Author: Tim Grey

Today’s Question: Regarding backups, why don’t you recommend the use of RAID drives? I have used one for several years with no issues.

Tim’s Quick Answer: I’m not opposed to RAID drives in general. However, I would never depend on a RAID drive in place of a backup to a separate physical drive.

More Detail: RAID stands for Redundant Array of Independent Disks (or Drives) and refers to what is effectively one housing with two or more drives inside that are interconnected. There are a variety of different RAID implementations, but many of them include redundancy. To oversimplify, you can think of RAID as representing what looks like a single hard drive but where your data is being written to two drives at the same time.

A RAID drive configured for redundant storage provides an efficient solution for a real-time backup of your data, considering that all files you save or update are automatically saved to two different drives. However, those two drives are contained within the same housing, so if that housing is damaged or destroyed you could lose your primary and backup storage all at once.

If you’re using RAID in addition to backing up to another local drive and ideally another remote drive (perhaps via an online backup solution such as Backblaze, https://timgrey.me/cloudbackup), then I have no problem with the use of RAID.

However, I often find that photographers who use a RAID drive think they’re safe, and don’t perform any other backups. I don’t consider this to be a good approach to keeping your photos and other important data safe.

Because of these issues, I simply prefer not to spend the extra money on a RAID drive, and instead put that money into additional backup drives, so I have even greater redundancy. This involves a little more effort to maintain, but I feel that is time worth spent in the interest of a backup workflow that provides greater confidence.

Today’s Question: Do you backup, using GoodSync, to two external drives running two backup jobs simultaneously or to each drive separately running each backup job one at a time?

Tim’s Quick Answer: I perform each backup job individually, even though it is possible to queue multiple backup jobs with GoodSync (http://timgrey.me/greybackup). This is out of an abundance of caution, not wanting to have the primary drive and all backup drives connected to the computer at the same time.

More Detail: As I’ve mentioned before, I use GoodSync software (http://timgrey.me/greybackup) to back up my photos and other important data. This software creates a backup that is a perfect match of the primary drive, which makes recovering from a failed drive remarkable simple.

With GoodSync only a single backup job can actually run at one time, but you can queue multiple backup jobs and they will run in series. For example, if you have several backup jobs and the drives for each are connected to the computer, you can right-click on each job in turn and choose “Analyze and Sync” from the popup menu to initiate the backup job.

When you queue multiple backup jobs, the first job will start immediately, and the others will be put in the queue. As soon as the first job finishes, the next job in the queue will start.

I would certainly be comfortable with backing up two different source drives with this approach. For example, I could connect my primary photos drive and my primary data drive, along with a backup drive for each, and then queue the jobs for both of those drives.

However, I personally would not take this approach for backing up to both the first and second backup drives for a single primary drive. The reason is that I prefer not to have all three of those drives connected to the computer at the same time, out of an abundance of caution.

Admittedly, the risk of something happening, such as a lightning strike, that might destroy the primary drive and both backup drives all at once just because they were all connected to the computer at the same time is quite low. But I try to maintain very conservative practices when it comes to backing up. I have, after all, lost data to a failed drive a very long time ago, and that taught me to be particularly paranoid when it comes to backing up my important data.

Today’s Question: I’ve seen you demonstrate how you can search the list of folders or collections in Lightroom Classic. However, while I have the search field for folders, it is missing for the collections list. Am I missing something, or is there a way to get it back?

Tim’s Quick Answer: It sounds like you’ve just inadvertently hidden the search field for Collections, which you can bring back by clicking the plus (+) icon and choosing “Show Collections Filter” from the popup menu.

More Detail: There are search fields available for both the Folders and Collections lists on the left panel in the Library module in Lightroom Classic, which enable you to perform a text search to filter either list. This can make it much easier to quickly navigate to a particular folder or collection.

You can also click the magnifying glass icon at the left side of the search field to bring up a popup with various filtering options, such as to filter folders or collections by color label.

The search field is always present within the Folders section, but the field for the Collections section can be hidden. If you tend not to use collections very much you might prefer to hide the search field, for example.

Of course, if you’ve accidentally hidden the field, it can be a little confusing. Fortunately, you can reveal (or hide) the search field by clicking the plus (+) icon to the right of the Collections heading and then choosing “Show Collections Filter” from the popup menu.

Today’s Question: I’ve decided I am long overdue to create a system to better back up my photos. Can you provide an overview of the workflow you recommend?

Tim’s Quick Answer: My primary local backups are created using GoodSync (http://timgrey.me/greybackup) to synchronize each primary storage drive to two backup drives. I also use Backblaze (https://timgrey.me/cloudbackup) as an online backup solution, which provides an offsite copy of my data.

More Detail: I was asked this question a couple weeks ago, but since today is World Backup Day I decided to hold the question for today’s newsletter.

My primary method of backing up my photos is to create exact copies of my primary hard drives used for photo storage to at least two other backup drives. By synchronizing photos to other drives, the backup drives represent an exact copy of the primary drive. I use GoodSync software (http://timgrey.me/greybackup) for this purpose, but there are other solutions available as well.

That means that when a primary drive fails it is very easy to recover. You basically just need to connect the backup drive in place of the failed drive, and the data structure will be the same. This is especially helpful when it comes to managing photos with Lightroom Classic, because it ensures the catalog won’t be confused by a different storage structure for your photos on the backup drive.

While I always maintain at least two backup drives (and often more) for my primary drives, I also want to have an offsite backup so I can still recover even if all my drives were lost at once in a disaster. I prefer to use an online backup service for this purpose rather than having to move hard drives back and forth to a remote location myself, and I have been very happy with the online backup provided by Backblaze (https://timgrey.me/cloudbackup) for this purpose.

As a side note, because I’m a Macintosh user, I employ the Time Machine backup for the internal drive on my computer, backing up to at least two external hard drives for this purpose. This doesn’t relate to my photo storage, since I store my photos on external hard drives, but Time Machine does make it remarkably easy to recover the internal hard drive if there is a failure.

Today’s Question: The term “fast glass” was common decades before autofocus lenses came on the market. Fast glass allowed faster shutter speeds for use in sports photography, to better stop the action of fast-moving subjects.

Tim’s Quick Answer: While my previous answer related to a “fast lens” or “fast glass” emphasized autofocus performance, a lens with a larger maximum aperture size would indeed enable faster shutter speeds, all other things being equal.

More Detail: Every now and then an installment of my Ask Tim Grey eNewsletter leads to a surprising number of responses from photographers, and the subject of “fast lenses” led to an especially large number of replies. It is certainly fair that a lens with a larger maximum aperture size would enable a faster shutter speed, but I would consider that a secondary factor in the context of today’s technology.

As many photographers reminded me, the term “fast glass” for lenses predates autofocus. I suppose that wasn’t as strong in my perspective because while I started out using only manual focus lenses, for most of my time as a photographer I’ve had the luxury of autofocus.

In addition, with the common availability of lens stabilization technology in lenses and camera bodies, it has become less important to choose a fast lens for purposes of achieving a faster shutter speed. For example, when a lens is available in models that feature a maximum aperture size of f/2.8 versus f/4, having image stabilization technology will provide a greater advantage than the additional stop of light via the aperture.

So, while I agree that the term “fast lens” or “fast glass” was in use before autofocus was available, I do think that autofocus performance is a more important reason to consider opting for a lens that has a larger maximum aperture size compared to the ability to achieve faster shutter speeds.

And, of course, as a photographer who tends to favor capturing photos with narrow depth of field, a wider aperture can enable you to create images with less of the scene in focus as well.

I very much appreciate the photographers who replied to my original email on the subject of fast lenses. One of the things I have always enjoyed about publishing the Ask Tim Grey eNewsletter is that readers are quick to respond if they find something I’ve left out, that I’ve stated incorrectly, or that they simply disagree with me about. The feedback is appreciated.

Today’s Question: For composite imaging in Photoshop, what’s the best way to select two images from two different folders in Lightroom Classic?

Tim’s Quick Answer: You can browse the photos from two or more folders at the same time, and then use filters to narrow down the list so you can more easily find the two photos you want to use. Alternatively, I would recommend using the Quick Collection to temporarily group the images together.

More Detail: You can browse the photos from more than one folder in Lightroom Classic by simply selecting multiple folders. This can be done in the same way you would select multiple files or folders in the operating system. You can click on the first folder and then hold the Shift key while clicking the last folder to select the full range of folders in between. You can also toggle the selection of folders on or off by holding the Ctrl key on Windows or the Command key on Macintosh while clicking on a folder.

Once you’ve selected multiple folders you can use the filter settings on the Library Filter bar to narrow the photos down, such as by star rating or other metadata values.

Another great option is to use the Quick Collection in the Catalog section of the left panel in the Library module to group the photos together temporarily. In general, I recommend that you first make sure the Quick Collection is empty. If you need to preserve the group of images currently in the Quick Collection you can save them to a normal collection by right-clicking on the Quick Collection and choosing “Save Quick Collection” from the popup menu.

You can clear the current images from the Quick Collection by right-clicking on it and choosing “Clear Quick Collection” from the popup menu. I then recommend making sure the Quick Collection is the current target collection, which you can do by once again right-clicking and choosing “Set as Target Collection”.

With the Quick Collection set as the target collection you can add images to the Quick Collection by pressing the letter “B” on the keyboard. You could then navigate among the various folders that contain images you want to work with, select a photo, and press “B” on the keyboard to add the selected image to the Quick Collection. You can then go to the Quick Collection to browse the photos you’ve grouped there, select the photos you want to work, and then send them to Photoshop to create a composite.

Today’s Question: In response to your answer about adding GPS metadata by dragging photos to the map [in Lightroom Classic], isn’t it also possible to use a smartphone to record GPS data and add it to photos?

Tim’s Quick Answer: Yes, you can use a smartphone app to record a track log during a photography outing, and then synchronize that track log with the photos in Lightroom Classic to add location metadata to the images.

More Detail: The easiest way to add GPS metadata to your photos is to capture those photos with a camera that has a GPS receiver. With this approach your photos will have GPS information added to metadata automatically, so the photos will simply appear on the map in Lightroom Classic with no additional effort.

As noted in a previous answer, it is also possible to drag photos to the map in order to add location information to metadata. However, recording a track log makes that task even easier when you’re using a camera that doesn’t have a built-in GPS receiver or an attached accessory device.

Some GPS navigators and similar devices have the ability to record a track log. You can also use a smartphone app for this purpose. For the iPhone I use an app called GPS Tracks (https://timgrey.me/gpstracks). For Android users I’ve tested an app called A-GPS Tracker (https://timgrey.me/gpstracker) and found it to work well.

The process of using a track log to add GPS coordinates to the metadata for photos is relatively straightforward. You record the track log in the GPX format (not the KML format) and then I recommend saving that track log in the same folder with the photos it corresponds to.

In the Map module in Lightroom Classic you then select the photos on the filmstrip that relate to the track log, click the track log button on the toolbar below the map, and choose “Load Tracklog” from the popup menu. With the track log loaded and the photos selected, click the track log button again and choose “Auto-Tag Selected Photos”.

The capture time for the photos will be synchronized with the time from the track log, so that GPS coordinates can be determined and added to the metadata for each photo.

Today’s Question: What does it mean for a lens to be “fast”? I see references to “fast glass”, but I don’t understand what this means or how it would benefit me.

Tim’s Quick Answer: A fast lens is one that will achieve autofocus faster based on a relatively large lens aperture (small f-number).

More Detail: When a lens features a lens aperture that can open to a larger size (smaller f-number) it allows more light to reach the image sensor. That, in turn, means that the lens will generally be able to achieve autofocus more quickly, thanks to the additional light. This also means the lens is capable of providing narrower depth of field since the lens aperture can be opened to a larger diameter.

Strictly from the standpoint of autofocus, this means that you’ll get better performance with a lens that features a larger maximum aperture size. For example, an f/2.8 lens is capable of faster autofocus than an f/4 lens, all other things being equal. This is one of the reasons, for example, that some lenses are available in two different models with different maximum aperture sizes, with otherwise identical specifications.

A lens with a larger maximum aperture size will generally be more expensive than a lens that doesn’t have as large a maximum aperture size. It is therefore worthwhile to consider whether you actually need the faster autofocus performance.

For some types of photography, such as birds in flight and sports, faster autofocus performance can be very important. For other types of photography, such as landscape photography, the autofocus performance generally won’t be as important. Therefore, the maximum lens aperture size is only one factor to consider, taking into account how important faster autofocus is to you, along with the potential for narrower depth of field afforded by a lens with a larger maximum aperture size.

Today’s Question: I don’t have a GPS receiver on my camera, though of course my iPhone records where I am if I import iPhone images into Lightroom Classic. Is it possible when importing images to say that, for example, a batch are from Rome, another batch from Istanbul, so in the future I could go to the map, point to a place, and see all the images ever taken there?

Tim’s Quick Answer: There’s not a particularly efficient way of adding GPS metadata to images during import in Lightroom Classic. However, you could apply location-based keywords during import, or you can add GPS metadata to the photos quite easily after import.

More Detail: It would technically be feasible to assign GPS metadata to images upon import into Lightroom Classic by creating a metadata preset that contains GPS coordinates and applying that preset during import. However, this would require the extra effort of creating a metadata preset prior to import, and would not provide the flexibility of using multiple locations for a single batch of photos being imported.

As a very basic workaround you could assign location-based keywords during import, such as adding the name of the city and country where the photographs were captured. This would enable you to locate the applicable photos such as by using the filter option for keywords on the Keyword List in the Library module, but it would not enable you to locate photos based on the map.

However, you can very easily add location information to photos using the Map module. Simply select a group of photos on the filmstrip and drag-and-drop them onto the map in the applicable location. This will add pins on the map representing the photos that were added to the map, and also add GPS coordinates to metadata representing the position on the map the photos were dragged to.

You could certainly drag photos to the specific location on the map where they were captured, provided you could recall those details for all (or some) of the photos. However, you can also use a somewhat generic location on the map for a group of photos.

For example, you could select all photos captured in Rome, Italy, and drag them onto the map at Piazza Navona in the heart of Rome. This would obviously mean that for many of the photos the exact GPS coordinates added to metadata weren’t accurate, but as long as you took that into account when browsing the map or the GPS metadata that wouldn’t be a significant problem.