Lightroom versus Bridge

Facebooktwitterlinkedin

Today’s Question: I’ve just read your clarification of using Lightroom versus Camera Raw. Not being a user of Lightroom, I’m wondering if you could give a similar clarification between Lightroom and Adobe Bridge. I’ve recently started using Camera Raw for some processing, and use Bridge to label, rank, and search my photos. But I’m wondering if you can clarify what advantages you find that Lightroom has over Bridge for managing your portfolio.

Tim’s Quick Answer: The core difference between Adobe Lightroom and Adobe Bridge is that Lightroom uses a catalog that serves as a central database for managing your photos. The primary advantage of the catalog is that it enables you to more quickly search across your entire collection of photos, and to review photos even when the source files are not available. The disadvantage is that the catalog adds an additional element to manage in your workflow.

More Detail: In terms of your overall workflow for managing your photos, Lightroom and Bridge provide the same basic tools. For example, both enable you to identify favorite photos with star ratings, add keywords, and browse among photos across a large number of folders. Fundamentally, you can manage the same basic workflow with either application.

The difference is the catalog, which can be an advantage or disadvantage based on your perspective. I consider the catalog to be the biggest reason to consider Lightroom as the foundation of your workflow. That said, the catalog is also the perhaps the most maligned feature of Lightroom.

Because of the catalog, Lightroom makes certain tasks possible that would be difficult or impossible with Bridge. With Lightroom you can very easily browse and filter based on your entire library of photographic images. For example, with just a few clicks you can have Lightroom display every single image that you have assigned a five-star rating to.

In addition, because the Lightroom catalog contains both preview images and all of the metadata for your photos, you can actually browse and perform certain tasks with your photos even if the actual image files aren’t available. So, for example, if your photos are stored on an external hard drive but that drive is not connected to your computer, you can still browse those photos and review or update the metadata for the images.

That said, Lightroom also requires that you manage the catalog to a certain extent. As readers of my Ask Tim Grey eNewsletter can probably appreciate, many photographers have struggled with making proper use of the Lightroom catalog. For example, they have updated folders and images outside of Lightroom, creating a variety of challenges within the context of a Lightroom based workflow.

On balance, I very much prefer the benefits provided by the Lightroom catalog. That said, I do recognize that there are inherent challenges involved in managing that catalog. As a result, I do think it is important for each photographer to consider the potential advantages and disadvantages of each potential approach to their image-management workflow.

Single-Image HDR

Facebooktwitterlinkedin

Today’s Question: I’ve got a single image that has a pretty broad range of tonal values. Is there a way to create an HDR image from a single photo? I tried creating additional versions of the original (-2, -1, +1, +2 stops) and then combining them, but that didn’t work. Do you have any suggestions of what would work?

Tim’s Quick Answer: Put simply, you can’t create a true high dynamic range (HDR) image from a single exposure. You can, however, use the tone-mapping feature of most HDR processing software to apply adjustments to that single image.

More Detail: An HDR image involves combining multiple exposures into a single file, blending all of the information from the multiple images into a single processed image with a higher range of tonal values. This is the reason that an initial HDR image assembled from multiple 16-bit per channel captures will generally be a 32-bit per channel HDR image.

That 32-bit per channel image then needs to be tone-mapped to a “normal” tonal range represented by a 16-bit per channel image. This tone-mapping step can be applied to any image, even if it is not a true HDR image.

Some software tools for processing HDR images allow you to use multiple images processed from a single capture, using different exposure adjustments for each copy of the image. This would require that the RAW captures be processed and saved in another image format such as TIFF, however. If you simply made multiple copies of the same RAW capture with different adjustments saved in metadata, the HDR software would not be “fooled”, since the underlying RAW captures would all contain the same capture data.

So, there is no real reason to process the same RAW capture with multiple exposure adjustment variations. Instead you can simply open the original RAW capture in the HDR software, using the tone-mapping features to create the interpretation you prefer. Put simply, applying adjustments to create multiple interpretations of a single capture does not provide any additional data compared to the single original RAW capture. To truly leverage the benefits of HDR imaging, you need to capture multiple bracketed exposures in the camera to begin with.

Bit Depth for Adjustments

Facebooktwitterlinkedin

Today’s Question: Would it be better to apply routine adjustments to an image while the file is still 16-bit per channel mode?

Tim’s Quick Answer: Yes! I always recommend working in the 16-bit per channel mode for your “master” image, only using the 8-bit per channel mode to save derivative copies of the photo.

More Detail: When you share a photo online or produce a print of a photo, you really only need 8-bit per channel color. That translates into more than 16.7 million possible color and tonal values, which happens to be about the same number of values the human visual system is estimated to be capable of seeing.

However, there are advantages to having some additional “headroom” for your adjustments. When you apply an adjustment to a photo, you will often lose a degree of detail in the process. For example, a strong increase in contrast might cause a reduction in the level of detail in the brightest highlights and the darkest shadows.

When working with an image in the 16-bit per channel mode, you have more than 281 trillion possible color and tonal values available. Thus, even with very strong adjustments you will likely still have more than enough information to support the 8-bit per channel mode that represents a baseline in terms of how much information you need to share an image with optimal quality.

Therefore, I highly recommend always working with your “master” image in the 16-bit per channel mode. The 8-bit per channel mode should only be used for saving copies of an image for sharing with others.

It should be noted, by the way, that converting an 8-bit per channel image to the 16-bit per channel mode does not provide the benefits available for true 16-bit per channel images. In other words, you’ll need to start with a RAW capture in order to retain the full bit depth of the original capture. Then, working in 16-bit per channel mode will ensure maximum flexibility for your master image, so you’ll be able to share that image with the best quality possible.

Threshold versus Masking

Facebooktwitterlinkedin

Today’s Question: Does the Threshold control in Photoshop’s Unsharp Mask filter do the same thing as the Masking control when sharpening in Lightroom?

Tim’s Quick Answer: The Threshold control for Unsharp Mask in Photoshop and the Masking control for sharpening in Lightroom are very similar in terms of the overall concept involved and the results you can expect.

More Detail: As noted in an Ask Tim Grey eNewsletter last week, the Threshold feature of the Unsharp Mask filter in Photoshop enables you to mitigate the effect of sharpening in areas of relatively smooth texture. In short, the Threshold control enables you to set a minimum level of contrast that is required before the Unsharp Mask filter enhances contrast to create a sharpening effect.

The Masking control that is available with the sharpening in both Adobe Camera Raw and Lightroom’s Develop module provides a very similar feature. By increasing the value for Masking you are requiring that a certain degree of contrast exist before any additional contrast is added via sharpening. In other words, the Masking control defines a threshold similar to the Threshold control for the Unsharp Mask filter.

The context of the question addressed last week was a comparison of the Unsharp Mask filter compared to the Smart Sharpen filter in Photoshop. If you are applying sharpening in Adobe Camera Raw or Lightroom’s Develop module, you can achieve the same basic effect of the Threshold control available for Unsharp Mask by increasing the value for Masking.

Note, by the way, that when increasing the value for Masking in Adobe Camera Raw or Lightroom, you can hold the Alt key on Windows or the Option key on Macintosh to see a black-and-white preview of which areas will still be sharpened versus which areas will not be sharpened. With the Alt/Option key held down, when you drag the slider for the Masking slider the preview image will appear white where sharpening is going to be applied and black in areas where sharpening will be blocked.

Sharpening versus Midtone Contrast

Facebooktwitterlinkedin

Today’s Question: I was always taught that the High Pass filter was a superior method of sharpening in Photoshop.  And although I was aware of it, I didn’t use it much.  I only learned recently that with a very small radius and use of the Hard Light mode, I can produce significant, but not overly obvious, sharpening of images with a bit of blur.  What are your thoughts about High Pass? And is there a way to achieve any of these kinds of effective sharpening in Lightroom?

Tim’s Quick Answer: The “High Pass” technique is similar in overall effect to sharpening, depending on the settings used. In general practice it tends to provide more of a midtone contrast enhancement for accentuating detail, rather than a true sharpening effect. Lightroom provides similar options with Clarity and Dehaze.

More Detail: Sharpening involves (in a very general way) enhancing contrast where contrast already exists. In the context of a typical motivation for sharpening, that involves enhancing the contrast for fine details in an image in order to improve the perceived sharpness of the image.

Of course, it is also possible to “expand” that sharpening effect across a larger area so that instead of sharpening fine detail you are enhancing overall midtone contrast, reducing the appearance of haze, and adding impact to the photo in the process. This is really just a variation on a theme when it comes to sharpening.

Because there are different motivations for applying a sharpening effect (among other reasons), there are seemingly countless approaches you can take to improve perceived sharpness, increase the appearance of detail, and reduce the appearance of haze in an image. The “High Pass” technique is one of those.

The High Pass approach to sharpening (or detail enhancement) involves duplicating the Background image layer, changing the blend mode for the duplicate layer to one of the “contrast” options (such as Overlay or Hard Light), and then applying the High Pass filter to that duplicate layer (with a Radius value of somewhere around 10 pixels, though the optimal setting can vary significantly).

This approach can be very beneficial for enhancing overall detail with minimal risk of problematic halos in the image. As such, it is a technique I highly recommend. I would simply add that it isn’t really an alternative to sharpening in most cases, but rather something of a creative effect.

As for Lightroom (or Adobe Camera Raw), you can achieve a very similar effect to the High Pass sharpening technique by using a positive value for the Clarity adjustment, or for the Dehaze adjustment. The Dehaze adjustment is primarily focused on reducing the appearance of haze in a photo, while the Clarity adjustment is more focused on overall midtone contrast and enhancement of texture and detail.

Initial RAW Processing

Facebooktwitterlinkedin

Today’s Question: Why is Lightroom better than Camera Raw for pre-Photoshop processing?

Tim’s Quick Answer: Lightroom is not “better” than Camera Raw when it comes to processing the initial RAW captures before performing additional work in Photoshop. In fact, both will produce the exact same results.

More Detail: This question was in response to a question from an Ask Tim Grey eNewsletter last week, in which I discussed the percentage of images I send to Photoshop from Lightroom. What I was really addressing there was how important Photoshop is for processing my images. Recently, with improvements in Lightroom, I’ve found that I’m using Photoshop less and less.

The context of my answer related to the fact that I use Lightroom to manage my library of photographic images, and therefore I use the Develop module in Lightroom as the initial basis of optimizing the appearance of my photos.

That said, if you are not a Lightroom user, then you could substitute Adobe Camera Raw for Lightroom in terms of initial processing of your RAW captures. Both Lightroom and Camera Raw share the same processing engine, so you will find the same adjustment controls with both, and you can expect the same results with both assuming the same settings for all adjustments.

So, when it comes to overall image quality and the specific results you can expect, you can think of Camera Raw (in Photoshop) and the Develop module in Lightroom as being equal. The only real question is what workflow makes the most sense from an organizational standpoint, which in turn will impact your workflow for optimizing your photos.

Bridge to Lightroom

Facebooktwitterlinkedin

Today’s Question: I’m interested in using Lightroom, but after years of using Bridge as an entry into Photoshop, I like and much prefer to maintain the file system I’ve set up in Bridge for my images. How do I do keep the Bridge file system while using Lightroom?

Tim’s Quick Answer: You can absolutely maintain the organizational structure and workflow you’ve defined in Adobe Bridge after you transition to Lightroom. You just need to make sure that you stop actually using Bridge once you switch to Lightroom.

More Detail: Many photographers seem to misunderstand the role Lightroom plays in your workflow, in large part because Lightroom employs a catalog rather than serving as a simple image browser.

The first thing that I think photographers should understand about Lightroom is that the Lightroom catalog is simply a reflection of your existing folder-based organizational structure. Lightroom also enables you to view (and update) the metadata you may have added through other applications such as Bridge.

The process of transitioning from Adobe Bridge to Adobe Lightroom is incredibly simple. Let’s assume you have stored all of your photos on a single external hard drive with a folder structure that suits your needs, and that you’ve been using Adobe Bridge to browse those images and update the metadata as appropriate.

To get started with Lightroom you could simply import all of your photos. With a new catalog in Lightroom you can choose the Import feature. Then set the source of the import to the external hard drive, and make sure the option to include all subfolders is enabled. With the “Add” option set at the top-center of the Import dialog, you can then click the Import button to initiate the process.

Once this import is complete your entire library of photos can be viewed within your Lightroom catalog. The entire folder structure for those photos will be visible in the Folders section of the left panel in the Library module, and all of the metadata for those photos can be found on the right panel in the Library module.

The important thing at this point, however, is to stop using Adobe Bridge altogether, and instead use Lightroom as the starting point for every task you need to perform with your images.

If you want to make sure you completely understand Lightroom, including help on configuring Lightroom to best suit your needs, you might be interested in my bundle of video courses on Adobe Lightroom, which you can find here:

http://timgrey.me/atgmess

Photoshop Frequency

Facebooktwitterlinkedin

Today’s Question: Perhaps this is just a curiosity, but I wonder what percentage of your images you send to Photoshop versus processing completely in Lightroom.

Tim’s Quick Answer: At this point in terms of image optimization the majority of my photos are processed exclusively within Lightroom, with fewer than ten percent being sent to Photoshop for optimization. Put simply, with each new update to Lightroom I’m finding less need to employ the power of Photoshop.

More Detail: As many of my longtime readers know, I’ve been a big fan of Photoshop for a very long time. Many may have noticed that it also took me a little while to fully embrace Lightroom as the cornerstone of my workflow. As the Develop module in Lightroom has improved over the years, I’ve also gradually shifted my workflow to focus more on Lightroom and much less on Photoshop.

To be sure, I still employ Photoshop for difficult challenges. Of course, as I’ve improved my photographic workflow over the years, I have fewer and fewer “difficult” images. But there are situations where I need the additional power of Photoshop to make the most of a photo.

For the most part the reasons I employ Photoshop are to perform sophisticated image cleanup and to apply precise targeted adjustments. While Lightroom includes tools for both of these tasks, they are not as powerful or flexible as what is available in Photoshop.

As much as I love the power of Photoshop, and as much as I love exercising incredible control over my photos, I also appreciate having a workflow that is as streamlined as possible. Therefore, since I use Lightroom as the foundation of my workflow, I try to leverage Lightroom for as much of my work as possible. I only employ other tools when there is a clear advantage beyond what Lightroom is capable of.

Why Unsharp Mask?

Facebooktwitterlinkedin

Today’s Question: You said, “in some cases it may be preferred to use the Unsharp Mask filter instead” [in yesterday’s Ask Tim Grey eNewsletter]. Why would you ever choose Unsharp Mask over Smart Sharpen in Photoshop?

Tim’s Quick Answer: The primary reason you might choose to use the Unsharp Mask filter rather than Smart Sharpen in Photoshop is to avoid adding the appearance of noise in smooth areas. While the Smart Sharpen filter is relatively “smart” in this regard, it is lacking the Threshold control that is available with the Unsharp Mask filter.

More Detail: I often describe sharpening as a process for adding contrast where contrast already exists. For example, texture in a photo is created by variations in pixel values. Sharpening involves enhancing those variations to create greater contrast and therefore a stronger appearance of sharpness.

While that sharpening effect is generally a very good thing, it can also cause smooth areas to appear a bit noisy. Even smooth areas will generally have some degree of variations among individual pixel values, and sharpening will exaggerate that fine texture to some extent.

The Smart Sharpen filter generally does a pretty good job in this regard, but it can still fail to protect smooth areas as much as is possible with the Unsharp Mask filter.

As a general rule I use the Smart Sharpen filter in Photoshop to apply sharpening to my images. However, when the image includes very smooth areas (such as a clear sky) that I want to preserve, I’ll scrutinize those areas when previewing the Smart Sharpen effect. If the result is problematic, I’ll cancel and switch to the Unsharp Mask filter.

With the Unsharp Mask filter, increasing the value for the Threshold setting will prevent the sharpening effect from being applied to areas with very minor variations in tonal values. In most cases a value of around 8 or so for Threshold will mitigate the sharpening effect adequately in smooth areas. You can start there and fine-tune as needed so that sharpening is applied where it is needed but does not create problems in smooth areas of your photos.

Color Shift from Sharpening

Facebooktwitterlinkedin

Today’s Question: Is it true that sharpening can create color artifacts in photos? If so, is there a way to avoid this issue in Photoshop?

Tim’s Quick Answer: Yes, sharpening can create artifacts similar to color noise. You can compensate for this issue in Photoshop by using the Fade command in conjunction with the Luminosity blend mode.

More Detail: There are actually a couple of approaches you could use to prevent or compensate for the appearance of colored artifacts caused by applying a sharpening filter to an image. For example, some photographers convert the image to the Lab color mode and then apply sharpening to the “L” (luminance) channel.

In general I find it is simpler and easier to use the Luminosity blend mode in conjunction with the Fade command. This command can be used immediately after you have applied sharpening.

The first step, of course, is to apply sharpening to your image. I generally recommend the Smart Sharpen filter in Photoshop for this purpose, but in some cases it may be preferred to use the Unsharp Mask filter instead.

Once you’ve applied the desired sharpening to the image, go to the Edit menu and choose the Fade command. Note that this menu item will include the name of the filter you just applied, such as “Fade Smart Sharpen”.

When you select the Fade command, the Fade dialog will appear. The “normal” use of this command is to reduce the strength of the effect you most recently applied. In the case of sharpening you would generally not want to use that option, and so you would keep the Opacity setting at the maximum value of 100%.

However, in this case you do want to change the behavior of the sharpening filter you used, so you can change the blend mode to “Luminosity” using the Mode popup. This blend mode will cause the sharpening filter effect to only adjust the luminance values in the image, not the color values. The result is to mitigate any color variations that may have been introduced by sharpening.

The color variations introduced by sharpening are generally at the individual pixel level, and are not typically too extreme. However, for an image that is being printed at a large size, or for which sharpening creates visible color variations that appear as color noise especially along high contrast edges, the color artifacts can be a problem. Fortunately, the Luminosity blend mode applied through the use of the Fade command provides an excellent solution.