Category: Ask Tim Grey

Today’s Question: I like your recommendation to use only one catalog for Lightroom. I just have one question before I combine my two catalogs. Is there a way to find photos based on the photographer? When I shoot weddings I have a second photographer. If I put the photos from both photographers into the same catalog, is there a way to see only the photos from one photographer at a time for a wedding we photographed?

Tim’s Quick Answer: Yes, you could very easily filter the images based on the camera serial number, which in turn would typically mean you were filtering photos based on the photographer. You could also assign keywords or other metadata updates during the import process, identifying the photographer for each batch of photos.

More Detail: Lightroom actually provides a wide range of options for filtering your photos, which can be helpful for locating photos based on various different criteria.

One option that generally works well for identifying which photos were captured by which photographers is to filter the photos based on the specific camera that was used. This assumes, of course, that each camera was only used by a single photographer. But in that situation, you can use the unique serial number for each camera to filter the photos based on which photographer captured them.

Within the Library module, make sure you are in the grid view (you can press the “G” key on the keyboard to switch to the grid view). Then, if you don’t see the Library Filter bar above the grid view thumbnail display, press the backslash key (“\”) on the keyboard to display the filter bar.

Navigate to the folder you want to search in, and on the Library Filter bar choose the Metadata tab. Make sure there aren’t any other filter criteria selected, assuming you only want to filter based on the camera serial number. Then click the heading bar for one of the filter columns and choose “Camera Serial Number” from the popup menu. That column will then list all camera serial numbers reflected in metadata for all of the photos in the current location. Click on the applicable serial number, and the photos will be filtered to display only those captured with the camera having the serial number you selected.

As noted above, you could also add metadata with the photographer’s name, ideally during the import process. You could create a metadata preset for each of the photographers, and select the appropriate preset when importing each batch of photos.

Today’s Question: After editing an image in Lightroom I usually send it to Photoshop for final editing. The problem is that Photoshop edited image is not in the catalog in Lightroom. Is there a way to return an edited image in Photoshop back to Lightroom?

Tim’s Quick Answer: If you are using the “Edit In” feature correctly, you’ll end up with a new version of the source image in Lightroom, right alongside the original. Note that you may need to disable any filters that could cause the new derivative image to be hidden from view.

More Detail: To send a photo from Lightroom to Photoshop, you’ll first want to select the image you want to work with. Then go to the menu and choose Photo > Edit In > Edit In Adobe Photoshop CC.

If the image you’ve selected is a raw capture, a copy of the image will automatically be opened in Photoshop. If another file type (such as a JPEG capture) was selected, you’ll be prompted to choose how you want to process the image. At this point of the workflow, you’ll typically want to choose the “Edit a Copy with Lightroom Adjustments” in the dialog that appears. Then click the Edit button to send the photo to Photoshop.

Within Photoshop you can then perform any work on the photo you’d like. When you’re finished with your adjustments, save the updated version of the file by choosing File > Save from the menu. It is important not to use the “Save As” command here, because doing so would create yet another copy of the image beyond the copy that Lightroom will be managing. Then choose File > Close from the menu to close the image.

At this point you can return to Lightroom and the source image will be right alongside the source image, at least in theory.

The derivative image created from the selected source image will be saved in the same folder as the source image. The base filename will also be the same by default, with the addition of “-Edit” to that base filename. The filename extension will be based on whether you have chosen the TIFF versus PSD file format option in Preferences. Note that you can also configure the file naming for these derivative images on the External Editing tab of the Preferences dialog.

If you aren’t able to find the new derivative image after using the above workflow, there is most likely an issue related to sorting or filtering your photos. While still viewing the original source image you had sent to Photoshop, turn off all filters for your images (using the “None” option on the Library Filter Bar). Then, in the Grid view display, choose “Filename” from the Sort popup on the toolbar below the image preview area.

Note that if you want to re-send the derivative image to Photoshop, you will want to select the “Edit Original” option in the dialog that appears when you choose the “Edit In” command. This will ensure that you are able to access of the layer you may have created when you first created the derivative image for your work in Photoshop.

Today’s Question: I lost the lens hood for my 70 to 200 mm F2.8 lens. While waiting for the lens hood to arrive, what precautions should I take when using the lens.

Tim’s Quick Answer: You could actually print a temporary lens hood to use while waiting for the replacement to arrive, or simply exercise caution while using the lens without a lens hood.

More Detail: First, you might consider printing a temporary replacement lens hood. You can find templates for many popular lenses at LensHoods.net (http://www.lenshoods.net). You can then print the template, cut it out, and tape it closed so that you can mount it on your lens.

The other option is to simply exercise caution while using the lens without a hood.

As a general rule, the sun is the primary light source to be concerned about, although other very strong light sources can certainly cause lens flare. The flare is only an issue when the sun (or other light source) is in front of a line parallel to the front lens element. In other words, if the sun is at least a light bit behind you, lens flare won’t be a concern because the lens will provide its own shade to the front lens element.

The key scenario where lens flare is a risk is when the sun is ahead of the front lens element but not actually in the frame of your photo. If the sun is in the frame, a lens hood won’t provide any real benefit. But when the sun is ahead of the lens but not in the frame, it can still cast light into the lens, which can then be reflected back and forth among the lens elements to create lens flare.

In these situations if you pay careful attention to the view through the viewfinder (or on the LCD display for Live View), you can simply use a hand or other object to shade the lens, blocking the light that could otherwise cause lens flare.

The key is to be aware of situations where lens flare is possible. In those situations, pay attention for lens flare, and even shade the front lens element regardless of whether you actually see indications of lens flare. Just be careful when shading the front lens element that you’re not putting your hand or other object into the frame accidentally.

Today’s Question: Could you provide a more detailed description of how to capture a test shot to check for dust on a camera’s sensor? I appreciate that a loupe provides benefits, but sometimes I don’t have a loupe with me when I am traveling.

Tim’s Quick Answer: You can create a test capture to check for dust by stopping your lens down all the way to the smallest aperture size, and then capturing a normal exposure of a “clean” subject, such as a blank wall or sheet of paper. The photo can then be evaluated for dust spots and other indications of blemishes.

More Detail: As noted in a previous Ask Tim Grey eNewsletter, you can capture a test photo when you’re not able to use a loupe to evaluate the sensor directly for dust. I generally prefer using a sensor loupe to evaluate the surface of the sensor directly, as noted on the GreyLearning Blog here:

http://greylearningblog.com/loupe-for-sensor-cleaning/

However, obviously at times you may need to check the sensor for dust when you don’t have such a loupe available. In that case a “manual” approach can work very well.

The first thing to do is locate a subject you can photograph that won’t have much in the way of texture that could cause ambiguity about where any dust spots might be. I typically use an empty wall or a blank sheet of paper for this purpose.

Then, configure your camera for a normal exposure of that subject using the minimum size lens aperture (such as f/22 on many lenses, for example). In many cases (especially if using a white subject for your test photo) it can also be helpful to increase the exposure by about one stop above what the meter indicates.

So, for example, in Aperture Priority mode with the lens aperture stopped down completely, you could set one stop of “plus” exposure compensation. Then point the lens at the intended subject, and capture the photo while moving the camera constantly during the exposure. This will help ensure that nothing in the photo appears sharp except for dust spots on the sensor that are blocking light from reaching the sensor.

After the exposure is completed, you could review the image on the camera’s LCD, zooming in and panning around to check for any blemishes. However, I recommend downloading the photo to a computer so you can get a bigger and closer look at the image.

Based on this evaluation, you can clean the sensor as needed, repeating the process of evaluating and cleaning until you have a thoroughly clean sensor.

Today’s Question: You have mentioned a sensor loupe for checking the camera’s sensor for dust. Is this more effective than the method of taking a test photo of a blank surface? It seems the latter would clearly show where there is dust on the sensor.

Tim’s Quick Answer: My experience has been that a sensor loupe absolutely provides an advantage over capturing a test shot for evaluating whether there is dust or other blemishes on your camera’s sensor. I’m currently using the Carson SensorMag (https://amzn.to/2LDw4cQ), and find that by using this loupe I don’t need to capture test shots at all in order to be confident that my sensor is clean.

More Detail: With a loupe designed for viewing the sensor in your camera (well, really the filter on top of the sensor), you can get an illuminated and magnified view of the surface, so that you’re able to clearly see even tiny dust spots and other blemishes. I’ve found this to be much more convenient and effective than the method of capturing a test photo to check for dust.

The basic process of using a test capture for sensor dust involves photographing a non-detailed subject while moving the camera, with the lens aperture fully stopped down. You can then evaluate the resulting image for spots, and get your camera cleaned as needed based on this test.

I have found, however, that a sensor loupe streamlines this entire process. With a sensor loupe you get a magnifier and bright light in a single package. This enables you to clearly see the surface of the filter in front of your camera’s sensor. You can therefore simply use the loupe to check if you need to clean the sensor, and use it again to confirm you were successful at effectively cleaning all of the blemishes.

To me this workflow is much easier than the process of capturing a test photo, downloading that test photo to the computer for the best evaluation, and repeating that process potentially more than once to evaluate the effectiveness of your sensor cleaning.

As a result, I consider a sensor loupe (https://amzn.to/2LDw4cQ) to be one of the more critical tools in my camera bag.

Today’s Question: In your answer about removing a folder and its contents, you talked about deleting the folder from the hard drive when removing it from Lightroom. Wouldn’t it be safer to keep the folder on the hard drive as a backup, meaning to not delete it when removing it from the Lightroom catalog?

Tim’s Quick Answer: My feeling is that if you want to remove photos from your Lightroom catalog, you should also delete the source images. Otherwise you would have photos taking up space on your hard drive that you don’t even know actually exist, because you can’t find them in Lightroom.

More Detail: As noted in yesterday’s edition of the Ask Tim Grey eNewsletter, when you remove a photo from your Lightroom catalog you can choose whether or not you want to delete the source photo from your hard drive. In other words, you can remove the photo from your catalog but keep the source file on your hard drive, or both delete the source photo and remove the record from the catalog at the same time.

I certainly understand the notion of wanting to keep the source files on your hard drive “just in case”, so that if you change your mind later you could add the source image back to your Lightroom catalog. But to me this creates bigger potential problems in your workflow.

In other words, if you aren’t totally sure you want to delete the photo from your hard drive, you shouldn’t remove that photo from your Lightroom catalog. This is based on the notion that I want to manage all of my photos in a single catalog, and therefore I want my catalog to contain all of my photos.

There are certainly exceptions in terms of photos you want to keep without managing in Lightroom. But in that context I would suggest moving the photos to a completely different storage structure, to avoid potential confusion.

So, generally speaking I would say photos being removed from your Lightroom catalog should be deleted from your hard drive. If you have a scenario where you do indeed want to retain photos but manage them outside of your Lightroom workflow, I would remove them from Lightroom but then also move them to a different storage structure separate from your primary photo-management workflow.

Today’s Question: I have a folder that I want to completely delete from Lightroom, including deleting the photos within the folder. But when I right-click on the folder and choose “Remove”, I get a message saying the folder will be removed from Lightroom but that the photos will remain on the hard drive. How can I completely delete a folder and its contents from Lightroom?

Tim’s Quick Answer: To completely remove a folder and the contents, you’ll need to perform two steps. First, you’ll need to delete all photos from the folder. Then you can remove the folder, which will cause it to be deleted from the hard drive as well as being removed from Lightroom.

More Detail: The “Remove” command for folders in Lightroom enables you to remove the folder and its contents from the Lightroom catalog, without actually deleting the contents of the folder. The Remove command will only delete the folder from the hard drive if it is empty.

Therefore, in order to delete the folder and its contents you would need to first delete the contents of the folder, and then remove the folder. You can perform both of these steps from within Lightroom.

First, navigate to the folder and make sure there aren’t any filters applied, so that you are viewing the full contents of the folder. Then choose Edit > Select All from the menu to select all of the photos and videos in that folder. You can then select Photo > Remove Photos from the menu, and click the “Delete from Disk” button in the confirmation dialog to actually delete the photos from the hard drive.

Once the folder is empty, you can right-click on the folder and choose “Remove Folder” from the popup menu. Provided the folder is completely empty (including, for example, files that might be in the folder that aren’t being managed by Lightroom), you this “Remove Folder” command will cause the folder to be deleted from the hard drive as well as being removed from Lightroom.

Today’s Question: A while back you explained the “long lens compression” was really more about the photographer’s position relative to the subject, not because of the focal length of the lens. But f the subject is a person, isn’t it true that a wide-angle lens will distort their face in an unflattering way?

Tim’s Quick Answer: Yes, wide-angle lenses will tend to create an unflattering effect in portraits. This is due in part to perspective distortion, and in part due to the lens distortion that is common with wide-angle lenses.

More Detail: Wide-angle lenses are essentially taking a view that extends beyond what the image sensor could theoretically “see”, and bending the light rays so that wider field of view fits within the view of the image sensor. That causes distortion that can clearly be seen by photographing a scene consisting some form of grid pattern, such as a brick wall.

That same distortion can alter the appearance of a person in ways that can be unflattering. If the person is very close to the camera, their face (for example) would appear very large in the frame. But because of the wide field of view of the lens, the rest of the person (such as their body) would appear very small by comparison. This same effect can cause a person’s face to appear distorted, such as by having a very large nose with comparatively small eyes and other features.

Similar to my discussion of long lens compression not too long ago, there is also a perspective effect at work here. If you’re using a wide-angle lens to photograph a person, they need to be closer to the camera to fill the frame. Thus, the relationship between foreground and background subjects will be exaggerated.

So, as a general rule it is best to use a lens with a relatively long focal length to photograph a person, to create a more flattering facial appearance and more accurate overall reflection of their proportions.

Today’s Question: I am desperate. I lost my screen mode in Photoshop. When I launch Photoshop I get the tools and the menu bar and the panels, but with the operating system in the background. How can I get the background back?

Tim’s Quick Answer: The “background” you’re referring to is the Application Frame. You can bring back this interface option by choosing Window > Application Frame from the menu.

More Detail: The Application Frame setting is only an option for Macintosh users. Windows users always have a background in Photoshop. Macintosh applications (including the Macintosh version of Photoshop) are able to have a minimal interface where you only see open documents and interface elements such as toolbars.

In other words, Macintosh users have the option of an interface that appears somewhat “see through”, which can be a little distracting depending on what’s going on behind Photoshop. As a result, I prefer having the Application Frame turned on, and recommend that all photographer’s do the same.

As noted above, you can choose Window > Application Frame to turn this background on or off.

Today’s Question: I went to a folder from a trip of several years ago, looking for some videos I captured during that trip. I know these videos work fine, as I can access them from my operating system. But Lightroom shows a black exclamation point icon at the top right of each thumbnail, and when I put my mouse over that exclamation point it shows a message that says “Lightroom has encountered problems reading this video”. Is there anything I can do to get my videos back in Lightroom?

Tim’s Quick Answer: This scenario most likely indicates the cache for video files has become corrupted. To purge the cache so it can be rebuilt, click the “Purge Cache” button in the Video Cache Settings of the Performance tab in the Preferences dialog in Lightroom. When you restart Lightroom the videos should perform normally again.

More Detail: Lightroom uses a cache to help improve performance for playing videos within Lightroom. If that cache becomes corrupted for any reason, you may not be able to play some (or all) videos within your Lightroom catalog. The fact that these videos can be played normally outside of Lightroom further confirms that the issue is with Lightroom’s video cache.

Fortunately, it is very easy to purge the video cache, which will not cause any important data to be lost. When you then re-launch Lightroom you should be able to view all videos normally again, with the video cache being regenerated automatically.

As noted above, purging the cache for videos in Lightroom is very simple. First, bring up the Preferences dialog by going to the menu and choosing Edit > Preferences on Windows or Lightroom > Preferences on Macintosh.

Navigate to the Performance tab using the row of buttons across the top of the Preferences dialog, and look for the “Video Cache Settings” about midway down the dialog. At the far right of this dialog you can click the “Purge Cache” button to clear the video cache.

If you work with video on a regular basis in Lightroom, you can improve performance for video playback by increasing the cache size, provided you have adequate hard drive space available. The default value for Maximum Size for the cache is 3 GB, but you can increase the value. You can also turn off the “Limit video cache size” checkbox if you want to allow Lightroom to make use of as much free hard drive space as is available.

When you have adjusted the settings in the Preferences dialog, including purging the video cache, you can restart Lightroom to return to normal use of your videos.