Category: Ask Tim Grey

Today’s Question: I’ve run into a problem where if I choose the Camera Raw filter in Photoshop, I’m getting a blank white image instead of the actual image I’m working on. Is this a bug or am I doing something wrong?

Tim’s Quick Answer: You are most likely choosing the Camera Raw filter (from the Filter menu) without selecting the image layer you’re trying to adjust, such as by clicking on the thumbnail for the Background image layer on the Layer panel before choosing the Camera Raw Filter command.

More Detail: When you apply a filter in Photoshop, including using the Camera Raw filter to access Camera Raw adjustments for an image that is already open in Photoshop, the filter applies to the currently active layer. That layer can be a normal image layer or a smart object that contains an image.

If the preview in the dialog for the Camera Raw filter shows an all-white image, the most likely reason is that you had an adjustment layer selected on the Layers panel when you chose the Camera Raw filter from the menu. As a result, you would be applying the filter to the layer mask for the adjustment layer, rather than the underlying image. By default, a layer mask is entirely white, but could also contain black or shades of gray if you had a selection active when you added the adjustment layer or otherwise modified the layer mask.

So, simply click the thumbnail for the image layer you want to apply the filter to before choosing the filter from the menu. In most cases that would mean the Background image layer, but it could be a different layer if you’re working with a composite image, for example.

Today’s Question: Do color film photo prints have as many colors as modern digital photos? In other words, assuming no editing afterwards, is there an advantage to scanning with 16-bit color vs 8-bit? And can the same be said for scanning negatives?

Tim’s Quick Answer: Photo prints from film don’t contain as much color as modern digital images. If you have the original transparency (film or slide) I highly recommend scanning that, and I prefer to do so with 16-bit per channel color. For photo prints you can scan at 8-bit per channel unless you’re going to need to do significant editing work.

More Detail: Generally speaking, there isn’t a tremendous advantage to scanning an analog color image in 16-bit per channel mode unless you’ll need to do significant editing, but for slides or negatives I prefer to scan at 16-bit per channel just to help ensure optimal quality and fidelity. For scanning prints I recommend using 8-bit per channel mode unless significant editing is going to be required.

The original film contains significantly more information than the print, so I highly recommend scanning film if it is available, using prints for scanning only when the original film images aren’t available.

It is important to note, however, that for black and white images I always recommend scanning in 16-bit per channel mode, because there are only 256 shades of gray available for 8-bit monochrome images. As a result, it is very easy to see banding in an 8-bit black and white image because there aren’t enough shades of gray to support smooth gradations. This is a particular risk if you need to apply strong adjustments to a black and white image.

Today’s Question: I was an early adopter using the Palette Gear editing console with Lightroom Classic. Some features really improved my workflow. Support is beginning to fall off as they have discontinued the first system and moved to something different. So, I find myself back in the market for a replacement. Would you care to opine?

Tim’s Quick Answer: While I have mixed feelings about using an editing console to supplement a keyboard and mouse configuration, they can certainly be helpful, and they generally work with various applications including Photoshop and many more. It appears the product lineup that started as Palette Gear has now been totally discontinued, but you might look at Loupedeck Creative Tool (https://bhpho.to/3XDppTF) as a somewhat similar alternative.

More Detail: Some time ago the Palette Gear hardware was released, providing a variety of physical knobs, wheels, and sliders that could be paired to specific software features. For example, you could have a physical slider for adjusting the Exposure adjustment or use two knobs for Temperature and Tint adjustments.

While many photographers found these consoles helpful, I didn’t personally find that they improved my efficiency. I did prefer the ergonomics of physical sliders and knobs, but I also found it slower to switch between controlling different sets of adjustments, and it didn’t feel practical (or cost-effective) to have a particularly large number of console components.

More importantly, the Palette Gear products (which had more recently been rebranded to the Monogram brand) appear to have been completely discontinued, with many customers indicating that they never received their orders from as much as a few years ago.

The only other product that I know of that provides similar capabilities is the Loupedeck Creative Tool (https://bhpho.to/3XDppTF). The Loupedeck console is different from the previous Palette Gear console, in that the Loupedeck console revolves around selecting an option (such as an adjustment) and then using a single dial to change the setting for that adjustment. This might not make it a good solution for someone who is accustomed to having multiple physical controls that can each be assigned to an individual adjustment at a given time.

And, of course, if any readers are aware of a product that is similar to the Palette Gear and Monogram products that is still available and supported, please let me know!

Today’s Question: I had always thought the power of Lightroom Classic was allowing me to search for things, but when searching for a specific photo, I find that if the specific folder it is in is not selected Lightroom Classic doesn’t find the image. I had always thought that if I chose the parent folder of all images, that I could search for it that way, but was disappointed in realizing that I couldn’t.

Tim’s Quick Answer: You can indeed search across all subfolders in Lightroom Classic by enabling the “Show Photos in Subfolders” option, or search across your entire catalog by choosing the “All Photographs” collection.

More Detail: If you have the “Show Photos in Subfolders” option (found on the Library menu) turned off, then searching for images with the various filters on the Library Filter bar will only reveal matching images from within the currently selected folder. It is worth noting, by the way, that you can select and therefore search across more than one folder by selecting multiple folders. You can do so by clicking on the first folder and holding the Shift key while clicking on the last folder to select the full range. You can also hold the Ctrl key on Windows or the Command key on Macintosh while clicking on a folder to toggle the selection of that folder on or off.

When you turn on the Show Photos in Subfolders option on the Library menu, you’ll see a checkmark icon to the left of the command on the menu so you know it is turned on. This will cause the image count for a parent folder to display the total number of photos within that folder and all subfolders within the folder. That also means that if you select a parent folder, you’ll also be viewing all images from all subfolders. Therefore, you would be searching across all those images if you used the Library Filter bar, for example.

If you want to search across the entire catalog, you can do so very easily by selecting the All Photographs collection found in the Catalog section of the left panel in the Library module. When you find a photo within All Photographs, you can right-click on the image and choose “Go to Folder in Library” to be taken automatically to the folder that contains the image.

I will add that I recommend being careful when using the “Show Photos in Subfolders” option. Because enabling this setting causes a parent folder to appear as though photos from subfolders are contained within that parent folder, it is possible to be fooled into thinking that there are duplicate images. After all, when you browse the parent folder or the subfolder you will see the same images. However, it is not duplication in this case, so if you deleted images you would be deleting the only copies of those photos. I therefore generally recommend leaving the “Show Photos in Subfolders” option turned off except in situations where you are actively making use of it.

Today’s Question: I just called Adobe tech support with a question about renaming my Lightroom Classic catalog files. The agent told me to NOT rename the Previews file. In your online tutorial [“Cleaning Up Your Mess in Lightroom Classic”], Chapter 3, Lesson 5, you describe in precise detail how to rename the catalog, and to then rename the file for “Previews” with the exact same text, including a single space before Previews. Was the Adobe agent wrong about this?

Tim’s Quick Answer: The Adobe agent was wrong. If you are renaming the files directly, the Previews file needs to be renamed to match the catalog file while retaining the “Previews” suffix including the space. Note, however, that Lightroom Classic now includes a Rename Catalog command that makes the process of renaming the catalog and all related files simple.

More Detail: The Lightroom Classic catalog actually consists of more than one file. There is the underlying catalog file (with the .lrcat filename extension) along with a series of helper files for various purposes. Which files exist depends on the features you’ve made use of. You’ll always have a Previews file, for example, but you might also have a Smart Previews file, a Sync file, among others.

If you’re using Lightroom Classic 14, you can simply use the new Rename Catalog command to rename the catalog and all related files in a single step. Simply choose File > Rename Catalog from the menu and enter a new or updated catalog name in the New Name field. If you don’t have any photos in the same folder as the catalog, you can also turn on the “Rename parent folder” checkbox if you want to have the folder containing the catalog renamed to match the catalog name. Click the Rename button to apply the change.

If you’re using a version of Lightroom Classic older than version 14 and you want to rename the catalog, you’ll need to rename all files associated with the catalog in the same way. Be sure to quit Lightroom Classic first and then navigate to the folder location where the catalog is stored.

Look at the file with the .lrcat filename extension, which is the primary catalog file. Note the exact text of this file. Let’s assume it is “My Catalog.lrcat”, and that the intent is to rename it to ” LrC Catalog.lrcat”. For all files that have the exact same base filename but a different filename extension, such as the “My Catalog.lrcat-data” file, you would simply change the base filename to the same new name. So in this example the “My Catalog.lrcat” and “My Catalog.lrcat-data” would be renamed to “LrC Catalog.lrcat” and “LrC Catalog.lrcat-data”, respectively.

For the helper files you need to be sure to only change the same text as for the primary catalog file, while retaining the extra text such as “Previews” or “Smart Previews”. So, for example, the files “My Catalog Previews.lrdata” and “My Catalog Smart Previews.lrdata” would be renamed to “LrC Catalog Previews.lrdata” and “LrC Catalog Smart Previews.lrcata”.

After renaming the catalog manually, you can double-click on the “.lrcat” file to open that catalog in Lightroom Classic. I then recommend setting the Default Catalog option to this new catalog name on the General tab of the Preferences dialog. But frankly, if you want to rename your catalog, I recommend upgrading to Lightroom Classic 14 so you can take advantage of the helpful new Rename Catalog command.

Today’s Question: Have you heard anything about issues when upgrading to Windows 11 from 10 and how it affects Lightroom Classic or Photoshop? We are considering upgrading and would like to know your thoughts.

Tim’s Quick Answer: Not only do I consider it safe to upgrade from Windows 10 to Windows 11, but I also highly recommend doing so as soon as possible because Microsoft will no longer be providing updates to Windows 10 after October of this year.

More Detail: First and foremost, I consider it safe to upgrade to Windows 11 from Windows 10. I have upgraded perhaps a dozen computers to Windows 11 myself, and I’ve heard from many others (including folks at Adobe) who have indicated there are no significant issues with the upgrade in terms of an impact on Adobe applications. I have had good experience using Lightroom Classic, Lightroom, Photoshop, Camera Raw, and Bridge on Windows 11.

Perhaps more importantly, however, is that later this year Windows 10 will reach the end of its support lifecycle. As of October 14, 2025, Microsoft will no longer provide updates to Windows 10, with version 22H2 being the final version. In particular, this means those who choose to continue using Windows 10 will not receive security updates, which could put their computers at risk.

I strongly recommend upgrading to Windows 11 well before October of this year to give yourself plenty of time to manage that migration before support for Windows 10 ends.

Today’s Question: At times I need to upload a photo for online judging, and the site requirements are for a JPEG file of at least 1200 pixels on the long side and a maximum file size of 5MB. What’s the best way to save a JPEG and greatly reduce the file size down to 5 MB without lessening the photo quality?

Tim’s Quick Answer: I recommend saving the JPEG images with pixel dimensions of 2,000 pixels on the long side and with the Quality set to about 80%, which virtually guarantees you that the files will be smaller than 5MB.

More Detail: There will always be some degree of image quality degradation when reducing the pixel dimensions of an image and saving as a JPEG file that always involves lossy compression. However, with adequate pixel dimensions and a relatively high setting for Quality, the results will be perfectly adequate for evaluating the images. For example, a sharp image won’t appear to be out of focus when saved with these settings.

JPEG images will generally be smaller than 5MB in size until you get closer to around 3,000 pixels on the long side with the Quality setting at about 100%. The file size will vary for each image based on the content of the images, but even with these settings most images will be smaller than 5MB. There’s no need to adjust the pixel per inch (ppi) resolution, as that doesn’t impact the file size as long as you’re resizing based on pixel dimensions.

In most cases images are likely to be reviewed with a monitor display resolution of around 2,000 pixels across, though this can obviously vary wildly depending on who will review the images and what type of display and settings they’re using. But in terms of evaluating images for a photo contest, an image that is 2,000 pixels on the long edge is totally adequate in my view. If you’re concerned about the level of detail, especially if you feel the judges will zoom in, you can increase the size somewhat, but this will risk causing some files to exceed the 5MB limit.

A Quality setting of around 80% (a value of around 8 to 10 if you’re using Photoshop to save the images) will result in very good quality. Quite frankly, if a judge reviewing a JPEG image deducts points due to the detail not being as great as the full-resolution image or due to visible JPEG artifacts, they really shouldn’t be judging this type of contest.

Also keep in mind that you’ll have a relatively level playing field if all images are being submitted with the same basic limitations. But pixel dimensions of 2,000 pixels on the long side with a Quality setting of about 80% will pretty well ensure that all images are smaller than 5MB while still providing perfectly adequate quality for evaluating the images.

Today’s Question: When exporting photos from Lightroom Classic and using the “All Metadata” option, I’m still not seeing the location metadata when I browse those exported images. Does “All Metadata” not mean all in this case?

Tim’s Quick Answer: The “All Metadata” option when exporting from Lightroom Classic really does mean all metadata (unless there’s a bug I’m not aware of). However, note that to truly include all metadata you need to make sure that the “Remove Person Info” and “Remove Location Info” checkboxes are not turned on.

More Detail: When exporting photos from Lightroom Classic there are a variety of options related to which specific metadata will be included in the exported copies of your photos. It is important to understand how these different options interact so you know what metadata is really being included in the images you export.

The “All Metadata” option on the Include popup in the Metadata section of the Export dialog does mean that all metadata will be included in the exported images, but there are some exceptions.

First, if you turn on the “Remove Person Info” checkbox than metadata fields specifically related to people who appear in the photo will be excluded. That includes, for example, the “Person Shown” field from the IPTC metadata, as well as keywords that have the “Person” checkbox turned on.

Similarly, there is a “Remove Location Info” checkbox, which will cause fields that relate to location information such as the GPS coordinates to be excluded from metadata when that checkbox is turned on, even if you’ve selected the “All Metadata” option.

Note, by the way, that there is also a set of options related to whether keywords will be included in metadata when you export photos. If you edit a keyword by right-clicking on it in the “Keyword List” section of the right panel in the Library module and choosing “Edit Keyword Tag” from the popup menu, you can see these options. If, for example, you turn off the “Include on Export” checkbox for a keyword, that keyword will not be included in exported images even if you’ve chosen the “All Metadata” option.

So, while the “All Metadata” option does mean all metadata can be included in exported images, there are other options that prevent certain metadata fields from being included in the metadata for exported images.

Today’s Question: In your March 3rd newsletter the writer was looking for a way to search additional Metadata fields. I believe John R. Ellis’s Any Filter plug-in will search on at least the Person Shown field. Are you familiar with this plug-in?

Tim’s Quick Answer: I am indeed familiar with the Any Filter plug-in for Lightroom Classic and highly recommend it. It was an oversight on my part to not mention this plug-in in the March 3rd edition of my newsletter.

More Detail: The question I addressed on March 3rd related to the ability (or lack thereof) to search based on the Person Shown and Additional Info fields that are part of the IPTC Extension metadata schema. As I explained in my original answer, those fields (along with many, many others) are not searchable even with the “Any Searchable Field” option on the Text tab of the Library Filter bar in Lightroom Classic.

However, these fields (and many others) are searchable through the use of the Any Filter plug-in, created and updated by John R. Ellis. You can learn about this plug-in and download a free 30-day trial here:

https://johnrellis.com/lightroom/anyfilter.htm

My failure to mention this great plug-in was simply a “forest for the trees” issue, where I was so focused on the direct question I was addressing that I didn’t broaden the scope of my answer to include an option that made the intended search possible. Thank you, Kathy, for bringing this oversight to my attention!

Today’s Question: I know you’ve shared techniques for locating duplicate photos in Lightroom Classic in the past, but do you think Adobe will ever add a duplicate finder feature to the software?

Tim’s Quick Answer: I suspect that at some point (but I have no idea when it might be) Adobe will add duplicate detection in Lightroom Classic, since this is something I consider to be a significant pain point for many photographers. While there are some plug-ins designed for this purpose, in my experience they aren’t particularly effective.

More Detail: Duplicate photos is a common issue that photographers run into, caused by a variety of factors. It therefore feels like a bit of an oversight that Adobe has not added a feature to Lightroom Classic for the purpose of identifying existing duplicate photos.

In fairness, of course, identifying duplicate photos isn’t quite as simple as it may seem. There are the obvious duplicates, for example, where the exact same file exists in more than one storage location unnecessarily. Of course, you need to be able to distinguish between an unwanted duplicate and a backup copy, but this isn’t too difficult an issue since the backup should be stored on a different storage device from the original.

When there are duplicates, you also need to be able to figure out which is the “real” master file. For example, you may have applied different metadata updates to each of the duplicate copies of a given photo. Ideally, a duplicate detection tool would be able to analyze metadata and even automatically merge the metadata so nothing is lost.

There is also the issue of duplicates that may or may not be real duplicates, and may or may not deserve to be treated as a duplicate you might want to delete. For example, if you create a derivative image for purposes of creating prints of a photo, you might want to preserve that copy so additional matching prints can be made with ease. But there may also be cases where you’ve created a derivative copy, such as a JPEG to share online, but you don’t really want to keep that copy and would therefore treat it as a duplicate to be deleted.

In my view the Lightroom Classic catalog provides a valuable benefit when it comes to potentially identifying duplicate photos, and I’m hoping Adobe will address this at some point in the near future. In the meantime, unless other tools are released, the only real approach that I recommend is to sort photos by Capture Time and manually review for duplicates, evaluating the images to determine whether there are duplicates you want to discard, or just duplicates serving some other purpose that you want to preserve.