Author: Tim Grey

Today’s Question: How do you organize your film photos in your Lightroom [Classic] catalog in relation to your digital photos? I created a folder called Scans and have subfolders in there by camera or other criteria. I’m not sure if this will be viable going forward.

Tim’s Quick Answer: The right answer here depends in large part on how many film scans you’ll include in your Lightroom Classic catalog, However, I do think that having a master folder for analog images is a good starting point for many photographers.

More Detail: Some photographers have a significant library of photos captured on film that they have digitized and want to manage. Other photographers, such as myself, tend to digitize only the best of their film captures, which translates to far fewer analog images than digital captures in their library. The right approach depends to some extent on how many analog images you want to manage within the workflow for your digital captures.

The first thing to decide is whether the film captures you scan should be managed in the same workflow as your digital captures, or whether it makes more sense to manage the film captures in a somewhat separate folder structure. If you’ve been mostly focused on digital photography for a number of years, and are just adding the best of your older film captures into your workflow, it probably makes sense to have a separate folder for those analog images. If the film captures are more significant in number and will be used in much the same way as your digital captures, you may want to blend the film captures into the same workflow as your digital captures.

If you will blend your analog captures into your existing workflow, you should use the same approach to folder structure for the analog images as you do for your digital photos. If you will keep the analog captures in a separate folder structure, you’ll want to think about what sort of sub-folder approach makes the most sense.

If you will be managing a relatively small number of analog images, you may want to simply put all of those photos into a “Film Scans” folder and use keywords or other metadata to help organize the images. If you’ll have a larger number of film scans, you may want to create sub-folders by date (to the extent you know that information) or subject matter for the images.

Ultimately, film scans and digital captures can be managed in the same basic way within Lightroom Classic, with the obvious difference being the absence of EXIF metadata for the film captures you’ve scanned. However, since there is a good chance that for many photographers film captures fall into a distinct category compared to digital photos, it can helpful to have those images separated into a folder structure based on their status as analog photos that have been added to a digital workflow.

Today’s Question: I am trying to figure out the best way to make the transition from my old computer to my new one. I keep my catalog on the internal hard drive and my photos on an external drive as you have recommended in the past. How do I transfer my catalog to the new computer to be assured that it will be able to access my photos on the external drive?

Tim’s Quick Answer: You can simply copy the entire folder containing your Lightroom Classic catalog to the new computer, then make sure the external hard drive has the same drive letter or volume label as it did on your “old” computer. At that point you can open the Lightroom Classic catalog on your new computer, and everything will be just as you left it on your old computer.

More Detail: Many photographers have this type of situation, where they are storing their Lightroom Classic catalog on an internal hard drive on their computer, and their photos on an external hard drive. This actually makes it quite easy to transition your Lightroom Classic workflow to a new computer.

The first step is to copy your Lightroom Classic catalog to the new computer. This requires, of course, that you know where that catalog is located. You can find this information in the Catalog Settings dialog in Lightroom Classic. Windows users can bring up this dialog by choosing Edit > Catalog Settings from the menu, and Macintosh users can select Lightroom Classic > Catalog Settings from the menu.

In the Catalog Settings dialog go to the General tab. Then click the “Show” button to the right of the Location field, which shows the path to the actual catalog file. Clicking the Show button will bring up a window in your operating system, with the folder containing your catalog highlighted.

Before copying the catalog folder, quit the Lightroom Classic application. You can then use an external hard drive, for example, to transfer the catalog folder. Drag the folder to a connected external hard drive, then switch that external hard drive to your new computer and drag the catalog folder from the external hard drive to the desired location on the internal hard drive on your new computer. Note that by default when you drag-and-drop a folder from one hard drive to another, you will be copying rather than moving the folder. I recommend renaming the folders on your old computer and on the external hard drive to indicate they should no longer be used, such as by putting “BACKUP” at the beginning of the folder name.

Next, connect the hard drive containing your photos to the new computer. For Windows users, you’ll also want to make sure that the drive letter assigned to the external hard drive on the new computer matches the drive letter that had been assigned on the old computer. You can change the drive letter in Windows using the Disk Management console. For Macintosh users you only need to make sure the hard drive name (volume label) is the same, which will be the case as long as you haven’t changed that yourself.

At this point you can open the folder containing the Lightroom Classic catalog on your new computer and double-click the catalog file with the “lrcat” filename extension. That will open the catalog in Lightroom Classic on your new computer (assuming, of course, that you’ve already installed Lightroom Classic on your new computer). Since the external hard drive also matches your setup on the old computer, everything will operate normally at that point on your new computer.

Today’s Question: With the advent of the new products (ie: Canon’s R5/R6 today) rolling out almost monthly, I see photos of cameras without a lens attached and the sensor seems to be in a very vulnerable position. Is there a much higher risk of sensor dust given that there isn’t a mirror in front the sensor when changing lenses??

Tim’s Quick Answer: I would contend that the mirror of a digital SLR provides a very slight degree of protection against blemishes on the image sensor. I do not, however, think this is a reason to avoid a mirrorless camera.

More Detail: Needless to say, I have not conducted any testing that would even remotely qualify as a scientific study of this issue. I also don’t know of any other such studies that would provide a definitive answer.

The primary benefit of a mirror in the context of contaminants getting on the image sensor is the fact that the mirror physically blocks the sensor to some extent. Similarly, the shutter mechanism (in cameras that include a physical shutter mechanism) blocks the sensor.

However, physically blocking the sensor when changing lenses won’t protect the sensor from all contaminants. For example, a water droplet that strikes the mirror on a digital SLR might evaporate and never cause any problem for the image sensor. Dust, on the other hand, can linger inside the camera and eventually get attached to the image sensor.

Keep in mind that the image sensor in a camera creates static electricity that can act like a magnet for dust. So, while a mirror or shutter mechanism may protect the image sensor from certain sources of contamination, any dust that gets into the camera could eventually find its way onto the image sensor.

In my mind, much of this is theoretical, and only reflects the potential statistical chances of a particular contaminant getting on the image sensor. To me it is more important that you exercise caution when changing lenses, regardless of what type of camera you’re using. And I also think the many other features of a given camera model are more important to consider when it comes to making a purchase decision, rather than whether or not the camera happens to have a mirror.

Today’s Question: I was watching one of your videos about using the metadata filtering options in Lightroom Classic, and so I explored the options in my catalog. I saw an option for “Depth” under Metadata, but when I choose it there are only options for “All” and “No Depth”, with the same count of photos for both. What does this filter option relate to?

Tim’s Quick Answer: The “Depth” option for metadata filtering relates to the depth map created as part of certain captures, such as the Portrait mode available on certain smartphone models.

More Detail: Some newer models of smartphones include the option to capture photos with reduced depth of field, which are created automatically by the camera app on these smartphones by blending an in-focus and out-of-focus image. A depth map is created as a mask defining which areas should be in focus versus blurred, based on distance from the camera.

Lightroom Classic supports images with this type of a depth map, with perhaps the most common example being the Portrait mode capture option available with the Camera app on the more recent Apple iPhone models.

The Depth filter option available with the Metadata tab of the Library Filter bar (View > Show Filter Bar) enables you to filter between images captured with an embedded depth map, and those without.

Images with a depth map can be filtered by selecting the “Has Depth” option, and photos without a depth map can be filtered with the “No Depth” option. This is obviously a filter setting that is primarily useful for tracking down photos that were captured on a smartphone using the feature (such as Portrait mode) that employs a depth map to create the final photo.

Today’s Question: Thank you for the information about virtual copies in Lightroom Classic [in yesterday’s Ask Tim Grey eNewsletter]. I understand it is easy to delete a virtual copy if I decide I don’t like the adjustments applied to that virtual copy, so I still have the original image. But what if I decide I like the virtual copy better than the original? Is there a way to easily copy the adjustments of the virtual copy to the original, so I can then delete the virtual copy without losing the adjustments?

Tim’s Quick Answer: Yes, you can swap the adjustments between a virtual copy and the original photo with the “Set Copy as Master” command in Lightroom Classic.

More Detail: Virtual copies make it easy to create multiple interpretations of the same image. This can be helpful when you actually want more than one version of a photo, or when you’re exploring different possibilities before deciding on the final look for an image.

If you decide a particular virtual copy isn’t working out, you can simply remove that virtual copy by right-clicking on it and choosing Remove Photo from the popup menu that appears. The virtual copy will be removed, but the original image will of course remain.

It might seem tricky, however, if you decide that you like the adjustments represented by the virtual copy more than the version represented by the source image. Fortunately, Lightroom Classic makes it easy to swap the adjustments between a virtual copy and a source photo.

Let’s assume you have a source photo you have optimized as a color version of the image, and a virtual copy that you have converted to black and white. You decide that you want to keep the black and white version of the image, discarding the color version.

However, the color version is the original image, with the black and white image being the virtual copy. You certainly don’t want to delete the source image, since the virtual copy requires that source. Instead, you simply want to swap the adjustments between the source and the virtual copy.

To make that swap, first select the virtual copy rather than the source image. Go to the Library module, and from the menu choose Photo > Set Copy as Master. Note that this command is not available on the menu when you are in the Develop module. When you use this command, the adjustments for the virtual copy will be applied to the source image, and the adjustments that had been applied to the source image will instead by applied to the virtual copy.

At that point you could also delete the virtual copy if you only want the version of the image that is represented by the source photo at that point.

If you will be working with virtual copies in this way, it is important to be aware of which image is a virtual copy and which is a source photo. Virtual copies have a turned page icon at the bottom-left of the thumbnail. Virtual copies also show a name (“Copy 1” by default for the first virtual copy) after the filename of the source image, on the information display for the selected photo on the left side of the filmstrip, above the thumbnail display. Be sure you aren’t deleting a source image when you intend to delete a virtual copy.

Of course, keep in mind that all adjustments in Lightroom Classic are non-destructive, so even if you later decide you really do want to have the image in color, you would still be able to switch your black and white interpretation applied to the source image back to a color version (or even add a new virtual copy for that purpose).

Today’s Question: How aggressive are you about using virtual copies [in Lightroom Classic]? I have considered, but not routinely implemented, a practice of making virtual copies of the original any time I do a significant crop to an original image. Is this something you do, or would support? Catalogue drive space required is small, and cropping options are not absolute in my experience, and without knowing what I have cropped from, these options are effectively foreclosed. Comments?

Tim’s Quick Answer: My general approach is to use Virtual Copies in Adobe Lightroom Classic whenever I want to create a completely different interpretation of a photo, or when I want to create a slight variation on an image (such as with a crop) while being sure not to risk losing the original interpretation of the image.

More Detail: A Virtual Copy in Lightroom Classic enables you to make multiple versions of a single source image, meaning different interpretations based on your adjustments in the Develop module. These can be helpful both in terms of creating different interpretations of a photo (such as a color and a black & white version), as well as for workflow reasons.

In most cases I settle on a single interpretation of a given photo, but that’s not always the case. Sometimes I use different versions of a photo in different contexts. Regardless, if I want to maintain two different interpretations of the same photo, I’ll create a Virtual Copy for that purpose.

Sometimes I may have a difficult time deciding which version of a photo I like best as I’m working toward creating a “final” version of the image. In those cases I would still create a Virtual Copy to explore both options, but if I ultimately decide on a single version as my “final” version, then I would generally delete the “extra” Virtual Copy just to avoid confusion.

I also sometimes use Virtual Copies for workflow purposes. If I decide I will crop an image to suit the limitations of Instagram for example, I might create a virtual copy for the purpose of creating that copy of the photo, to preserve the original version of the image. In this type of scenario I would typically create the Virtual Copy, crop or otherwise alter that Virtual Copy, export for sharing, and then delete the Virtual Copy.

So, I don’t use Virtual Copies extensively, and I try to make a distinction between Virtual Copies I want to retain permanently, and those being used for temporary purposes. If the purpose is temporary, I try to remember to delete the unneeded Virtual Copy as soon as it is no longer needed, to avoid clutter or confusion in my Lightroom Classic catalog.

Today’s Question: You addressed a question about bit depth and made reference to cameras with 12-bit and 14-bit support. But I thought images could only be either 8-bit or 16-bit?

Tim’s Quick Answer: While most software only offers options to work with images in either the 8-bit per channel or 16-bit per channel bit depths, there are a variety of other options available depending on the context.

More Detail: Bit depth refers to the level of precision involved in a conversion from an analog data source (such as light in the context of photography) to discrete digital values. In the context of digital photos, the low end of the bit depth scale is 8-bit per channel.

Most software provides support for either 8-bit per channel images or 16-bit per channel images. However, this is not an inherent limitation of image processing. If you capture a JPEG image with any digital camera, the result will be an 8-bit per channel image. With a raw capture, many photographers are familiar with the notion of a 16-bit per channel image.

However, just because most software supports 8-bit per channel and 16-bit per channel images doesn’t mean those are the only options for digital photos.

Again, for JPEG captures the image will always be an 8-bit per channel image. But for raw captures the camera is not necessarily producing a 16-bit per channel image. In fact, most are not. Most cameras offer either 12-bit per channel or 14-bit per channel analog to digital conversion. A few camera models offer full 16-bit per channel conversion.

However, regardless of the bit depth supported by your camera, in most cases when processing the raw capture to produce a final image, you will generally only have a 16-bit per channel option. In other words, whether your camera is producing 12-bit, 14-bit, or 16-bit per channel data, the result will be contained within a 16-bit per channel image file.

It is important to keep in mind that even if you are working with a 16-bit per channel image, that doesn’t mean you actually have 16-bit per channel data for that image. It is simply a matter of only having either an 8-bit per channel or 16-bit per channel option available in most software, so an image that has more than 8-bits per channel of data needs to be contained in a file that supports a higher bit depth, which generally translates to a 16-bit per channel file.

Note, by the way, that for HDR (high dynamic range) images, you might create a 32-bit per channel image. In other words, there are a variety of bit depth options depending on context, but in terms of digital images you will generally have 8-bit per channel and 16-bit per channel options available.

Today’s Question: After merging several images to make an HDR [high dynamic range image] or panorama in Lightroom Classic is it necessary or advisable to keep all the source images?

Tim’s Quick Answer: If you’re confident that the assembled high dynamic range (HDR) or panoramic image is of excellent quality, you could delete the source captures that were used to create the final image. My personal preference, however, is to retain those original captures just in case they are ever needed.

More Detail: Today’s question is really more of a philosophical question in my mind. In other words, are you comfortable deleting the source raw captures once you’ve created a “final” derivative image based on those captures?

When you assemble an HDR or panoramic image in Lightroom Classic, the result in an Adobe DNG file that retains great flexibility for continuing to refine the appearance of the image. However, if the image exhibits visual artifacts from the blending of exposures, those issues can be tricky to resolve. In other words, in some cases you may want to go back to the original raw captures and re-assemble the HDR or panoramic image.

If you carefully scrutinize the resulting image, you may of course be comfortable deleting the original raw captures that were used to create the composite image. After all, the whole point in this type of scenario is generally to have the finished composite image, and you would likely not need to ever return to the original raw captures.

I simply prefer to retain the original captures, just in case they are ever needed.

The same concept could apply to a TIFF or Photoshop PSD file you create by sending a source raw capture from Lightroom Classic to Photoshop. Once you’ve created that new finished image, you could potentially delete the original raw capture. But in that scenario I also prefer to retain the original captures.

I wouldn’t fault any photographer who deletes the original raw captures after assembling a finished composite image, as long as they’ve confirmed that finished image is of optimal quality. That’s just not something I’m personally comfortable doing myself. So I retain the “extra” copies of my photos in these types of situations, even though there is a very good chance I’ll never actually need those captures.

Today’s Question: In looking at the specifications of different cameras, some offer full 16-bit per channel support, while others indicate they only support 14-bit or even 12-bit. How important is this camera specification in terms of image quality?

Tim’s Quick Answer: The bit depth of the camera determines the total number of color and tonal values the camera can reproduce. This primarily translates into smoother gradations of tone and color with a higher bit depth.

More Detail: When a camera’s image sensor records the light levels for a photographic image, it is converting an analog signal (based on light levels) into discrete digital values. During that analog-to-digital conversion, the bit depth determines how precisely the values are recorded. You can think of this as being similar to the precision of having more decimal places for a number. A price of $5 is not as precise as $4.9, and $4.99 would be more precise still.

A higher bit depth means there are more individual color and tonal values available for the final image, which in turn translates to smoother gradations of tone and color, as well as a greater ability to capture subtle details.

If you are using your camera’s JPEG capture option, the photos can only be stored as 8-bit per channel, because that is all that the JPEG file format supports. That translates to only 256 shades of gray for a JPEG image that is converted to black and white, or 16,777,216 total possible color and tonal values in a color image. This is regarded as being at about the limit of human vision in terms of discerning individual colors.

In other words, 8-bit per channel can yield excellent image quality for a color photo. However, when you apply adjustments to an image, a certain amount of detail is lost. With relatively strong adjustments, especially for a black and white image, there is a risk of “posterization”, meaning the loss of smooth gradations of tone and color. This will be exhibited as banding in the image, such as in a clear sky that should be represented by a very smooth gradation.

So, especially if you’ll need to apply relatively strong adjustments, a higher bit depth can be very helpful. For reference, a 12-bit per channel sensor provides 4,096 shades of gray and more than 68 billion possible color values. A 14-bit per channel sensor provides 16,384 shades of gray, or more than 4 trillion possible color values. And at 16-bits per channel, there are 65,536 shades of gray, or more than 281 trillion possible color values.

I would say that if you often convert photos to black and white, a higher bit depth offers tremendous value, and I would recommend opting for a camera with the highest bit depth possible. For color photography the issue is much less critical, especially if you don’t generally need to apply very strong adjustments to your photos. The higher bit-depth is good, but wouldn’t be the most important feature on my list if you only tend to process photos in full color.

Today’s Question: I have a recently created mess in Lightroom Classic. I was moving photos from one folder to another and thought I had completed the move and removed (not deleted) some photos. I am hoping that I can recover the photos. Can you save me?

Tim’s Quick Answer: If you have removed photos from Lightroom Classic without deleting the source images, you can easily recover the images (and possibly the metadata updates) by using the “Synchronize Folder” command.

More Detail: When you use the “Remove Photo” command in Lightroom Classic, you are given the choice of simply removing the photo from the catalog (leaving the file on your hard drive) or deleting the source image from your hard drive. As long as you use the option to remove the image from the catalog rather than delete it from your hard drive, you can easily recover the image.

If you also had the option enabled to “Automatically write changes into XMP”, you would recover most of the metadata updates when you recovered the image that was removed accidentally. This option is found on the Metadata tab in the Catalog Settings dialog within Lightroom Classic. On Windows you can get to the dialog by choosing Edit > Catalog Settings from the menu. Macintosh users will find Catalog Settings under Lightroom Classic on the menu.

Keep in mind that even with the option enabled to automatically write metadata updates to your photos, that doesn’t include everything. For example, pick and reject flags, collections, virtual copies, and history are not included. But all of the standard metadata fields as well as actual adjustment settings from the Develop module are included.

With all of that in mind, you can recover the photos that were accidentally removed from the Lightroom Classic catalog by right-clicking on the affected folder on the Folders list on the left panel in the Library module and choosing “Synchronize Folder” from the popup menu that appears. In the dialog that appears you’ll see a count of the number of photos in the selected folder that are not currently in the Lightroom Classic catalog, and you can click the Synchronize button to bring those images back into your catalog.