Author: Tim Grey

Today’s Question: One thing that I wish Lightroom would do is manage variants of files that I work in Photoshop to take advantage of it’s sharpening and editing capabilities. For example, the original Photoshop file might be a TIFF that I create in the ProPhoto RGB color space with the intent of printing it. But then I might want another in the sRGB color space at a lower resolution to enter in a contest. Lightroom would track the first file but the second one, created with Save As, wouldn’t be tracked unless I have Lightroom sync the folder.

What’s the most efficient way to keep the Lightroom catalog current when Save As is required?

Tim’s Quick Answer: This is one of the reasons I strongly recommend not using the “Save As” command when working with an image you have sent to Photoshop from Lightroom. I would either send the source image to Photoshop separately for each derivative image you need to create, or leverage the Export command when that suits your specific needs (such as when creating a JPEG image).

More Detail: When you use the Save As command in Photoshop after sending a source image to Photoshop from Lightroom, in most cases the resulting derivative image file will not be included in your Lightroom catalog. Only the initial derivative saved with the “Save” (not “Save As”) command will be included in your catalog.

There are several ways you could work around this, including the “Synchronize Folder” command available when you right-click on an existing folder within Lightroom.

For images you need (or want) to work on in Photoshop for any reason, I recommend using the “Edit In” command in Lightroom (found on the Photo menu) for each derivative image you want to create. I also generally use the original source image for creating each of these derivatives. So, for example, you could send the original image to Photoshop for the TIFF you want to create for printing, and then use the “Edit In” command a second time to create a JPEG for other purposes.

In many typical scenarios for sharing images, you might also simply use the Export command to create your derivative image, adding the resulting image file into your Lightroom catalog as part of the process. Within the Export dialog you can configure the output settings as needed, such as by choosing the JPEG image file format with the option selected to convert that image to the sRGB color space. You can also then turn on the “Add to This Catalog” checkbox in the Export dialog, so that the derivative image you are creating (and presumably saving in the same folder as the master image) will be added to the Lightroom catalog as part of the export process.

You might also consider simply not saving the derivative images at all in most cases. With very few exceptions, when I am creating output in any form, I will initiate the process with my “master” image. That might be the original capture included in my Lightroom catalog, or it might be a TIFF or PSD image I’ve created using Photoshop. In either case, that “master” image is generally the starting point for any output I want to create. In other words, in most cases I don’t need to retain all of the various derivatives I might create within my workflow, since I will usually start the process of sharing a photo by using the master image file rather than a derivative copy.

Today’s Question: I have a black & white film negative. How do I convert it in Photoshop or Lightroom to print an image?

Tim’s Quick Answer: For a black and white film negative I recommend first scanning the film in color, then converting to black and white and optimizing for the final print.

More Detail: As a general rule it is best to work with a full-color image even when your intent is to produce a black and white final result. That is because the color version of the image will have more information to work with, which in turn can help you produce a final image with greater detail and overall quality.

Of course, with a black and white negative it might seem a little silly to scan the film as a color image, since in concept the film doesn’t contain any color. However, there is generally at least a slight degree of color in the film, even if that is only the “orange mask” that is added to some films. Naturally you will also want to be sure to (in general) scan at the highest optical resolution of the scanner being used to scan the film, and save the image as a TIFF or PSD (not a JPEG) to preserve overall image quality.

Once you have scanned the film, you can optimize the resulting image to prepare it to be printed. In the context of Photoshop that would likely mean first adding a Black & White adjustment layer, and in Lightroom you could choose the “Black & White” option for the Treatment setting in the Basic section of adjustments. You’ll also of course want to optimize the overall image in overall tonality, detail, texture, and sharpness.

For the final print, you may also need to compensate for the capabilities of your printer. Many printers, for example, aren’t able to render full detail in the dark shadow areas. You can compensate by lightening up the value for the black point and darken down the value for the white point. This is something that would generally involve a degree of testing of your printer, so you know how much of a compensation to apply to produce a print with maximum detail.

It is also worth noting that in general you will want to use a custom printer profile, or custom software settings for your printer, to help ensure that the print is actually perfectly neutral. In many (or most) cases you will be using all of the ink colors in your printer to produce a black and white print, and it can sometimes be a challenge to produce a print that is perfectly neutral with only shades of gray, and without any hint of color cast.

Today’s Question: You’ve said a variety of things about the Adobe DNG [digital negative] file format, some good and some bad. But what I really want to know is, all things considered, should I convert my raw captures to DNG?

Tim’s Quick Answer: In a word, no. Taking all of the various factors into account, my personal preference (and general recommendation) would be to retain the original raw captures from your camera, and to not convert those original captures to the Adobe DNG format.

More Detail: Let me say right from the start that there are absolutely some great benefits to the use of the Adobe DNG file format compared to proprietary raw capture formats. I’m not suggesting that converting raw captures to DNG is somehow “bad”. I simply feel that on balance I’d rather retain the original raw capture format rather than converting those files to DNG and deleting the original captures. And I also don’t feel it makes a lot of sense to both convert to DNG and still retain your original raw captures.

One of the key reasons I prefer to retain the original raw captures is that they represent the original capture with no modification whatsoever. While the Adobe DNG format retains the pixel data from your original capture, there are some “private” metadata from the camera that may be lost. That information would generally relate to unique features of a specific camera model, which would require software from the camera manufacturer to fully leverage.

I also prefer to keep metadata updates separate from the original capture data. In the context of a raw capture that means, for example, having metadata updates written to an XMP “sidecar” so that the original capture file remains undisturbed. This can also help to streamline a backup workflow.

One of the primary motivations for using the Adobe DNG format is to avoid a proprietary file format that is not openly documented the way the DNG format is documented. In addition, DNG files are generally around 20% smaller than the original raw capture, with no loss of image quality or detail. So there are indeed advantages to the Adobe DNG file format, to the extent that if your camera supports capture directly to DNG, you may want to make use of that option.

But in the context of a workflow that might involve discarding the original raw capture file after converting to the Adobe DNG format, my preference is to simply retain the original capture files.

Today’s Question: How can I copy just a portion of the pixels in an image to a new layer in Photoshop, so I can then move those pixels into another area of the image?

Tim’s Quick Answer: You can duplicate selected pixels from an image layer in Photoshop by selecting the pixels you want to duplicate, making sure the applicable layer is active on the Layers panel, and then choosing Layer > New > Layer Via Copy from the menu.

More Detail: Duplicating selected pixels can be very helpful for creating a composite image that combines duplicated elements from the same image, for performing image cleanup work to hide a blemish, or for a variety of different purposes.

The first step is to select the pixels you want to duplicate. In general I recommend selecting an area larger than the actual pixels you want to duplicate, both to make it easier to create the selection and so you have a bit of flexibility in how you blend the duplicated pixels into the surrounding area. For example, you could simply use the Lasso tool to create a selection that is a little larger than the area of pixels you actually want to duplicate.

After creating the selection you can choose Layer > New > Layer Via Copy (or hold the Ctrl/Command key on the keyboard while pressing the letter “J”) to duplicate the selected pixels to a new layer.

At this point you can add a layer mask to the new layer containing the duplicated pixels, so that you can hide the pixels on the outer edge of the area you selected in order to provide better blending for those pixels. Click the “Add Layer Mask” button (the circle inside a rectangle icon) at the bottom of the Layers panel to add a layer mask. Then paint with black to hide pixels from this image layer and white to reveal pixels that had been hidden.

You can also use the Move tool to move the pixels around to the desired area, and of course use the various Transform commands to resize or reshape this layer as well.

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.