Author: Tim Grey

Today’s Question: I know you’ve shared techniques for locating duplicate photos in Lightroom Classic in the past, but do you think Adobe will ever add a duplicate finder feature to the software?

Tim’s Quick Answer: I suspect that at some point (but I have no idea when it might be) Adobe will add duplicate detection in Lightroom Classic, since this is something I consider to be a significant pain point for many photographers. While there are some plug-ins designed for this purpose, in my experience they aren’t particularly effective.

More Detail: Duplicate photos is a common issue that photographers run into, caused by a variety of factors. It therefore feels like a bit of an oversight that Adobe has not added a feature to Lightroom Classic for the purpose of identifying existing duplicate photos.

In fairness, of course, identifying duplicate photos isn’t quite as simple as it may seem. There are the obvious duplicates, for example, where the exact same file exists in more than one storage location unnecessarily. Of course, you need to be able to distinguish between an unwanted duplicate and a backup copy, but this isn’t too difficult an issue since the backup should be stored on a different storage device from the original.

When there are duplicates, you also need to be able to figure out which is the “real” master file. For example, you may have applied different metadata updates to each of the duplicate copies of a given photo. Ideally, a duplicate detection tool would be able to analyze metadata and even automatically merge the metadata so nothing is lost.

There is also the issue of duplicates that may or may not be real duplicates, and may or may not deserve to be treated as a duplicate you might want to delete. For example, if you create a derivative image for purposes of creating prints of a photo, you might want to preserve that copy so additional matching prints can be made with ease. But there may also be cases where you’ve created a derivative copy, such as a JPEG to share online, but you don’t really want to keep that copy and would therefore treat it as a duplicate to be deleted.

In my view the Lightroom Classic catalog provides a valuable benefit when it comes to potentially identifying duplicate photos, and I’m hoping Adobe will address this at some point in the near future. In the meantime, unless other tools are released, the only real approach that I recommend is to sort photos by Capture Time and manually review for duplicates, evaluating the images to determine whether there are duplicates you want to discard, or just duplicates serving some other purpose that you want to preserve.

Today’s Question: When importing catalogs into a catalog [in Lightroom Classic] is there an easier way of avoiding duplicate files of the same photos to be imported?

Tim’s Quick Answer: No, you don’t have the option to not import suspected duplicates when merging catalogs in Lightroom Classic. However, in this context I wouldn’t recommend skipping duplicate images when merging catalogs.

More Detail: If you have more than one catalog in Lightroom Classic and want to merge them into one, you can use the “Import from Another Catalog” command. However, you don’t have control over how duplicates are handled when merging catalogs.

First off, if the two catalogs contain references to the exact same files with the exact same filenames within the exact same folder, they won’t be imported twice. The duplicates in this context would not be imported, but that’s simply because the files in question are already being managed by the destination catalog. So this is exactly what you would want to have happen, although there is an option to choose which metadata takes precedence between the two.

If, on the other hand, you have more than one copy of the same photos in different locations, the duplicate photos would be imported as part of the process of merging catalogs. However, that’s exactly what I would recommend doing since merging catalogs is part of a process of streamlining your workflow and cleaning things up.

If you were to skip duplicate images when merging catalogs, you would still have duplicate files taking up space on your hard drive, they just wouldn’t be references within your catalog. I therefore think it is best to import the duplicates, and then work on identifying which images are duplicates, which among the duplicates should take precedence, and clean out the duplicates accordingly.

Today’s Question: Which fields are actually searchable [in Lightroom Classic]? I have several folders each containing images of multiple models. I recently updated the metadata for each image to include the model’s name and Instagram handle (“Person Shown” and “Additional Info”, respectively, in IPTC Extension). But I found that text searches of their names from “any searchable field” or “searchable IPTC” returned no results.

Tim’s Quick Answer: Despite the name, the “Any Searchable Field” option for a Text search in Lightroom Classic is not a very broad search at all. This search only includes a subset of the total range of IPTC metadata fields, for example.

More Detail: When you search using the Text option on the Library Filter Bar, the most broad search option is achieved by selecting the “Any Searchable Field” option. However, this does not actually search most metadata fields available. In other words, what makes a field searchable is that Adobe has decided to make it searchable, not the mere fact that the metadata exists within the catalog.

You can find a summary of the metadata fields that are searchable with the Text filter on Adobe’s website here:

https://helpx.adobe.com/lightroom-classic/help/finding-photos-catalog.html

If you use the Any Searchable Field option you are searching across all the various options listed in the third step under the “Find photos using the Text filter” heading. That would include all fields shown for “Searchable EXIF” and “Searchable IPTC”, for example. But note that in both cases the actual search is limited to a relatively small number of metadata fields.

In general, I would say that the most dependable way to make sure you can filter and search for photos based on specific text in metadata would be to add that text as Keywords. However, this obviously isn’t an optimal solution in many cases. Therefore, if you want to use other metadata fields I do recommend reviewing the list of searchable metadata fields linked above, so you can be sure to use those fields for any metadata you actually want to be able to search for.

Note, by the way, that when it comes to identifying people I do recommend using keywords in Lightroom Classic. Specifically, I recommend adding the person’s name using the People view option, or by adding a new keyword on the Keyword List while enabling the “Person” option. You can also edit the keyword from the Keyword List so that you can turn off the “Include on Export” checkbox. This would enable you to search for the person by name since keywords are searchable, while also helping to maintain privacy by not allowing that keyword to be included in metadata when you export the image.

Today’s Question: On your recent advice I’m working on scanning my old film photos. Some of these are prints for which I do not have the original negatives. I have a flatbed scanner I can use for these, but what resolution do you recommend using for best quality?

Tim’s Quick Answer: While the results will vary depending on your scanner, in general there’s no need to scan prints at more than about 600 to 1200 pixels per inch, since the print itself does not contain enough information to require a higher resolution.

More Detail: In most cases scanning photo prints at 300 pixels per inch (ppi) will provide excellent results, because that’s about as much detail as the print actually contains. This is the reason it is always better to scan from the original negative (or slide), which will contain considerably more information.

There will be some variation in quality and detail depending on how the print was created and the quality of the original film negative, for example. But scanning at 300 ppi will ensure that you’re able to print copies from the digital file at the same size as the original print with excellent results.

However, I have also found there is some variation in quality depending on the scanner you’re using, so it is worth testing to get a better sense of the results. For example, I’ve tested some scanners that appear to process the image as a JPEG (resulting in JPEG compression artifacts) when you scan at resolutions as high as 600 ppi, even when saving as a TIFF image. Those scanners therefore yielded better image quality at 1200 ppi because at that resolution there was no JPEG compression involved. This frankly shouldn’t be an issue, but it does impact image quality so it is worth testing.

For example, you can scan a sample image at 300 ppi, 600 ppi, and 1200 ppi, and compare the results. I recommend scaling all the images up to the same resolution as the highest resolution you scanned and comparing the same area of the photo for each image. In most cases you won’t see any significant difference in detail or quality, but you can choose your scan resolution based on this test.

As long as the image data is not being processed in a way that degrades image quality, such as with JPEG compression, there is no advantage to scanning at a higher resolution than is necessary to extract the detail in the print. Scanning at a higher resolution than necessary will tend to amplify details in the surface of the print, such as the paper texture, without actually benefiting the image quality of the scanned image.

Today’s Question: I need to purchase a new Apple computer. I don’t understand unified memory and how much I need. I may run Photoshop, Lightroom, and Bridge, along with possibly Denoise AI and Helicon Focus at the same time.

Tim’s Quick Answer: Unified memory refers to a single pool of memory in a computer used for both the main processor and for the graphics processor. This means you should opt for more memory than you otherwise assume you need, because there is not separate memory for the graphics processor.

More Detail: It has long been the case that computers featured both system memory (RAM) and video memory (VRAM), with the former being primarily used for the main processor (CPU) and the latter being used exclusively by the graphics processor (GPU). More recently, these lines have been blurred.

To start with, many applications (including those from Adobe) can leverage the GPU and the associated memory for additional processing power. This can greatly improve performance for certain tasks.

In addition, some computers (especially but not exclusively laptops) employ unified memory, where a single pool of memory is used for both the CPU and the GPU. Therefore, when considering how much unified memory you need, you should add the amount of system memory and video memory you want or need.

For example, for Adobe recommends a minimum of 8GB of system memory, with 12GB being recommended. They also recommend 2GB of video memory. So in reality, with a computer that uses unified memory, the recommended amount would be 14GB (the two recommended amounts added together).

However, in my view these recommendations are based on only running a single high-demand application at a time. If you’re going to run Lightroom and Photoshop at the same time, along with possibly other applications, I recommend opting for more memory. In this specific scenario I would consider 16GB to be an absolute minimum, and would recommend upgrading to 32GB of unified memory. And, of course, if money is no object you could opt to upgrade to even more memory.

Today’s Question: Can you explain why you recommend leaving the “Rename parent folder” checkbox turned off when renaming a catalog within Lightroom Classic? Wouldn’t you want the folder name to match the catalog name?

Tim’s Quick Answer: Leaving the “Rename parent folder” checkbox turned off when renaming a catalog is simply a precaution. As long as you’re sure there aren’t any photos stored in the same folder as the catalog you can indeed rename the folder along with the catalog.

More Detail: In Monday’s newsletter I addressed a question about the Lightroom Classic catalog having a filename that didn’t match the current version of Lightroom Classic. As part of my answer I explained how you can now easily rename the catalog, thanks to a new feature Adobe recently added.

In that answer I mentioned that I recommend keeping the “Rename parent folder” checkbox turned off. But this was really just out of an abundance of caution, and I certainly understand that many photographers might want to have the folder containing the catalog have the same name as the catalog itself.

The issue is that if you happen to have photos that are being managed by the catalog stored in the same folder as the catalog, then renaming the catalog parent folder will cause all folders and photos stored within that parent folder to appear as missing in Lightroom Classic. That’s because renaming the parent folder would cause the path to the photos to change, so the catalog would no longer be pointing to the right location.

For example, one of my readers had consolidated his overall storage so that his primary photo folder (and therefore all the folders containing all his photos) was in the same folder as the catalog. When he renamed the parent folder as part of the process of renaming the catalog, every single folder and photo was suddenly missing in Lightroom Classic. Reverting the name of the parent folder where the catalog was stored solved the issue.

Most photographers don’t store any of their photos in the same folder as the catalog. But if you do, renaming the folder that contains the catalog would cause problems. So, as long as you’re sure that all your photos and their respective folders are in a storage location other than the folder containing the catalog, you can most certainly turn on the “Rename parent folder” checkbox in the dialog for renaming the catalog (accessed from the menu at File > Rename Catalog) so that the folder containing your catalog will be renamed to match the name you are renaming the catalog to.

Today’s Question: Is it possible to scan a photo print directly into Photoshop rather than using the software that came with my scanner? I know I’ll want to retouch the old prints I plan to scan, so scanning into Photoshop would be more convenient.

Tim’s Quick Answer: Yes, you can scan images directly into Photoshop by using the Import command found on the File menu.

More Detail: While you can scan images directly into Photoshop, this process actually involves scanning using an operating system feature, but the result can be an image that opens directly in Photoshop so you can get right to work retouching the image.

To get started, choose File > Import from the menu in Photoshop. From the Import submenu choose “Images from Device” if you’re on Macintosh, or “WIA Support” if you’re on Windows. This will bring up a window where you can adjust the scanner settings, such as the resolution and file format to use.

You can then initiate the scan, and the image will appear in Photoshop, ready for you to start working on immediately.

Today’s Question: I have Lightroom Classic version 14.1.1 but my catalog name still references version 13.3. Is this normal or should a 14.1 catalog have been created? If so, what should I do?

Tim’s Quick Answer: This is the new normal, in that Lightroom Classic will no longer rename your catalog when it is updated for a new version of the software. As a result, a high percentage of photographers have a catalog filename referencing version 13.3 even though they’ve updated to Lightroom Classic version 14 or higher.

More Detail: When there is a major update to Lightroom Classic, the catalog often needs to be updated to reflect some of the changes for the new version. Over the years there have been a couple of ways the update catalog filename was changed. In early versions a “-2” would be appended to the new catalog name, which unfortunately led to many photographers having catalog filenames along the lines of “Lightroom Catalog-2-2-2”.

More recently, the filename would be update to reflect the version number of Lightroom Classic, such as to add “-v13” for Lightroom Classic version 13. But this could result in a filename such as “Lightroom Catalog-v12-v13-3”, for example. Or if you had used the same catalog for a while, you might end up with something like “Lightroom Catalog-2-2-2-v13-3”.

Thankfully, Adobe recently updated Lightroom Classic to no longer rename your catalog during an upgrade. This will streamline things moving forward, but it does mean that many of us might have a catalog filename along the lines of “Lightroom Catalog-v13-3” even though we’ve updated to Lightroom Classic version 14.

So, nothing needs to be done. However, you might want to rename the catalog to something more generic, so the filename will make sense for the long term. To do so, in Lightroom Classic go to the menu and choose File > Rename Catalog. Update the catalog name to your liking in the New Name field. I recommend keeping the “Rename parent folder” checkbox turned off. Then click the Rename button and your catalog will be updated with the name you designated. Note, by the way, that this Rename Catalog command is also new.

Based on the latest update, your updated catalog will remain for the long term, because Lightroom Classic no longer renames the catalog when an update requires an upgrade to the catalog itself.

Today’s Question: Do you have a recommendation for a program/method that would fairly accurately calculate the distance (miles/yards/feet/inches) between objects in a photo? For instance, if you had a photo of a field with two telephone poles in it, could you determine the real-life distance between those poles?

Tim’s Quick Answer: You can use the Ruler tool in Photoshop to measure distances within an image, but there are some important caveats that affect the accuracy of your results.

More Detail: The Ruler tool in Photoshop enables you to measure within an image, including being able to set the scale based on the size of a known object within the frame. However, there can be significant challenges with an accurate measurement based on issues related to perspective and relative distances.

Using the example from today’s question, let’s assume that you know the poles are exactly 35 feet tall. You could use the Ruler tool to set the reference measurement to the height of the pole, designating that as being 35 feet. To do so, go to the menu and choose Image > Analysis > Set Measurement Scale > Custom. In the dialog that appears, enter the real-world dimension of the object you measured in the Logical Length field, and enter a name (such as “Feet”) in the Logical Units field. Click OK to apply the change. This establishes a relationship between the number of pixels in the image and a real-world measurement.

With that reference set, you could then use the Ruler tool to measure the distance between the poles, with the result shown as the “L1” value (for length) on the Options bar.

Put another way, if you took a picture of me standing next to a building, you could set the reference distance to my height, which is six feet. Based on that reference you could then measure the building. Let’s assume it is ten times as many pixels as I am tall, which means the building is 60-feet tall.

There are important caveats to consider here, however. With the power pole example, if the two poles are not aligned perpendicular to the line of the lens, then the distance you’re trying to measure is actually a diagonal within the scene, so you aren’t truly measuring the distance between the poles. Similarly, with the example of me standing beside a building, if I had been positioned halfway between the camera and the building, I’m not right next to the building, and therefore you can’t use my height as an accurate reference for the height of the building.

So, if the lines, angles, and distances in the image are such that you can use the height of one object to calculate the height of another object, the Ruler tool in Photoshop can be very helpful. But under more real-world conditions there is a strong chance that the measurement would not be as precise as you might like.