Author: Tim Grey

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.

Today’s Question: This is just a simple question, but one that confuses me. I have a Nikon D7100, and have always used an image size of “Small/Fine”, as I do not need any prints larger than 8”x10″. Someone told me that increasing the image size to Medium would give me a better print, as it gives more information. I’m not sure if I received the right information on this. Does increasing the image size to Medium actually give me more information and better colors?

Tim’s Quick Answer: As a general rule, if you’re going to be using JPEG capture instead of RAW capture, I recommend using the highest resolution and quality settings available for your camera. This will ensure both the highest quality and the largest potential print size.

More Detail: I should hasten to add that I highly recommend using RAW capture to ensure the highest image quality and greatest overall flexibility in your workflow. That said, I realize there are situations where JPEG capture may provide benefits that are more meaningful for a photographer than the potential benefits of RAW capture.

In terms of the quality setting, I highly recommend always using the highest quality option available when employing JPEG capture. This setting directly relates to the compression being applied to your images right from the moment they are captured, and with JPEG images the compression always causes a loss of detail and quality in the image. Therefore, I consider it very important to use the highest quality setting to minimize the negative impact on the quality of your photos.

The size option relates to the overall resolution of the photos being captured. In theory you can use a lower resolution setting if you tend not to print your photos at a particularly large size.

For example, the Nikon D7100 that is the subject of today’s question provides a native resolution of 4,000 x 6,000 pixels. At an output resolution of 360 pixels per inch (a common output resolution for a photo inkjet printer), that translates to a potential output size (without enlarging the image) of about 11 inches by 16 inches. The lowest resolution setting in this case is 2,000 by 2,992 pixels. At 360 pixels per inch that still provides a print size of about 6 inches by 8 inches.

As you can see from the numbers above, the “small” size for a JPEG image in the case of the Nikon D7100 provides fewer pixels than are actually necessary to produce an 8×10 print. The “medium” size is well suited to an 8×10 print, providing output dimensions of about 8×12 inches.

However, I think it is also important to keep in mind that you may want to crop your images from time to time. Therefore, I consider it critically important to capture at the highest resolution available in most cases (and most certainly in this example). Unless you are using a camera with an extremely high resolution that far exceeds any output size you’ll ever produce (taking into account potential cropping), I would not recommend using anything other than the full resolution of your camera when capturing photos.

Today’s Question: Does what you say about photos saved as TIFF images [with respect to file sizes] also apply to files saved as PSD images?

Tim’s Quick Answer: Yes, TIFF and Photoshop PSD images will produce files that are of similar file sizes, all other things being equal. In both cases the file size will be significantly larger than the same image saved as a JPEG.

More Detail: Today’s question is a follow-up to a prior question that addressed TIFF images producing significantly larger file sizes than a JPEG image.

In the edition of the Ask Tim Grey eNewsletter that focused on TIFF versus JPEG file sizes, I made reference to the option to save TIFF images with compression applied. JPEG compression is always lossy, meaning some level of detail or quality will be lost in the process. However, with TIFF images you have the option to save the image with lossless compression, such as the LZW compression option that is generally available in software that enables you to save TIFF images.

The Photoshop PSD (Photoshop Document) image format is actually a TIFF container, and lossless compression is applied automatically when you save a PSD image. In that way, saving a PSD image is very similar to saving a TIFF image with the LZW compression option selected.

However, the actual compression used by PSD versus TIFF images is different, resulting in different file sizes. The actual results will vary based on the composition of the images, such as the number and type of layers used within the image.

The bottom line is that both TIFF and PSD images will produce a file size that is significantly larger than a JPEG image. Lossless compression is automatically applied with PSD files, while it is an option with TIFF images.

Today’s Question: I have been processing photos from a recent trip to the Canadian Rockies in Lightroom CC. After completing the post processing, I tried to change the order of some of the photos in the filmstrip at the bottom of the screen. When I try, I get a screen that says, “The currently selected source does not support custom order. Cannot reorder photos.” I have changed the order of photos in the past, but don’t know what has changed. Can you help?

Tim’s Quick Answer: In order to apply a custom sort order in Lightroom, you need to be browsing a single folder or a “normal” collection. You can’t be viewing the contents of multiple folders, and you can’t sort in a custom order when browsing a smart collection.

More Detail: Lightroom enables you to define a custom sort order for any individual folder or “normal” collection, simply by dragging and dropping the thumbnails into the desired order on the filmstrip or in the grid view. You can then return to the custom sort order later, after changing the sort order to another option. This can be done by choosing the “Custom Order” option from the Sort popup on the toolbar below the grid view display.

However, the custom sort order is only available for an individual folder or for a “normal” collection.

You can’t use the custom sort order for the collections found in the Catalog section toward the top of the left panel in the Library module. You also can’t use a custom sort order for a smart collection. If you have selected multiple folders from the Folders list, or if you are browsing images from subfolders in addition to the current folder, you also won’t be able to use the custom sort order. That means you may want to turn off the “Show Photos in Subfolders” option found on the Library menu on the menu bar. You also can’t select multiple collections at one time if you want to sort in a custom order.

So, the key is to make sure you are only browsing a single folder or “normal” collection (not a smart collection), and that you aren’t browsing images from more than one source location.

Today’s Question: After working on images for a while [in Lightroom] without sidecar files, when I change over to utilize the sidecar files will all of the already adjusted images have sidecar files created?

Tim’s Quick Answer: Yes, when you enable the option in Lightroom to save metadata out to the images themselves, Lightroom will immediately start updating all existing images. Thus, XMP sidecar files will be created for all RAW captures, and the metadata within the image file will be updated for other file types.

More Detail: Enabling the option to have Lightroom save metadata out to the images (instead of only within the Lightroom catalog) provides a couple of benefits. One, it enables you to see standard metadata updates (such as keywords and star ratings) with other applications used to browse outside of Lightroom. Second, it provides a backup for most of the metadata updates for your images beyond the Lightroom catalog.

When you turn on the “Automatically write changes into XMP” checkbox in the Catalog Settings dialog, Lightroom will immediately get to work creating (or updating) XMP sidecar files for RAW captures, and updating the image files for other file types. To enable this setting choose Edit > Catalog Settings from the menu on Windows or Lightroom > Catalog Settings on Macintosh. Then go to the Metadata tab and turn on the “Automatically write changes into XMP” in the Editing section at the top of the dialog.

If for any reason you want to make sure the updates were applied, you can also “manually” save the updates so you’ll see an indication of the progress on the identity plate. To do so, go to the All Photographs collection in the Catalog section of the left panel in the Library module. Choose Edit > Select All from the menu to select all photos in your catalog, and then choose Metadata > Save Metadata to Files from the menu to initiate the process of saving metadata to your files.

Today’s Question: When I send an image from Lightroom to Photoshop and save it back to Lightroom, the TIFF is always stacked with the original and I must right-click to unstack them. Since I do not like stacking at all is there a way to permanently turn it off?

Tim’s Quick Answer: Yes, you can turn off automatic stacking for images sent to an external editor (such as Photoshop) by turning off the “Stack With Original” checkbox on the External Editing tab of the Preferences dialog.

More Detail: By default, when you send a photo from Lightroom to an external editor such as Photoshop, the new derivative image created in the process will be stacked with the source image used to create the derivative. So, for example, if you send a RAW capture to Photoshop, the TIFF or PSD file that results will be stacked with the RAW image.

You can turn off this feature in the Preferences dialog. Start by choosing Edit > Preferences from the menu on Windows or Lightroom > Preferences on Macintosh. Then go to the External Editing tab and turn off the “Stack With Original” checkbox toward the bottom of the dialog. From that point forward, photos you send to an external editor will not be stacked with the original.

Today’s Question: Due to an accident in the field I shot a lot of images in only JPEG instead of RAW plus JPEG. In order to avoid lossy compression after numerous image edits I saved the JPEGs as TIFFs. The resulting file size increase was hard to explain: 19 MB for the JPEG to 147 MB for the TIFF. What happened here?

Tim’s Quick Answer: These file sizes are actually no surprise at all to me. Images saved as a JPEG will generally have a file size that is significantly smaller than a TIFF, even if the JPEG file is saved at a high quality setting and the TIFF image is saved with lossless compression.

More Detail: Put simply, JPEG compression is relatively aggressive. The results will vary based on the complexity of the image. An image with tremendous texture and detail will result in a larger JPEG image than a relatively simple image with minimal variations in tone and color. But the file size will still be significantly smaller than a TIFF image.

Let’s assume a relatively low resolution image, saved as a TIFF file with no compression applied, with a file size of 8 MB. If that same image is saved with the LZW compression option (which is a lossless compression algorithm), that same TIFF image would be around 5 MB or so in size. Saved as a JPEG at a high quality setting, that same image would be a fraction of a megabyte (probably around 300 KB).

Note that if layers are included in the TIFF image, the file size can grow significantly larger. For example, creating a copy of the Background image layer in Photoshop will cause the TIFF image to double in size.

What is most surprising about JPEG compression is how well image quality can be maintained when you use a high quality setting for the JPEG. While the compression for a JPEG image is always lossy, at a high quality setting the amount of degradation to the image is minimal.

In most cases the most significant negative affect of JPEG compression is a grid pattern that can appear. This is caused by the approach used for JPEG compression, where the image is divided into a grid (typically into blocks of 16 by 16 pixels) and the information within each block of the grid is simplified to reduce file size. The result is that pixels on either side of a grid line may not match up as well as they did before JPEG compression was applied, causing a faint (but sometimes obvious) grid pattern in the image. This is the primary reason I recommend avoiding JPEG capture whenever possible.

While file sizes for a TIFF image can be significantly larger than for the same image saved as a JPEG image, if you will be applying strong adjustments to the image and re-saving the image multiple times after applying changes, it is a good idea to save the JPEG capture as a TIFF image. I do recommend using LZW compression for the TIFF image to help keep the file size smaller, but the an image saved as a TIFF will always be quite a bit larger than the same image saved as a JPEG.

Today’s Question: I have a question about how to set up my backup system. Currently my desktop has two internal drives: a 2 TB drive that is using only 225 GB and a 4 TB drive that is using 2.39 TB. I then have an external 4 TB drive that is configured to backup both of the internal drives, and it is almost full. In addition I alternate my external drive with another 4 TB drive and always keep one in a offsite.

What do you recommend I do so that I have access to all of my photos and yet still assure myself of a backup process?

Tim’s Quick Answer: There are two basic options I would suggest considering. My preference would be to add an additional set of drives to backup the 2TB internal drive, so the 4TB backup drives are used to backup the 4TB internal drive. The second option would be to “upgrade” to a 6TB drive to backup everything.

More Detail: The reason I would prefer to add a set of 2TB drives to the mix is that I prefer to have a backup that is an exact duplicate of the original. This involves the use of synchronization software (such as GoodSync, http://timgrey.me/greybackup) to backup the full contents of each drive to the applicable backup drive.

That said, in this case we’re talking about backing up internal drives to external drives. That means that in the event of a failure you can’t simply replace the failed drive with the backup drive (although in theory you could accomplish this, depending on the overall hardware configuration).

Therefore, it is also perfectly reasonable to purchase a 6TB drive for backup purposes. You could still use a synchronization approach, simply creating two “master” folders on the backup drive to represent the source drives you are backing up. So, for example, you could create a “2TB Backup” folder and a “4TB Backup” folder on the new 6TB drive, and then create synchronization jobs to synchronize from the internal drives to the applicable folders on the large external backup drive.