Category: Ask Tim Grey

Today’s Question: I saw an article that said there was no need to use the “Safely Remove” option [or Eject on Macintosh] as long as you made sure you weren’t writing data to a media card before ejecting it. Is this true?

Tim’s Quick Answer: I strongly recommend that photographers stay in the habit of using the “Safely Remove” or “Eject” option in their operating system (Windows versus Macintosh, respectively) to help ensure it is safe to actually remove the media card from the card reader. Ignoring this step can lead to corruption of data on removable media cards.

More Detail: Admittedly, in many cases it would be perfectly safe to simply remove a media card from a card reader (or from your camera) without going through a special process to confirm it is safe to remove the card. However, skipping this step does increase the risk of corruption of the data on your removable media cards.

As long as no data is actively being written to a media card, it is generally safe to simply remove the card without using the “Safely Remove” or “Eject” option in your computer’s operating system. The problem is that you can’t ever be totally sure that no data is being written to the card.

If you remove a card while data is being written to the card, data on the card may be corrupted to the point of a complete loss of that data. This applies both to your camera and to your computer.

Most cameras include a small light that flashes when data is being written to the card. As long as this light is not illuminated, it is generally safe to remove the media card from the camera. I actually recommend going a step further, and turning off the power for the camera before removing a media card. Most (I’m sure all) cameras include a feature where the power won’t actually be completely turned off until data is no longer being written to the card. Thus, if the camera turns off completely (and the light indicating data is being written is no longer flashing) you can remove the media card from your camera.

On the computer I recommend getting in the practice of always using the “Safely Remove” or “Eject” option to confirm it is safe to remove the media card from the card reader. Even if you were only downloading data from the card (and not writing any new data to the card), this is still a good habit that can help ensure you don’t experience data corruption issues on your media.

Frankly, in my opinion anyone who suggests you should not use the “Safely Remove” or “Eject” feature before removing a media card is giving bad advice.

Today’s Question: I do my own sensor cleaning on my camera, and often find it takes more than one swab to get the sensor clean. I’ve been checking my work by capturing a test photo, but this doesn’t seem very efficient. I’ve heard about loupes for sensor cleaning. Do you think these provide a good advantage?

Tim’s Quick Answer: Absolutely! I’ve been using the very affordable Carson SensorMag (https://amzn.to/2NZYqwr), and find that it makes it quite easy to see dust and other blemishes on the sensor.

More Detail: A “sensor loupe” is essentially a magnifying loupe combined with an illumination source (often LED lights), which enables you to get a close and clear look at the filter in front of the image sensor. When you have your camera configured for sensor cleaning, you can place the sensor loupe on the lens mount and turn on the light to get a clear and closeup view of the sensor.

I’ve been using the affordable Carson SensorMag loupe (https://amzn.to/2NZYqwr) and have found it to be very helpful for getting a close look at the sensor both for determining if cleaning is necessary and to confirm that I’ve done a thorough job with my cleaning.

Another excellent sensor loupe is the VisibleDust Quasar Plus (https://amzn.to/2Jy6e4U). This is a more expensive sensor loupe, but it does offer exceptional quality. That translates into improved brightness and clarity, which makes it easier to see the surface of the filter in front of your image sensor.

There is no question in my mind that using a sensor loupe is far superior to simply capturing a test photo when it comes to making sure your sensor is free of blemishes.

Today’s Question: I realize some photographers need a very long lens such as for bird photography. But for more general photography do you have a recommendation for what would be the longest lens I should have?

Tim’s Quick Answer: I don’t think there is really a limit in terms of how much reach a photographer might like to have available. Rather, I think the real limit relates to the increased weight (and size) of a long lens. That said, I do think most photographers would benefit from having a lens on the order of around a 500mm focal length available (based on a 35mm sensor format).

More Detail: I’ve never felt that a particular lens had more reach than I could put to use in my photography. Whatever lens I’m using, it seems that I often feel I could use a longer lens in certain situations. That’s not to say that I always want a longer lens under all circumstances, but that I very often feel that a long lens is helpful.

For bird and wildlife photography most photographers are going to want a very long lens, on the order of a 500mm or 600mm focal length. But even for other types of photography, such as landscape and travel, I find that a long lens can be helpful. More often than not, I bring a 150-600mm lens (https://amzn.to/2O9SOji) with me when traveling for photography. On rare occasions I might bring a lens no longer than a 70-200mm. But when I don’t bring a long lens, in most cases I do think I could have put it to good use if I had brought it with me.

Of course, longer lenses also involve increased size and weight. The 150-600mm lens I often bring on trips weighs 4.4 pounds. That can certainly add a bit of strain to my camera bag. Therefore, you’ll want to consider the size and weight of a lens with a long focal length before deciding if it will be a good option for you.

I think it is fair to say that just about every photographer could get some good use out of a lens such as a 70-200mm. So I would consider that a starting point for many photographers looking for a “long” lens. But I also think that most photographers would be happy to have something like a 100-400mm or 150-600mm lens available, at least for some of their photography.

Today’s Question: I have a question about processing Panorama shots in Lightroom or Photoshop. Is it better to process each photo individually before merging them, or merge first and process the final panorama?

Tim’s Quick Answer: With Lightroom there is no need to apply adjustments to your original raw captures, because those adjustments will remain adjustable after creating the panorama. With Photoshop, however, adjustments to the raw captures will be applied to the panoramic image created by merging, so in some cases you may want to apply adjustments to the raw captures first.

More Detail: In the context of Lightroom, applying adjustments to the original raw captures before merging those captures into a composite panorama is purely a matter of preference. And in some cases you’ll find that Lightroom ignores your adjustments anyway. For example, if you apply different transformation adjustments to the individual captures you’ll assemble into a panorama, you’ll discover that Lightroom won’t be confused by those adjustments, and will still properly assemble the panorama.

That said, many of the adjustments you could apply to the original captures will be reflected in the assembled panorama. So there could be some value in applying those adjustments first. But the result is really no different from applying those same adjustments after the panorama is assembled into an Adobe DNG image. So this is really a matter of preference, but in the context of Lightroom I would generally suggest that you don’t spend time applying adjustments to the original captures, and instead save that work for after the panorama is assembled.

With Photoshop the situation is a little different. When you assemble a composite panorama from a group of raw captures, any adjustments you had applied in Adobe Camera Raw will be reflected in the individual captures, and therefore applied to the actual pixel values in the assembled panorama.

That said, there isn’t generally a tremendous advantage to applying adjustments to your raw captures before creating a composite panorama. You might prefer to take advantage of certain adjustments from the start, such as noise reduction and overall color correction. But in large part this is again a matter of personal preference.

The only exception would be if very strong adjustments are necessary, in which case I would apply those to the original raw captures to help maximize image quality. But in typical situations, this is a matter of personal preference in your workflow. And in my view, it is simpler to simply assemble a panorama from the original raw captures before applying adjustments, unless very strong adjustments are necessary.

Today’s Question: I had to put a new hard drive into my computer. I tried to reinstall Lightroom [Classic CC], but it doesn’t open the photos on my external drive. I use two external drives for Lightroom, one as my main drive, and another as a backup. Can you tell me how to get things to where they were?

Tim’s Quick Answer: When you reinstalled Lightroom, a new empty catalog would have been created as part of the process. To get back to your previous configuration, you’ll need to open the catalog you had been using with Lightroom before the reinstall.

More Detail: Lightroom requires a catalog in order to manage your photos, and so when you install Lightroom a new catalog will be created. Of course, if you had already been using Lightroom that new empty catalog won’t contain any of the information about your photos. However, even when uninstalling and then reinstalling Lightroom, your existing Lightroom catalog will remain where it was.

Therefore, all you need to do is open your existing Lightroom catalog within the new Lightroom installation, and you’ll be back to where you were before reinstalling. To open a catalog, simply choose File > Open Catalog from the menu. Then navigate to the location where your catalog is stored and select that catalog (the “lrcat” file) to be opened.

Of course, you may find that actually locating that original catalog is the biggest challenge. By default, Lightroom will create catalogs in the “pictures” folder for your operating system. So, the first step would be to navigate to that location and see if your catalog is there. Otherwise, you’ll want to check the various other storage locations (including the location where your photos are stored) to locate your catalog.

It is critically important to be sure that you are opening the actual catalog you’ve been using to manage your photos in Lightroom, and not a backup copy of your catalog, for example.

Naturally, this sort of issue is much easier to manage if you actually know where your Lightroom catalog is stored. You can find this information (before having reinstalled Lightroom) on the General tab of the Catalog Settings dialog, which can be accessed from the Edit menu on the Windows version of Lightroom or the Lightroom menu on the Macintosh version.

Today’s Question: You mentioned using an 18-400mm lens in one of your Instagram posts. What do you think in general about using a lens with such a long range, which could potentially be the only lens I might need for many photo trips?

Tim’s Quick Answer: As you can probably already appreciate, using a lens with a particularly long zoom range involves a degree of compromise. You’ll gain convenience and often a lower price compared to otherwise covering the same range. However, you can generally expect lower image quality with this type of lens.

More Detail: When it comes to long-range zoom lenses, the key is to consider how the balance of advantages versus disadvantages.

The most significant advantage of a zoom lens with a long range of focal lengths is convenience. With a single lens you can cover a wide variety of situations, with the potential that you would never (or at least rarely) need to switch lenses. That also means you wouldn’t need to pack as many lenses.

In many cases a long range zoom also represents a cost advantage. Especially when you consider how much you might otherwise spend on lenses that would cover the same range, the savings can be substantial.

These benefits, however, do involve some compromises. In general, the longer the zoom range for a lens the more likelihood image quality will be lower than you could expect with a shorter-range zoom lens. And, of course, a prime lens will typically perform even better. That’s not to say that a long-range zoom lens won’t provide quality that is perfectly acceptable, but this is certainly an issue you’ll want to evaluate carefully.

In addition, you’ll often find that a long-range zoom lens is a relatively heavy lens. To be sure, such a lens will typically be much lighter than the combined weight of the several lenses you would need to achieve a similar focal length range. But the lens will still tend to be a little on the heavy side by virtue of covering such a long range. So while the lens may be convenient, it may result in a somewhat heavy camera configuration.

Of course, the issues discussed here are very general things to consider, and each individual lens will represent a different balance of advantages versus disadvantages. You will therefore need to evaluate the specifications for any lens you’re considering and be sure to read reviews to get a sense of how well the lens will suit your specific needs. Even better, use a rental service (such as LensRentals.com, https://timgrey.me/rentlenses) to rent a lens you are thinking about buying, so you can perform your own real-world test to see how the lens performs for you.

Today’s Question: I saw your recommendation to use the Camera Raw Filter in Photoshop to get access to the Camera Raw adjustments for a photo that has already been processed. However, sometimes when I choose “Camera Raw Filter” from the Filter menu, my photo changes in appearance, but the Camera Raw window doesn’t appear. Do you know how I can fix this?

Tim’s Quick Answer: This description indicates that you are selecting the “Last Filter” command from the Filter menu, rather than the actual filter you want to apply (the Camera Raw Filter in this case). Instead of choosing “Camera Raw Filter” from the top of the Filter menu, select the “Camera Raw Filter” option that appears a little further down on the menu in the section that begins with “Filter Gallery”.

More Detail: When you apply a filter in Photoshop, that filter will then appear a second time at the top of the Filter menu, in addition to the normal position on the menu for that filter. Before you have applied any filters, that top menu item will be labeled “Last Filter”. However, the “Last Filter” item will be disabled at that point, since there isn’t yet a previously applied filter to apply.

Once you have applied a filter to any image, the name of the most recently applied filter will appear as the top item on the Filter menu, in place of the “Last Filter” option. If you select the filter from that top position on the menu, the applicable filter will be applied to the image with the exact same settings you used the last time you applied that filter. No dialog box will appear before that filter is applied, so you’re not able to adjust the settings for the filter.

If you want to apply the same filter, but with the option to refine the settings you used the last time you applied that filter, you can hold the Alt/Option key while choosing the Last Filter command. That will cause the dialog for the filter to appear, but with the settings you used the last time you actually applied the filter.

If instead you want to start with the default values for the filter, you’ll want to select the specific filter from the Filter menu, rather than from the Last Filter position on the menu. In the case of the Camera Raw Filter, that means choosing that option from a few positions down below the Last Filter option at the top of the Filter menu.

Today’s Question: In response to a question about hyperfocal distance and depth of field, you said “…when it will be impossible to achieve the desired depth of field with a single capture.” How is it possible to achieve more depth of field with more than a single capture?

Tim’s Quick Answer: You can expand depth of field for a scene by essentially bracketing the focus with multiple captures set at different focal points. This is referred to as focus stacking, and it can be very effective at providing greater depth of field than you could otherwise achieve in a single exposure.

More Detail: In many cases it can be difficult (or impossible) to achieve as much depth of field as you’d like. An extreme example would be macro photography, where you are focusing so close to the subject that you will have depth of field measured in the fractions of an inch. However, even with landscape photography you can easily run into a situation where you’re not able to get as much depth of field as you’d like.

Focus stacking to achieve greater depth of field is similar in concept to creating an HDR image. The difference is that for HDR you bracket the exposures, while for focus stacking you bracket the focus point.

Some cameras actually include built-in focus stacking. During my recent Palouse Photo Workshop (http://www.timgreyphoto.com/palouse-2019) a couple of photographers were making use of this feature with a Nikon D850, and the results were quite impressive.

It is also possible to manually create focus-stacked images. You need to adjust the focus for each of a series of exposures, making sure that you overlap the depth of field for each exposure to cover the entire area you want in focus in the final image.

You can then use software to assemble the resulting photos into a final focus-stacked image. My personal preference is Helicon Focus (https://www.heliconsoft.com), which I’ve been using for focus stacking for quite a few years with excellent results. Another option is Zerene Stacker (http://www.zerenesystems.com). Both provide similar options for building a final image by blending the original captures to maximize depth of field.

And, of course, some photographers take an even more manual approach, capturing several images and then blending them through the use of layer masks in Photoshop.

Today’s Question: How can I specify that I want Standard Previews in Lightroom Classic CC?

Tim’s Quick Answer: There are two ways you can have Lightroom generate Standard previews (rather than 1:1 previews, for example). You can either select the Standard option from the Build Previews popup in the Import dialog at the time you import photos into Lightroom, or you can use a menu command to generate previews after import for selected photos.

More Detail: This question is a follow-up to a previous question that related to the use of the “Embedded & Sidecar” preview option. In short, I recommended using the Standard (or 1:1) preview option rather than the “Embedded & Sidecar” option.

You can specify the type of preview you want Lightroom to generate right at the time the images are being imported into your Lightroom catalog. From the Build Previews popup in the File Handling section of the right panel in the Import dialog, simply choose the desired option, such as “Standard” or “1:1”. As soon as the images have been imported, Lightroom will generate previews of all of the photos, storing those previews alongside the catalog file.

If you had been using a different preview option during some of your previous imports, or you otherwise need to re-generate previews for some images, you can most certainly perform that task at any time. Simply select the photos you want to generate previews for (such as all photos in a given folder) and then choose the desired preview option from the submenu at Library > Previews. For example, to generate Standard previews you could select Library > Previews > Build Standard-Sized Previews. Note that you do need to be in the Library module to be able to select this menu option.

Note that it is even possible to re-generate previews for all photos in your entire Lightroom catalog. To do so, you could first choose “All Photographs” from the Catalog section of the left panel in the Library module. Then choose Edit > Select All in order to select all photos in your catalog (making sure you don’t have any filters set first). Then choose the desired preview option from the Library > Previews submenu, and Lightroom will build updated previews as needed for all selected photos.

Today’s Question: Would focusing at the hyperfocal distance help in this case [of a photographer wanting to maximize depth of field for a scene]?

Tim’s Quick Answer: Yes, if your goal is to maximize depth of field for a scene, setting the focus for a lens to the hyperfocal distance will provide an optimal result, all other things being equal.

More Detail: In an Ask Tim Grey eNewsletter last week I addressed a question from a photographer who was trying to understand which lens aperture setting to use when focusing from a distance. The implication was that greater (or maximum) depth of field was desired.

The hyperfocal distance is the closest distance you can focus on while still retaining acceptable focus at infinity. In other words, all other things being equal, if you set the focus distance at the hyperfocal distance, you’ll have the maximum possible depth of field for the scene.

The key is to actually determine what the hyperfocal distance is for a given set of circumstances. This can be especially challenging since the hyperfocal distance will change based on changes in lens focal length or aperture setting.

In fact, the example scenario I defined in my previous answer on this subject was chosen as an illustration of focusing at hyperfocal distance. I had used the example of a 200mm lens on a given camera, with the lens aperture set to f/8 and a subject at a distance of about one-quarter mile. With these settings, it happens that the hyperfocal distance would be 497.3 yards, which is just over one-quarter of a mile.

If you are using a calculator (such as a smartphone app) to calculate depth of field, that calculator probably already provides an indication of the hyperfocal distance. Setting the lens focus at that point would yield maximum depth of field.

Of course, the bigger challenge in all of this is that with most lenses it is not very easy to set focus at a specific distance. That said, calculating the hyperfocal distance can be helpful in terms of providing a good sense of what is possible in terms of overall depth of field. For example, with a 100mm lens set to an aperture of f/22 but focusing on a subject three feet away from the lens, the hyperfocal distance would be about 135 feet.

In other words, it is impossible to achieve enough depth of field so that the subject close to the lens is in focus, while focus is also maintained at infinity. By calculating depth of field (and thereby obtaining hyperfocal distance) under a variety of circumstances, you’ll get a better sense of when you are able to achieve greater depth of field, and when it will be impossible to achieve the desired depth of field with a single capture.