Author: Tim Grey

Today’s Question: I’ve been using the Quick Collection [in Lightroom] when I want to work with certain images. Sometimes I want to then put those same images into a new collection. Is there an easier way to do that? I’ve been making a new collection and then dragging and dropping the images to that new collection, which is a little cumbersome.

Tim’s Quick Answer: You can actually save the images in the Quick Collection into a new collection by simply right-clicking on the Quick Collection and choosing Save Quick Collection from the popup menu.

More Detail: As the name implies, the Quick Collection in Lightroom is really intended for quickly grouping images together, generally for a temporary purpose. If you want to retain a grouping of images for a longer period of time, a “normal” collection is often preferred.

Fortunately, in those situations it is very easy to “convert” the Quick Collection to a normal collection. Simply right-click on the Quick Collection in the Catalog section of the left panel in the Library module, and then choose “Save Quick Collection” from the popup menu. You’ll then be able to specify the name for the new collection and choose whether you want to remove the images from the Quick Collection as part of this process.

Obviously you can choose a name that is most meaningful to you based on the images you’ve included in the Quick Collection. I do recommend clearing the Quick Collection as part of this process, so the Quick Collection will then be ready to use for a future project.

The new collection you created as part of this process can then be found in the Collections section of the left panel, with the name you used when you saved the Quick Collection as a “normal” collection.

If you already have access to the “Lightroom Quick Tips” course on GreyLearning, (such as via the GreyLearning Ultimate Bundle) you can see today’s answer in action by watching episode 10 of the course here:

https://www.greylearning.com/courses/lightroom-tips

Today’s Question: I’m still using Photoshop CS6 because I did not want the subscription option [Photoshop CC]. Raw files for my Canon 5D Mk III are 27MB in size, but become 24MB when I convert to Adobe DNG [Digital Negative]. Am I doing something wrong? Is the raw file still the same? Or am I losing critical data on conversion?

Tim’s Quick Answer: The smaller file sizes you’re seeing are due to the fact that the Adobe DNG file format employs lossless compression to reduce the file size. None of the original capture data is altered as part of this process, other than any “special” metadata that might only be supported by software from the camera manufacturer.

More Detail: As a general rule you can expect a raw capture converted to an Adobe DNG file to have a file size that is about 20% smaller than the original capture file. As noted above, this is due to lossless compression that will not alter the original capture data for the image. You will not lose any image quality or detail as part of the conversion to Adobe DNG.

It is worth noting, however, that any “special features” that might be supported by the software from your camera manufacturer would be lost as part of this conversion process.

For example, recent models of Canon cameras include a “dual pixel” feature that can only be leveraged through the use of Canon’s software with the original raw capture. Similarly, most recent Nikon camera models support an “Active D-Lighting” feature that requires Nikon software (and the original capture format) to make use of.

Other than these “special” features (that are not supported by Adobe Lightroom, Adobe Camera Raw, or Photoshop, for example), there is no impact on your original captures caused by the conversion to the Adobe DNG format. In particular, the smaller file size caused by lossless compression for the DNG file need not be of any concern either, as it is actually one of the benefits of the DNG format.

Today’s Question: Adobe Bridge seems to only show me the photos that appear in a given folder. Is there a way to see all types of files that are in those folders instead of only the photos?

Tim’s Quick Answer: Yes, you can view all files within the folder you are currently browsing in Adobe Bridge by choosing View > Show Hidden Files from the menu.

More Detail: By default, Adobe Bridge only displays files that are saved in supported file formats. To the photographer that often means only image files, such as your RAW captures, Photoshop PSD files, TIFF images, JPEG images, and other supported image formats.

However, Adobe Bridge also supports a wide variety of other file types, including audio and video file formats, for example, as well as a variety of document formats (such as Adobe PDF files).

Adobe Bridge will not, by default, display non-supported file types, which in some cases may be inconvenient. If you want to browse all files of both supported and non-supported file types within Adobe Bridge, you can turn on the “Show Hidden Files” option.

Keep in mind that enabling the “Show Hidden Files” option may create considerable clutter when you are browsing your files. For example, if you process your proprietary raw captures using Adobe Camera Raw, an XMP “sidecar” file will be created containing the metadata related to the adjustments you applied within Adobe Camera Raw. The XMP files are hidden by default in Adobe Bridge, because there is generally no need for a photographer to interact directly with those files.

When you enable the “Show Hidden Files” option, you may very well see an XMP sidecar file for every single raw capture within the current folder, which could translate into seeing two files for every image in that folder.

So, while it can certainly be useful in certain situations to be able to view hidden files in Adobe Bridge, the clutter caused by this option can be a bit distracting. I therefore recommend that if you need to enable the “Show Hidden Files” option that you only keep it turned on for as long as you actually need to browse non-supported file types in Adobe Bridge, and then turn the setting off again.

Today’s Question: I often photograph simple textures during my travels, and sometimes those textures seem like they will go well with another photo. I can’t figure out though how to just put the texture on the image. Do I need to create a selection? That doesn’t seem like it would be very easy or effective.

Tim’s Quick Answer: You can easily add a texture from one image onto another image by first layering the two images into a single document in Photoshop, with the texture layer on top. Then change the blend mode for the texture layer, most likely to the Overlay blend mode, using the popup at the top of the Layers panel. You can also adjust the Opacity for that layer to taste.

More Detail: When creating a composite image in Photoshop you will generally employ a layer mask (often using a selection as a starting point for that layer mask) in order to hide and reveal specific areas of the upper image layer, therefore revealing a portion of the underlying image layer.

When you want to combine a texture from one image into another image, this approach generally won’t provide the intended result (at least not without considerable work). Instead, you will want to blend the two (or more) layers together through the use of a blend mode. The result is similar to what could otherwise be accomplished with a multiple exposure image.

The default blend mode on the popup at the top of the Layers panel is “Normal”, which causes no blending at all. Instead, the upper layer will block all layers below, unless a layer mask is used to block some of the upper layer in order to reveal portions of the lower layer.

To employ a blend mode for this purpose, you’ll first want to combine two (or more) images into a layered document in Photoshop. Then make sure that the texture layer is at the top of the stack on the Layers panel, dragging the thumbnail for that layer to on the Layers panel reposition it if necessary. Be sure the texture layer is active by clicking on the thumbnail for that layer on the Layers panel, so that changes you make will affect the texture layer.

With a blend mode you can essentially combine multiple layers into a seamless result. In most cases you will likely find that the Overlay blend mode provides a good result, because it is one of the contrast blend modes. Light areas of your texture layer will lighten the underlying image, and dark areas of the texture layer will darken the underlying image. You could also experiment with other blend modes to find the effect you like.

Once you’ve selected a blend mode, you can adjust the Opacity setting at the top-right of the Layers panel as needed. This will reduce the appearance of the texture in the image, so that it provides a more subtle addition to the overall composition.

Today’s Question: I read your response to the question of “clipping” [in the September 15, 2017 edition of the Ask Tim Grey eNewsletter] and again you outdid yourself in the depth of the explanation. The only thing that I did not understand and you only touched on peripherally is the question of clipping on the color channels.

You used the red rose as an example but did not go into how to address clipping of a color channel, only blacks and whites. I have had some specific examples of a photo of a red rose that I cannot get the red color right and I think this may be the issue. Can you address this question as well in the topic of clipping?

Tim’s Quick Answer: Clipping of an individual color channel in a photo can indeed be a problem, primarily from the standpoint of a loss of texture and detail in areas of the image that are dominated by a single color.

More Detail: When we talk about “clipping” in the context of a photographic image, we are typically referring to the white point and the black point. If the whites are clipped than some of the bright areas of the image will become pure white, losing all detail. Similarly, if the blacks are clipped then the dark shadow areas of the image may lose all detail. This is obviously an important thing to keep in mind when adjusting the white and black point for an image, so that detail is not sacrificed in areas where you want to retain that detail.

Similarly, there is an issue as it relates to individual color channels. A red rose is a good example. If we assume a photo that is a close-up of a red rose, in theory the image might be comprised of information that is only present on the red channel, with very little information on the green or blue channels. In actual fact the distribution of values is not quite so extreme, but I think it can be helpful to consider this theoretical example.

Remember that clipping of the white point requires that all three color channels reach the maximum brightness level for specific pixel values. In other words, you can’t produce a pure white unless all three color channels (red, green, and blue) have a white value for a given pixel.

Of course, if you think about a red rose, you can imagine that there would not be any pixels that are pure white within the image. That might lead you to assume that it is impossible to clip any detail, since you can’t easily produce a pure white value. You might therefore assume that you will retain texture in all areas of the image. But this is not necessarily true.

Just as you can over-expose an image so much that you lose information on all three channels, so too can you over-expose (or over-adjust) so that detail is lost on one or two (but not all three) channels.

What this over-exposure (or over-adjustment) would translate to is not so much an issue of accuracy of color, but rather of texture in colored areas of the photo. This is why I highly recommend evaluating a histogram on your camera that includes the individual color channels, if your camera offers this feature (and most cameras now do include this option). Furthermore, when applying adjustments to overall brightness levels (such as with Exposure, Whites, and Blacks adjustments) it is important to evaluate all of the channels, rather than only the areas that might be clipping to pure white or black.

In other words, when using the clipping preview display available with many adjustments (such as Exposures, Whites, and Blacks in the context of Adobe Camera Raw or Adobe Lightroom), you’ll want to try to avoid clipping of individual color channels if detail is important in the applicable areas of the photo. So when holding the Alt/Option key while applying an adjustment that includes support for the clipping preview display, you’ll want to watch for individual colors that indicate clipping for one or two channels, in addition to black or white areas that indicate clipping to pure black or white.

Today’s Question: Which option should I be using for the Remove popup in Smart Sharpen in Photoshop? I’ve been leaving it set to Gaussian Blur only because I don’t know what any of the options do. I seem to be getting good results with Gaussian Blur setting, but could I get better results with a different choice?

Tim’s Quick Answer: I recommend the “Lens Blur” option as the best setting for the Remove popup in the Smart Sharpen dialog in Photoshop. While the difference is relatively minor in most cases, for photographic images the results with the Lens Blur setting are generally more pleasing than with the Gaussian Blur setting.

More Detail: The Smart Sharpen filter is my preferred filter for sharpening images in Photoshop. And when it comes to using the Smart Sharpen filter, as a rule I recommend using the “Lens Blur” option from the Remove popup.

The Remove popup controls what type of blur you are attempting to remove from the image. The Motion Blur setting is obviously aimed at compensating for camera movement during the capture. However, I find that this option doesn’t provide a significant benefit, and so I don’t find it particularly useful. You can get slightly better (but still not especially impressive) results using the Shake Reduction filter instead.

The Gaussian Blur option will cause the Smart Sharpen filter to essentially provide the same overall behavior as the Unsharp Mask filter. This provides perfectly good results in most cases, but the Lens Blur option is more sophisticated and will generally provide better results.

To be sure, the visible differences between the Gaussian Blur and Lens Blur options will often be quite subtle. In general you will find that the effect with the Gaussian Blur option will be a little harsher than the Lens Blur option. With Lens Blur you are able to maintain smoother transitions with less risk of visual artifacts, while still achieving a significant improvement in the edge contrast that provides the sharpening effect.

So, as a general rule I recommend the Lens Blur setting for the Remove popup in the Smart Sharpen dialog when sharpening photographic images. But I certainly encourage you to experiment with different settings to see what your impression is, and to determine what works best for your images.

Today’s Question: Do you see any reason for me to keep my original RAW (Nikon D810 NEF) image files after I’ve converted them to DNG using Adobe’s DNG Converter application and have backed up the DNGs?

Tim’s Quick Answer: If I’m being completely honest, in most cases it is perfectly reasonable to discard the original proprietary RAW capture files if you’ve chosen to convert those captures to the Adobe DNG format, and you have ensured the DNG files are safely backed up. This isn’t something I’m entirely comfortable with on principle, but I do have to admit it is a reasonable approach in most cases.

More Detail: As the image sensors used in digital cameras have gotten more advanced, new features have been made available. In many cases, those specific features can only be accessed by using the proprietary RAW capture format for the particular camera model, along with the software provided by the camera manufacturer.

For example, many Nikon cameras (including the D810 mentioned in today’s question) include support for an Active D-Lighting feature. This feature helps to balance out overall tonal values in the image, helping to provide greater detail in the dark shadows, for example. However, you can only retain the advantages of the Active D-Lighting feature if you use the Nikon software to process the original RAW captures.

There are other camera manufacturers with other special features that require software from that manufacturer to take advantage of the feature. Processing the images with Adobe Camera Raw or Lightroom won’t provide access to those features. In addition, converting to Adobe DNG would cause you to lose access to those features.

In theory there might also be other capabilities that are only available by using the proprietary RAW capture files. The idea is that since the camera manufacturer has the most knowledge of the specific image sensor technology employed in a given camera, they can best exploit the information contained in the proprietary RAW capture.

Many of these potential benefits aren’t critical to most photographers. So unless you’re taking advantage of special advanced features of your camera (such as the Active D-Lighting feature on many Nikon cameras, or the relatively new Dual Pixel technology from Canon, among other features with various camera makes), it is probably perfectly safe to convert your proprietary RAW captures to Adobe DNG and then discard the original captures.

Again, this isn’t something I’m particularly comfortable with, but that’s mostly a matter of being a bit more paranoid than I really need to be.

I’ll also add that converting to the Adobe DNG format creates a workflow slowdown if you have adopted my preferred approach of using a synchronization approach to backing up your photos. Metadata updates to DNG files require a full backup of the (rather large) source image file. By contrast, with proprietary RAW captures your metadata updates will be written to a much smaller (and therefore faster to backup) XMP sidecar file.

Today’s Question: One of your quick Lightroom tips was adding keywords using the painter tool. So, after adding a keyword how do you commit the word to the image(s) without accidentally selecting another image and thereby inadvertently adding the keyword to the wrong image?

Tim’s Quick Answer: When using the Painter tool in Lightroom to quickly add keywords (or other metadata) to your photos, the metadata is updated as soon as you click (or drag) on a photo. If you add a keyword in error, you can use the Undo command, or hold the Alt/Option key while clicking (or dragging) with the Painter tool to remove the keyword (or other metadata) from the applicable images.

More Detail: One of the unique things about Lightroom as compared to many other software applications is that you never actually need to “save” your work. As soon as you apply an update to an image, whether that is a metadata update or an adjustment in the Develop module, the change is applied immediately.

As a result, when you click on an image (or drag across multiple images) with the Painter tool in Lightroom to add a keyword or apply a different metadata update, the change is applied immediately. When working with the Painter tool, a small white border will be added around each image you have applied an update to. In this way you are able to see which images have been updated. Of course, that also means you might quickly see that you’ve made a mistake.

Fortunately, it is easy to undo such a mistake. First, you can use the Undo command. When you realize you accidentally applied a keyword to an image, you can choose Edit > Undo from the menu or press Ctrl+Z on the keyboard on Windows or Command+Z on Macintosh to take a step backward.

In addition, you can use the Painter tool to remove the current keyword or metadata update from an image. Simply hold the Alt key on Windows or the Option key on Macintosh while clicking on an image with the Painter tool, and the current metadata value you’ve applied to the Painter will be removed from the image you click on (or from the images you drag across).

Note, by the way, that the “quick tips” referred to in today’s question are part of my “Lightroom Quick Tips” video series. If you’d like to gain access to the archive of existing tips and get a new video tip each week, you can get the details here:

https://www.greylearning.com/courses/lightroom-tips

Today’s Question: Can you discuss the merits of LZW compression, versus ZIP [when saving a TIFF image]?

Tim’s Quick Answer: Both LZW and ZIP are lossless compression options for saving TIFF images. Both of these are lossless compression options, meaning image quality will not be degraded. The ZIP compression option will generally provide file sizes that are smaller than those with LZW compression, especially for 16-bit per channel images. In fact, with LZW compression a 16-bit per channel TIFF has the potential to be larger than the same file saved without any compression applied.

More Detail: While the compression used for JPEG images is always “lossy”, meaning image quality will be degraded even when you use the highest image quality setting, when saving TIFF images you have a couple of options that provide lossless compression.

An uncompressed TIFF file will be quite large compared to a JPEG image. A TIFF image saved with LZW or ZIP compression will still be considerably larger than the same image saved as a JPEG, but generally smaller than if compression was not used for the TIFF image.

For 8-bit per channel images you will generally get about the same degree of file size reduction when using either LZW or ZIP compression with a TIFF image. For 16-bit per channel images in most cases the file size reduction will be relatively modest with ZIP compression, and LZW compression may actually cause the file size to be larger than without the use of compression.

In theory all of this translates to a suggestion to always use ZIP compression for TIFF images, and to avoid the use of LZW compression. However, it is worth noting that not all software applications that support TIFF image files support ZIP compression for TIFF images. These days it is generally safe to use ZIP compression for TIFF images to help reduce overall file sizes, but you may want to confirm compatibility with the software you employ in your workflow before changing the settings for how you save image files.

Today’s Question: I read the following in one of your recent answers, and am trying to get my mind around it:

<<The white slider lightens or darkens the lightest tones. This allows you to clip the whites.>>

What does it mean to ‘clip the whites’ and why would you do it? What function would that serve?

Tim’s Quick Answer: To “clip the whites” means to increase the brightness of the brightest pixels in an image to the point that detail is lost. In most cases you might want to brighten right to the point before clipping occurs, although in some specific cases you may want to create a small degree of clipping. The same basic concepts would apply in “reverse” when it comes to the darkest values in the image, where you could potentially choose to clip shadow detail.

More Detail: The “true” feature of the Whites slider is to set the white point. In other words, how bright should the brightest pixel in the image be? In theory, the brightest pixel in an image should be white, and the darkest pixel should be black. Obviously there are exceptions to this, but naturally this “rule” holds true much of the time.

So, in a typical workflow for a typical photo you might increase the value for Whites until the brightest pixel reaches true white (or thereabouts), and then reduce the value for the Blacks slider until the darkest pixel reaches true black (or thereabouts).

The challenge is to accurately find that position for each slider, and then to fine-tune as needed. This is where the “clipping preview” display comes in. Which brings us to your actual question here.

Clipping refers to a loss of detail when the brights get too bright or the darks get too dark. A simple example would be a gradient that goes from pure black to pure white, with a smooth gradation in between. Let’s assume initially that we are dealing with a simple linear gradient, where the bottom row is black and the top row is white. As you move up a row, the pixels get slightly brighter. As you move down a row the pixels get slightly darker. So we have a nice smooth gradation with detail at every step along the way.

If you were then to increase the value for the Whites slider for such an image, the brightest values would get brightened. Of course, that top row of white can’t be made any brighter, so it remains as it is. But the row below becomes pure white. That’s our first level of clipping, because there is no longer a difference between the top row and the second row. At this point that clipping is probably not especially problematic. But if you keep increasing the Whites value, more and more rows of bright gray pixels will become white, and there will be a larger area with no variation in tonal values. Eventually you’d have a big section of the top of the image that is pure white, with no detail at all.

The same basic concept could apply to darkening the shadows, causing a large area of pure black (with no detail) at the bottom of our gradient image.

Applying that concept to a photographic image, obviously we’re dealing with areas with more random shapes than with a gradient. But the same issues are at play. If, for example, we increase the value for Whites too much with a photo that includes a cloudy sky, those clouds could lose detail by virtue of being “clipped” to pure white.

So, again, the clipping refers to the loss of detail in an area that has gone to pure white or pure black. To a lesser extent it is also possible to have clipping on an individual color channel (red, green, or blue), so that detail represented by those channels is lose. For example, with a simple photo of a red rose, you could have no clipping for the white point, but still have clipping for the red channel. That could result in lost detail for the rose itself.