Category: Ask Tim Grey

Today’s Question: I started to work on a family project and have scanned a large number of photos. Some of these are saved as PDF documents, but I now realize I need a different format like JPEG to work in Lightroom Classic or Photoshop. How do you recommend I convert the PDFs for the most efficient workflow?

Tim’s Quick Answer: You can easily convert the PDF documents to images in a few different ways. It is also possible to open PDF documents directly in Photoshop, including choosing which pages of the PDF you want to open as images so you can then save them in the desired format.

More Detail: While you wouldn’t normally save a photo as a PDF document, it is certainly possible to do so. For example, you can save an image as a PDF in Photoshop, and as indicated in today’s question, in many cases when scanning photo prints the default may be to save the resulting images as a PDF document. However, applications such as Lightroom Classic don’t support PDF documents, so you would need to convert the documents to images.

There are a number of ways you could go about doing this. If all the PDF documents consist of only one page, you can easily batch process a selection of PDF documents into images using Adobe Bridge. Start by selecting the documents in Bridge, then from the menu choose Tools > Photoshop > Image Processor. This will launch Photoshop and bring up the Image Processor dialog, with the documents from Bridge automatically selected for processing. You can then select the image format and other options and process the documents in batch. If the PDF documents consist of more than one page, however, only the first page will be converted to an image using this method.

Another option is to use the free online Adobe Acrobat PDF to image converter to process a PDF document (including those consisting of multiple pages) to individual images. You simply upload your PDF, choose the image format you want to convert to, and click the Convert button to process the PDF. You can then download the resulting images to your computer. This free converter can be found here:

https://www.adobe.com/acrobat/online/pdf-to-jpg.html

If you have access to Adobe Acrobat Pro (such as with an Adobe Creative Cloud subscription beyond the Photography Plan) you can export all pages of a PDF to images. Simply open the PDF in Acrobat Pro and from the menu choose File > Export To > Image and then choose the image format you want to use. You can then choose the location and filename to use, along with image settings applicable to the format you’ve selected and click the Save button to process all pages of the PDF document to individual images.

Any of these methods will enable you to convert the images that had been saved as PDF documents into an image format supported by other software such as Lightroom Classic.

Today’s Question: After finishing an image in Photoshop I usually save it as a TIFF file, then flatten the layers, adjust the size (reduce the pixel count) and save it as a JPEG. Is there a way to save the finished image as a DNG instead of a TIFF file? If the answer is yes, is there a way of taking all my TIFF files and saving them as DNG files?

Tim’s Quick Answer: There are ways to convert TIFF files to Adobe DNG (Digital Negative) files, but there isn’t much of an advantage to doing so, and there could be a big disadvantage if you discard the TIFF images.

More Detail: Converting a TIFF (or other standard image type) to a DNG file won’t create a raw capture, even though DNG can be used as a raw capture format. In other words, you won’t be getting the advantages of a raw capture by using this workflow. In addition, the DNG file would not contain the layers you created for the TIFF image in Photoshop. Therefore, the only real benefit would be that the DNG file would have a smaller file size compared to the TIFF image.

I strongly recommend retaining the edited file with all layers as a master image to be used for the basis of all output for sharing the image later. In this context it wouldn’t make sense to convert the TIFF file to DNG.

If you did want to convert an image file to a DNG, this can be done very easily in Lightroom Classic or Lightroom using the Export feature. In both applications this command can be found on the menu at File > Export, and as part of the export process you can choose to export as a DNG image. This would enable you to batch export multiple images, by the way.

It is also possible to open a TIFF image in Camera Raw by opening the TIFF image via Adobe Bridge. However, Camera Raw only supports flattened TIFF images, so you would need to flatten the image to use this workflow, which again I don’t recommend. But if you did open a TIFF (or raw or JPEG) image in Camera Raw, you can click on the “more” button (the three dots) on the thumbnail for the image after enabling the filmstrip view. There you’ll find the Save Image > Save Image command (or presets for saved settings) where you can process the image into a DNG file.

Today’s Question: I saw an article offering a method for organizing files in four “foolproof” steps, which revolved around folders for each year and optional folders within, where you basically just dump all files into the applicable year folder. The article wasn’t focused on organizing photos, but I wondered if you thought there was any merit to this notion?

Tim’s Quick Answer: For organizing photos, it is absolutely possible to organize photos into a simple folder structure based only on years, especially if other metadata such as keywords is applied consistently. This is not, however, an approach I would recommend for general files beyond photos.

More Detail: Many readers already know that I do not organize most of my photos with a date-based folder structure. I find a location-based folder structure works the best for most photos, but I certainly appreciate that for many photographers a date-based structure makes sense.

Regardless of your approach for naming folders for organizing photos or other files, it is important to consider the depth of that folder structure. For example, if you create year-based folders do you need any subfolders within them? For photos I think it is reasonable to simply put all photos from a given year into a year-based folder, as long as you then use keywords or other metadata to enable you to find specific photos. But you may also want to create folders for months, or based on trips, or other criteria, within each year-based folder.

For general files that are not photos, however, I don’t think it makes sense to dump all files from a year into a year-based folder. Even if you use subfolders to categorize the files within the year-based folders, I don’t generally consider this to be the best approach. Rather, I generally find it most helpful to organize files categorically before possibly using subfolders to divide the files up based on dates.

One of the core things I recommend focusing on when defining a folder structure strategy is how you’re going to be thinking about the photo (or file) you’re looking for. For my photos, it is mostly location that is topical to me, and so I primarily use a location-based folder structure (with folders for each trip, for example). For my other files I use categories.

Both of these decisions are based on the fact that I’m not generally thinking of a date when I’m looking for something. If I’m looking for the user manual for an appliance I’m thinking about the appliance and not about what year I purchased the appliance. But again, the key is to think about what makes the most sense for your particular needs and your way of thinking when it comes to defining a folder structure strategy.

Today’s Question: Is there a way to feather selections in Lightroom Classic or Camera Raw when creating a selection by color range or luminance, similar to the feather control on masking in Photoshop?

Tim’s Quick Answer: Yes, you can feather masks in Lightroom Classic and Camera Raw with the Color Range and Luminance Range mask options, though there is more control with Luminance Range than there is with Color Range.

More Detail: Feathering is a way to blur the edge of a mask so you can introduce a transition between the areas of the image being affected versus not affected by a targeted adjustment. This can create an effect where the adjustment seamlessly blends into the rest of the image, so it isn’t obvious that an adjustment has been applied only to specific areas.

When you create a mask using the Luminance Range option in Lightroom Classic or Camera Raw you have feathering controls that enable you to blend the transition edge with considerable control that is very similar to what is possible in Photoshop. This is controlled using the sliders on the Luminance Range control. The rectangle within the linear gradient represents areas of the image (based on tonal value) that will be completely affected by the adjustment. The slider handles at either side of the rectangle are the feathering controls. The farther away from the rectangle those sliders are positioned, the more the mask is feathered. You can control that feathering independently for the shadow versus highlight side of the luminance range being affected by the targeted adjustment.

With the Color Range option, you don’t have as much control over the feathering, as there is only a Refine slider for this purpose. The Refine control operates similar to the Fuzziness slider for the Color Range command in Photoshop, in that increasing the value will expand the mask with some degree of feathering, but also by enlarging the mask to include similar color values within the image. This means there isn’t a true feathering control for the Color Range option, though Refine provides a somewhat similar result.

Today’s Question: I’m getting ready to import a lot of older images into Lightroom Classic These aren’t high-resolution images, so I want to use Topaz’ product to up-size them. At some point, I’m going to want to add keywords as I love this aspect of Lightroom Classic to help me find images. If I import these original images and assign keywords and then up-size them, will the keywords carry over to the new, higher resolution images?

Tim’s Quick Answer: When you create a derivative copy of an image in Lightroom Classic, the new copy will inherit the metadata from the original. Therefore, if you keyword the images before editing them with a plug-in such as Gigapixel by Topaz Labs (https://topazlabs.com/ref/273/) the image created in that process will include the keywords you had applied to the original image.

More Detail: When you create a derivative image in Lightroom Classic using either the Photo > Edit In or File > Export with Preset commands, the new derivative image will inherit the standard metadata from the original image. Therefore, if you assign keywords to an original image and then create a derivative copy, the keywords from the original will be included in the metadata for the derivative copy, for example.

It is important to keep in mind, however, that once you create a derivative image that inherits the metadata from the original, from that point forward the two images will be separate. That means that any updates you apply to metadata for one image after the derivative is created will not apply to the other image.

I therefore recommend applying all applicable keywords and metadata updates to the original image before creating a derivative copy, so that the original and the derivative will have as much metadata in common as possible. If you want to apply metadata updates to one of the images later in your workflow, you might want to synchronize those updates to keep the metadata as close to a perfect match between the two (or more) images as possible.

Today’s Question: While I use Lightroom Classic to manage my photos, sometimes I find it easier to just browse in Bridge. Since the Keywords field is a standard metadata field, is there any reason I can’t just update keywords in Bridge and have them update in Lightroom Classic?

Tim’s Quick Answer: I don’t recommend updating any metadata outside of Lightroom Classic, as doing so will lead to potentially problematic metadata mismatches.

More Detail: Because Lightroom Classic uses a catalog while software such as Adobe Bridge is a simple browser, it can be problematic to make updates to your photos outside of Lightroom Classic.

When you update metadata in Lightroom Classic those updates are saved in the catalog, and if you have enabled the option to save metadata to the source files they the metadata will also be updated in the file on your hard drive. When you update metadata for photos in Adobe Bridge, the updates are saved directly to the source image, but of course this will not cause the Lightroom Classic catalog to be updated.

So, if you’ve enabled the option to automatically save changes to the source file (via the “Automatically write changes into XMP” checkbox on the Metadata tab of the Catalog Settings dialog) your updates can be seen outside of Lightroom Classic. However, updates from outside Lightroom Classic can’t be seen in your catalog.

It is possible to synchronize the metadata to resolve this issue. For example, you could add keywords in Bridge, then go to Lightroom Classic and resolve the metadata mismatch by importing the updated metadata from the source files. However, I don’t recommend this approach because there is a risk of getting out of sync. For example, if you add keywords in Adobe Bridge, then add keywords in Lightroom Classic, and then resolve the metadata mismatch by importing the metadata from the source file, you will have lost the keywords you added in Lightroom Classic after the update in Bridge.

My recommendation is to always apply metadata updates in Lightroom Classic if you’re using Lightroom Classic to manage your photos. It is perfectly fine to browse your photos using other software, but I strongly recommend making any updates in that other software to avoid problems in Lightroom Classic.

Today’s Question: I’ve been trying to understand the Selection Brush tool compared to the Quick Selection tool in Photoshop. They seem similar, in that they can be used to paint a selection shape. Do I need to know how to use both tools?

Tim’s Quick Answer: While the Selection Brush and Quick Selection tools in Photoshop are quite similar in many respects, there are two key differences that can make it beneficial to understand both tools and use them in different situations.

More Detail: The Quick Selection tool is a little more automated, in that when you paint with the Quick Selection tool Photoshop will attempt to find the edges of the object you’re painting over. So, you can paint over a sampling of the area or object in the image you want to select, and the tool will attempt to select the appropriate area automatically. With the Quick Selection tool, you’ll see your selection appear as the animated dashed line often referred to as the “marching ants” display.

The Selection tool operates more like a simple brush tool, allowing you to paint to define areas that you want to select versus not select. In this way it is somewhat similar to the Lasso tool, in that you can draw a closed shape and the area you draw around will be entirely included in the selection.

While you’re working with the Selection Brush your selection will appear as a colored overlay (you can adjust the settings for the overlay by clicking the gear icon on the Options bar). This behavior reveals that the Selection Brush tool is really something of a “shortcut” for a selection option that has been available for a long time: the Quick Mask mode that can be used in conjunction with the normal Brush tool to create or modify selections.

The Selection Brush and Quick Selection tools are somewhat similar, so you could certainly restrict yourself to using only one or the other. However, these tools are also different enough that you can absolutely put both to use in different situations. I find the Quick Selection tool very helpful for creating initial selections when you want to select an object or area that stands out reasonably well against the background. I find the Selection Brush tool helpful for situations where you need to refine the edge of a selection, and painting along that edge is easier or more comfortable compared to tracing along the edge as you would with a tool like the Lasso tool.

There are more than a few tools and commands for creating and refining selections in Photoshop. While there are some I use much more than others (and some that I rarely use), all of them tend to be useful in particular situations, and so it can be helpful to be familiar with all of them.

Today’s Question: I know there are many variables, but generally speaking would a MacBook Pro laptop monitor be sharper than a 27-inch external monitor? Common sense would dictate that the laptop monitor will be sharper, but I just wanted to get your thoughts.

Tim’s Quick Answer: There are indeed many variables, but given similar display resolution and assuming similar overall quality, a smaller display will appear sharper than a larger display. In this case, that means the laptop display would appear sharper than the external monitor.

More Detail: The apparent sharpness of a monitor display is primarily a result of the overall pixel dimensions and the physical size of the display. There are certainly other factors, such as the quality of components, but effective pixel per inch resolution is the top factor.

To start with, I highly recommend opting for a monitor with a resolution of 4K or better. This will provide a greater number of pixels, which in turn will provide greater pixel density. That translates into a sharper display, all other things being equal.

Monitor size also affects the sharpness of the display, especially if we’re assuming the same (or similar) overall resolution. If you compare a 27-inch and 32-inch display, both of which have 4K resolution, the smaller display will look sharper because of the greater pixel density.

The MacBook Pro mentioned in today’s answer is a little unique, in that while the laptop is available in two sizes (14-inch and 16-inch), those models also have different resolutions for the display (3,024 pixels across versus 3,456 pixels across, respectively). The result is that while the displays are different physical sizes with different pixel dimensions, the pixel density is the same at 254 pixels per inch.

A 27-inch monitor will have a display width of around 23.5 inches, though the exact dimensions will vary especially based on the aspect ratio of the display. But assuming a width of 23.5 inches and full 4K resolution (3,840 pixels across) this display would have a pixel density of 163 pixels per inch. Note, by the way, that for a typical 32-inch display with 4K resolution the pixel density goes down to about 138 pixels per inch.

The real issue here has nothing to do with a built-in laptop display versus an external display. It really comes down to pixel density impacting the visual sharpness of the display. That means a higher resolution display will appear sharper, all other things being equal. And a smaller display will appear sharper, all other things being equal. The key is to strike the right balance between display size and display resolution, taking into account other factors such as the price of the different displays you’re considering.

And of course, I should hasten to add that pixel per inch resolution isn’t necessarily the most important factor to consider either. There is also the ergonomic consideration of which display size is most comfortable for you, along with many other factors to consider.

Today’s Question: Continuing with the discussion of 8-bit and 16-bit, for images captured at 8-bit, is there any advantage to converting them to 16-bit TIFF files for editing and then printing to photo paper?

Tim’s Quick Answer: While the potential benefits of converting an 8-bit per channel capture to 16-bit per channel mode would be minimal, I still consider it a best practice, especially in the context of converting a JPEG image to a non-compressed format for editing.

More Detail: There are theoretical benefits to converting an 8-bit per channel image, but from a practical standpoint the benefits are relatively minimal. However, considering there’s a good chance that an 8-bit capture is also a capture that used JPEG or other image compression, converting to another file format (such as TIFF) can help preserve image quality. I consider it a best practice to convert to 16-bits per channel as part of that process. Just keep in mind that the file size for a 16-bit per channel image will be double the file size for the same image in an 8-bit per channel file.

If you consider the numbers involved, converting an image from 8-bits per channel to 16-bits per channel sure sounds like a good thing. After all, you go from an image with just under 16.8 million possible colors to an image that has the potential to contain more than 281 trillion possible colors! But the image still only contains fewer than 16.8 million colors, even if it has greater potential.

As you apply adjustments to an image, the changes in pixel values can cause the total number of colors represented in the image to increase. That, in turn, can help lead to slightly smoother gradations of tone and color. But what you’re really gaining is a reduced risk of posterization, which is the loss of smooth gradations of tone and color.

As noted above, there is also a slight benefit to converting a JPEG capture to a non-compressed format (such as TIFF, even with ZIP or LZW compression since they are lossless). The primary benefit here is that you are avoiding the additional degradation in image quality caused by repeatedly saving (and therefore compression) the image as additional changes are applied.

To be sure, converting an image from 8-bit to 16-bit per channel mode is not going to provide such a significant benefit that you would be able to tell the difference. Similarly, the compounding effect of JPEG compression being applied multiple times is not something you’d likely be able to make out without zooming in to the pixel level. But I still consider it a best practice to save images in a format without lossy compression, in the 16-bit per channel mode, and in a format that supports layers if you’ll be working in Photoshop.

Today’s Question: I went to import photos into Lightroom Classic without realizing that the drive letter had changed from F: to D: [this would be the equivalent of the volume label for Macintosh users]. Having caught the drive letter issue, I changed it to F:. That caused Lightroom Classic to recognize the 200,000 photos in my catalog, but the 600 photos I had just imported appear missing because Lightroom Classic expects them on the D: drive. How can I fix this?

Tim’s Quick Answer: You can resolve this issue very easily by using the “Find Missing Folder” command to reconnect the folder that Lightroom Classic thinks is on the D: drive so that it maps to the F: drive.

More Detail: If the drive letter (Windows) or volume label (Macintosh) for a hard drive is changed, this can create issues for Lightroom Classic since the catalog is tracking photos based on the hard drive and folder structure. This can be a particular challenge for Windows users, because if you connect an external hard drive in a different order the drive letter assignment could change. You can generally resolve that by assigning the correct drive letter assignment using the Disk Management utility to assign the intended drive letter as the “permanent” drive letter.

Fortunately, this issue is easy to fix in Lightroom Classic. In this particular example one folder is missing because Lightroom Classic thinks it is on the D: drive when it is actually on the F: drive with all the other photos. So, you just need to let Lightroom Classic know where the folder really is.

Start by right-clicking on the missing folder and choosing “Find Missing Folder” from the popup menu. In the dialog that appears, navigate to the correct hard drive (the F: drive in this example) and then to the applicable folder. Click the Choose button and Lightroom Classic will reconnect the folder that was expected on the D: drive so it appears on the F: drive, with the folder and the photos within no longer missing.