance is the closest distance you can focus while still having the depth of field extend all the way to infinity. This principal can therefore be helpful when you want to achieve maximum depth of field, which is a common goal in landscape photography.

However, what is most important is that the hyperfocal distance is beyond the distance at which you’ll be focusing. Otherwise, you won’t have depth of field that extends all the way to infinity.

For example, let’s assume the use of a 50mm lens that can stop down to a minimum aperture size of f/22. The hyperfocal distance for this configuration is about 20 feet. So, if the intent is to set the focus on an object that is ten feet away, you won’t have depth of field that extends all the way to infinity. In fact, the depth of field in this sample scenario would only be about 14 feet.

If, on the other hand, you were focusing at 20 feet then you would have depth of field that extends all the way to infinity, with a total depth of field that extends from about 9 feet to infinity.

Because of situations like this, I don’t recommend always focusing one-third of the way into the frame, or one-third of the way to the key subject. Instead, when maximizing depth of field is important, and especially when you have a subject relatively close to the camera that you want to have in focus, it is important to calculate depth of field to confirm what is possible with your intended lens and camera settings.

You can learn about calculating depth of field in the context of hyperfocal distance in Chapter 2, Lessons 5, 6, and 7, in my “Photo Planning with PhotoPills” video course, which you can find here:

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

Today’s Question: Is it true that a sensor with a greater resolution will result in photos with more noise? If so, is this a reason to avoid higher resolution sensors?

Tim’s Quick Answer: Yes, it is fair to say that all other things being equal a sensor with a higher resolution will result in more noise. However, there is tremendous variability involved, and this issue should not cause you to intentionally seek out a camera with a lower resolution sensor.

More Detail: By definition if a sensor of a given size has a greater number of pixels, the individual photodiodes that capture the pixel data will be smaller. Smaller photodiodes aren’t able to capture as wide a range of tonal values, meaning they have lower dynamic range. That, in turn, contributes to a greater amount of noise.

However, that is not to say that just because a sensor has more pixels than another that it will produce images with more noise. There are a great many factors that contribute to the noise levels for a given sensor, such as the use of microlenses, in-camera noise processing, photodiode quality, and much more.

If a manufacturer were to produce two sensors that were of the same size and identical in every way except for the number of photodiodes, and that as a result the lower-resolution sensor had larger photodiodes, you could expect lower noise levels for that sensor. But the reality is that two different sensors generally differ much more than simply the number of photodiodes.

So, the most important thing is to test the actual noise behavior of the camera you’re considering. In general, cameras today perform very well when it comes to minimizing noise. We are able to use much higher ISO settings now compared to years ago, for example, when it was often important to restrict yourself to relatively low ISO settings to avoid excessive noise.

Keep in mind that the advantages of higher sensor resolution will generally outweigh the risk of significant noise with today’s cameras. Furthermore, even if an image exhibits noise, software has advanced to the point of being able to minimize the appearance of noise without significant degradation in image quality.

Today’s Question: I’ve been applying the chromatic aberration correction in Camera Raw and have been pleased by the results. I understand this to be a non-destructive process but wondered what unintended effects this might have elsewhere in the editing process. Your thoughts?

Tim’s Quick Answer: The primary risks in terms of image degradation caused by chromatic aberration removal are the introduction or exaggeration of contrast halos, and the slight reduction in edge contrast especially for fine textures.

More Detail: Overall, I consider the application of chromatic aberration removal to be safe in the context of overall image quality. However, there is some degree of risk that image quality can be degraded, primarily when chromatic aberration removal is applied with settings that are too aggressive. It is worth noting, however, that generally the benefits of removing chromatic aberration likely outweigh the risks of introducing new issues for an image.

If you only turn on the “Remove Chromatic Aberration” checkbox (in Camera Raw or Lightroom Classic) without adjusting the controls on the Manual tab, the risk of image degradation is minimal. The primary risk in this case is generally that halos in the image might be shifted around rather than be removed, but I wouldn’t consider that to be creating a new problem.

The real risk comes from using the Manual tab to increase the amount of chromatic aberration removal to the point that new artifacts are created in the image.

For example, with strong adjustments especially with an expanded hue range, there is a risk that the contrast edges where chromatic aberrations were visible will appear as relatively large gray halos in the same position. To avoid this type of artifact in the image, be careful not to expand the hue controls into too large a range of colors, and don’t increase the amount (strength) for the chromatic aberration removal.

With careful application of the Manual controls for chromatic aberration removal, there is some risk that the chromatic aberration won’t be completely removed, leaving behind a small halo with minimal color. This will almost always be better than leaving the color fringing from the original chromatic aberration, but those halos can still be somewhat problematic.

Note, by the way, that in the context of raw processing “non-destructive” just means that the original raw capture is not modified in any way. The new image you create via raw processing will still have the pixels altered based on the adjustments you apply when processing the raw capture.

Today’s Question: How do you go about updating the Default view for Metadata in Lightroom Classic to only include the fields you want to see there?

Tim’s Quick Answer: You can customize the metadata fields available in the Default view in the Metadata section in Lightroom Classic by choosing that view and clicking the “Customize” button that appears at the bottom of the section.

More Detail: To the left of the Metadata heading on the right panel in the Library module in Lightroom Classic you’ll find a popup where you can choose different metadata view options. Each will cause different metadata fields to appear within that section of the right panel.

If you choose “Default” from the popup, you’ll find a Customize button at the bottom of the Metadata section. Clicking that button will bring up a dialog displaying all available metadata fields, with checkboxes to the left of each field on the list. You can turn on or off the checkbox for individual metadata fields to designate which should be included in the Metadata section when the Default view option is active.

In addition, you can change the order of display for the metadata fields that have been enabled. To do so, click the Arrange button at the bottom of the “Customize Metadata Default Panel” dialog. That will bring up the “Arrange Metadata Default Panel” dialog, where you can drag the “hamburger” icon (the three horizontal lines) to the left of any metadata field to drag it into a different position.

You can then click the Save button in the “Arrange Metadata Default Panel” dialog, or the Done button in the “Customize Metadata Default Panel” dialog if you didn’t arrange the order, to close the dialog and apply the changes. From that point forward just make sure the Default option is selected from the popup to the left of the Metadata heading, and you’ll have your customized list of metadata fields available.

Today’s Question: There are a lot of metadata fields in Lightroom Classic. I apply a metadata preset for the basics (copyright, name, etc.). When I process images, I fill in Title and Caption, and I use Copy Name to identify specific uses. Should I also fill in all the other fields, such as Alt Text and Scene. And should I change the file name if I want the images when posted to a site like SmugMug to be better searchable? All of this can be very time-consuming.

Tim’s Quick Answer: My view is that you should only update metadata that will prove useful to you, such as the Keywords field and perhaps Title and Caption. Renaming generally isn’t critical provided you’re otherwise using metadata or other updates to make the images easier to find.

More Detail: To be sure, renaming all photos to names that represent the images better than the filenames assigned by the camera can be helpful. And updating every metadata field that relates to your images in any way could potentially be helpful at some point. But my view is that you should consider the cost versus benefit of performing that work and only apply updates that will truly be helpful in your workflow.

The only metadata field that I sort of view as being mandatory is the Keywords field. That’s because I consider this field to be particularly helpful both when it comes to locating specific images and when you need to be reminded of some of the key details of a photo. I therefore consider it worthwhile to keyword at least your favorite photos, and at least with the keywords you believe will be most helpful for locating photos and getting a reminder about their contents.

Beyond keywords, I only recommend updating various metadata fields if doing so is necessary (such as when submitting images to a stock photography agency) or helpful (such as to use as a title when sharing to social media or simply helping you better organize your images).

For example, I do find updating the Title and Caption fields can be very helpful, at least for your favorite photos. Updating the Copy Name field for virtual copies in Lightroom Classic can also be helpful for keeping those virtual copies organized.

There are so many metadata fields available in the various defined standards, which by extension means there are many fields visible in Lightroom Classic (and other software). However, I don’t recommend updating a large number of metadata fields just because they are there. Think carefully about which fields might be the most useful in your workflow, and update accordingly, even if that only means assigning meaningful keywords to your photos.

Note, by the way, that if you want a more streamlined view of the metadata fields that are most helpful to you, it is possible to customize the Default view in the Metadata section of Lightroom Classic so it only includes the specific metadata fields you want to have access to.

Today’s Question: I had some maintenance done on my computer, and now Lightroom Classic won’t launch at all. I’ve tried uninstalling and reinstalling to no avail. Do you have any suggestions?

Tim’s Quick Answer: When there is a critical issue with an Adobe Creative Cloud application, including Lightroom Classic, and reinstalling doesn’t provide a solution, I recommend using the Creative Cloud Cleaner tool.

More Detail: For relatively minor issues with Lightroom Classic (or Photoshop or other Adobe applications) in many cases resetting the Preferences will resolve the issue. When that doesn’t work, usually uninstalling and reinstalling will get things back to working properly. However, when neither of those provide a solution, the Creative Cloud Cleaner tool will generally provide a solution.

The Cleaner tool is a command line type of application, but in my experience it does a good job of resolving issues that otherwise seem impossible to overcome.

You can get all the details on how to use the Creative Cloud Cleaner tool on the Adobe website here:

https://helpx.adobe.com/creative-cloud/apps/troubleshoot/diagnostics-repair-tools/run-creative-cloud-cleaner-tool.html

Today’s Question: I’m confused about why it is possible to use a negative value for the Texture, Clarity, and Dehaze sliders. Doing so seems to only degrade the detail in images. Am I missing something?

Tim’s Quick Answer: Using a negative value for Texture, Clarity, or Dehaze can provide smoothing or an ethereal glow effect for an image, which in some cases can enhance the look of an image.

More Detail: While in my experience the great majority of photographers use positive values for the Presence adjustments of Texture, Clarity, and Dehaze for the vast majority of images, there are situations where a negative value can be quite helpful. These adjustments are included in all versions of Lightroom as well as Photoshop.

For example, a negative value for Texture can help smooth out fine textures, which can be helpful for smoothing skin tones for photos that include people. Doing so can also help smooth an image that looks a bit too “crunchy” such as from excessive contrast in areas of fine detail.

A negative value for Clarity can create a somewhat dreamy appearance with an ethereal glow. I find that it works especially well with backlit scenes that lend themselves to a somewhat dreamlike appearance.

Using a negative value for Dehaze will cause the image to appear more hazy with a somewhat foggy appearance. This is perhaps the least likely among the three to be used with a negative value, but it can certainly be used for a nice creative effect in some cases.

The bottom line is that I would certainly say that the Texture, Clarity, and Dehaze sliders are most helpful for most photos when used with a positive value. However, in some cases a negative value for one or more of these sliders can provide a very helpful effect for some images.

Today’s Question: If I remember correctly there is a way in Photoshop to simply point to an object and have that object selected automatically, so that a targeted adjustment can be applied. But I can’t find where that is. Can you point me in the right direction?

Tim’s Quick Answer: With the Object Selection tool in Photoshop, you can automatically select individual objects within an image, based on image analysis, simply by clicking on the object you want to select.

More Detail: There are more than a few tools and commands for creating selections in Photoshop, but when there is a specific subject in an image that you want to select, the Object Selection tool can often provide a fast way to create an accurate selection.

To get started, choose the Object Selection tool from the toolbar. This tool shares a button with the Quick Selection and Magic Wand tools, so if the icon for one of those tools is displayed you can right-click or click-and-hold on the button to bring up a flyout menu.

With the Object Selection tool active, click the gear icon on the Options bar and confirm that the “Object Finder” checkbox is turned on. Then hover your mouse over the image, and a color overlay will highlight any object that has been detected under your mouse pointer. You can then click on the object you want to select, and a selection will be created based on the overlay that had been displayed.

You can use the Add and Subtract options to refine the selection based on other objects, such as to create a selection that is comprised of more than one object, or to remove an area of a selection based on an object that is included in that selection. Similarly, you can refine the selection using any of the other selection tools or commands.

While the Object Selection tool isn’t perfect, in many cases it will provide an excellent selection for individual objects in a photo. At the very least, it generally does a very good job of providing a starting point for a selection that would have been more time-consuming or challenging using other tools.

Today’s Question: When using virtual copies [in Lightroom Classic] to create different versions of the same image, how do you recommend organizing these in terms of the intent for each version?

Tim’s Quick Answer: I think the Copy Name field that serves the purpose of identifying virtual copies is a perfect option, and by simply updating the text in this field you can keep track of the intent for each virtual copy you create.

More Detail: When you create a virtual copy in Lightroom Classic you’re simply duplicating the metadata for the source image so that you can maintain different versions of the same source image. This is most commonly used to have different interpretations of a single image in the Develop module.

For example, you might optimize the original image in color but then create a virtual copy to create a black and white interpretation. You might then create another virtual copy based on the black and white version and then apply a sepia tone or other color tint to that version.

Especially if you create more than one virtual copy for a single image, and if there are relatively subtle differences between the virtual copies, it can sometimes be tricky to keep track of the purpose for individual virtual copies. For example, if you optimized the original image without cropping, and then created a virtual copy for a version with an 8×10 aspect ratio, it might not be immediately clear why the two versions exist.

When you create a virtual copy in Lightroom Classic the Copy Name field for that virtual copy will update to reflect the number, such as “Copy 1” and then “Copy 2” and so on. When there is text in the Copy Name field, that text will appear after the filename for the image, such as being shown above the filmstrip on the bottom panel for the selected image.

But the Copy Name field can be edited, so you can update the text to something much more meaningful than “Copy 1”. Based on the examples above you might, for example, update the Copy Name field to “Color”, “Black and White”, and “Sepia Tone” for the various versions of the image.

Note that the Copy Name field can be directly searched by selecting it from the first popup on the Text tab of the Library Filter bar. If you’re consistent in how you update the Copy Name field, this can make it easy to locate specific versions of images at a later date.