Category: Ask Tim Grey

Today’s Question: I want to export a file using the profile from the print section of Lightroom and have a 12”x18” print made.  When I do this I run into problems because I am unable to get a border-to-border print.  Lightroom wants to include borders or only print a 7”x8”, or so, image in the center of the 12”x18” paper. How do I set up Lightroom to allow me to export a full-resolution JPEG image that will allow me to make a 12”x18” inch border-to-border print, using the Costco Fuji Printer profile?

Tim’s Quick Answer: There are two options here. You could define a custom paper size for the print, and then save the final print layout as a JPEG image using the “Print to File” option. Or you could use the Export feature in the Library module to export an image at the desired output size with the appropriate printer profile embedded in the exported image.

More Detail: To enable custom print sizes in the Print module (and thus custom-sized JPEG images for printing) you’ll need to define a custom paper size. This can be managed with the Page Setup dialog. The process is slightly different on Macintosh versus Windows, and on Windows there are variations in the Printer Properties dialog based on the model printer you’re using. But you can create a new custom paper size at the desired output dimensions, and with the margins set to zero on all four sides.

Once you have this custom paper size defined, you can use that custom size as the basis for configuring the print in the Print module. You can then use the “JPEG File” option for the “Print to” setting, so that you can then click the “Print to File” button at the bottom of the right panel in the Print module to create the image that is ready to be printed, with the selected printer profile embedded.

If you want to use the Export dialog to create the image file for printing, the only additional step required is to crop the image to the applicable aspect ratio so you can create a file at the exact print size. You may want to create a virtual copy for this purpose, which can then be cropped to the applicable aspect ratio (12×18 in this case) for the intended print.

When exporting the image you can then specify the exact dimensions (in inches, for example) as well as choosing the applicable printer profile for the exported file. The profile can be established using the Color Space popup in the File Settings section of the Export dialog, after you’ve selected “JPEG” from the Image Format popup. If the desired printer profile is not already available on the Color Space popup, you can add it to that popup. Start by choosing the “Other” option from the Color Space popup, and then turn on the checkbox for the desired printer profiles in the Choose Profiles dialog. Click OK, and the profiles you enabled will then appear on the Color Space popup.

With either of these approaches you can create an image ready for printing at a specific size, and with the appropriate printer profile embedded in the final image.

Today’s Question: One thought relative to a recent Camera RAW question [related to the use of Camera Raw as a filter in Photoshop]. Shouldn’t your answer include a warning or caveat about adjustments made in Camera RAW being “destructive,” or non-reversible? Or am I wrong about that?

Tim’s Quick Answer: The Camera Raw filter in Photoshop can indeed be destructive to pixel values, although it doesn’t necessarily need to be. By contrast, using Adobe Camera Raw to process an original RAW capture is never destructive, by virtue of producing a derivative image based on the original RAW capture rather than altering that RAW capture.

More Detail: When opening a RAW capture in Photoshop, you’ll need to perform the intermediate step of processing that RAW capture using Adobe Camera Raw. When you complete that processing, the result is a new image based on the RAW capture, and the original RAW capture file remains untouched. In other words, Adobe Camera Raw provides a non-destructive workflow for RAW captures.

The Camera Raw filter within Photoshop provides the convenience of access to the various adjustments available within Adobe Camera Raw, but as a filter within Photoshop. However, this filter can indeed be destructive, meaning it can cause a change in pixel values within your image.

There are two ways you can work in a more non-destructive way with the Camera Raw filter within Photoshop.

The first is to simply create a copy of the Background image layer, and to apply adjustments to the resulting “Background Copy” image layer rather than the Background layer. This enables you to return to the Background layer if you decide you’re not happy with some of the adjustments you’ve applied to the Background Copy layer.

The other option is to work with the Camera Raw filter as a Smart Filter. This involves either converting the Background image layer to a Smart Object, or creating a Background Copy layer and converting that to a Smart Object. If you want to use the Background layer for this purpose, you’ll need to first double-click on the thumbnail for the Background layer on the Layers panel and click OK in the New Layer dialog, to convert the Background layer to a normal layer. Or simply create a Background Copy layer as noted above.

You can then convert the image layer to a Smart Object by choosing Filter > Convert for Smart Filters from the menu. You can then choose Filter > Camera Raw Filter from the menu to apply the Camera Raw filter as a Smart Filter. You can think of this as essentially providing the behavior of an adjustment layer in the context of the Camera Raw filter.

When you’re finished applying any desired adjustments with the Camera Raw filter, you can apply those changes by clicking the OK button in the Camera Raw dialog. If you later want to make changes to the adjustment settings, you can simply double-click on the thumbnail for your Smart Object layer to bring up the Camera Raw dialog again, where you can refine the settings for the adjustments you’ve applied.

However, applying a filter such as the Camera Raw filter as a Smart Filter can lead to some problems with a layer-based workflow. For example, if you have applied image cleanup work on a separate layer, and then make changes to the underlying image using the Smart Filter, the cleanup work you performed will no longer match the underlying image.

The bottom line is that there are some relatively non-destructive ways to work with the Camera Raw filter in Photoshop, but it is also possible to directly alter pixel values in a photo with this filter (or other filters).

Of course, if the original capture was indeed a RAW capture, and you’re using the Camera Raw filter to apply adjustments to the image derived from the RAW capture, it is worth noting that you could always return to that original RAW capture to start over with processing the image if that becomes necessary or desirable for any reason.

Today’s Question: I’m toying with the idea of getting Canon’s 5D Mk IV. This will create a “problem” though, as I don’t like the idea of Creative Cloud and am still working with Photoshop CS5. I’m pretty sure I can use a DNG converter to open the RAW files. But I gather there might be some inherent disadvantages to this. Wondering what you might suggest as the best way to approach the situation?

Tim’s Quick Answer: Actually, from an image quality and processing standpoint I would say that there is no inherent problem with converting your RAW captures to the Adobe DNG format in order to enable you to process those captures with an older version of Photoshop.

More Detail: The Adobe DNG converter enables you to convert most proprietary RAW capture formats to the Adobe DNG (digital negative) format. You can then process those DNG files using older software that doesn’t support the latest proprietary RAW capture formats.

In other words, if you are missing out on support for the latest RAW capture formats because you are using an older version of Photoshop, the Adobe DNG format provides a workaround.

Even better, the Adobe DNG Converter is free. So, you could convert captures from the Canon 5D Mark IV to the Adobe DNG format, and then open those DNG files using an older version of Photoshop that hasn’t been updated to supported the newer RAW capture formats.

With this approach you are naturally missing out on the newer features available in the latest updates to Photoshop. When it comes to Photoshop CC, for example, there have been a variety of updates and new features that I do find compelling.

That said, if you’re perfectly happy with your existing version of Photoshop, and don’t want to subscribe to the Adobe Creative Cloud, you can most certainly employ the free Adobe DNG Converter in your workflow, with no significant impact other than missing out on the latest new features in Photoshop CC.

You can learn more about the Adobe Digital Negative (DNG) file format, and find links to the free Adobe DNG Converter (with separate versions for Macintosh and Windows) by following this link:

https://helpx.adobe.com/photoshop/digital-negative.html

Today’s Question: The Dehaze slider on the Effects panel in Lightroom CC has generated a lot of excitement, and it is certainly useful to have this tool in Lightroom. However, it appears to me to do the same thing as the Offset slider on the Exposure adjustment layer in Photoshop, which has been around for some time. Are they different?

Tim’s Quick Answer: The Dehaze adjustment and the Offset slider in the Exposure adjustment can provide somewhat similar results in many cases, especially as it relates to the reduced appearance of haze in a photo. However, I would say that the Dehaze adjustment is a bit more sophisticated, and is certainly beneficial in many cases.

More Detail: The Exposure adjustment in Photoshop (available in Photoshop CS3 or later) was actually designed primarily for 32-bit per channel images. In other words, it is best suited to high dynamic range (HDR) images that have been processed to produce an image with a truly high bit depth of 32 bits per channel rather than the more typical 16 bits per channel. That said, this adjustment can still be used very effectively on 16-bit per channel images (and even 8-bit per channel images). You can find the Exposure adjustment as an adjustment layer on the Layers panel, or via the Image > Adjustments menu.

The Offset slider that is included as part of the Exposure adjustment enables you to lighten or darken the shadow areas of a photo with minimal impact on the highlight areas. If you use the Offset slider to darken the shadows, the result is very similar to the Dehaze adjustment available in Adobe Camera Raw or in the Develop module in Lightroom.

In other words, darkening the shadows using the Offset slider will enhance local contrast in the image and reduce the appearance of haze.

However, the Dehaze adjustment is a bit more sophisticated, with some fine-tuning applied to overall contrast levels as well as color balance and saturation. The result in many cases is that you can produce an effect with Dehaze that is less harsh than the effect you might achieve with the Offset slider.

That said, the two sliders are very similar in terms of what can be accomplished for a photo. In other words, if you’re using an older version of Photoshop that includes the Exposure adjustment but does not include the Dehaze adjustment, you could certainly use an Exposure adjustment layer to achieve much the same effect that would otherwise be possible with Dehaze. You’ll likely need to add a few additional refinement adjustments if you’re using Offset, but frankly you will often need to make adjustments (especially to color) when using the Dehaze slider as well.

So while I do find that the Dehaze adjustment provides better results than what is possible using the Offset slider available with the Exposure adjustment in Photoshop, the reality is that both provide very similar possibilities for reducing the appearance of haze within a photo.

Today’s Question: [Following up on a question about the target color value for monitor calibration in the November 3rd edition of the Ask Tim Grey eNewsletter,] isn’t a higher Kelvin number warmer (more red) versus a lower number cooler (more blue)?

Tim’s Quick Answer: Actually, a lower Kelvin value does indeed relate to what we think of as a “warmer” color (more red), and a higher Kelvin value relates to what we think of as a “cooler” color (more blue).

More Detail: Our psychology of color is essentially reversed relative to the Kelvin scale. At the lower end of the Kelvin scale are “warm” colors such as red, orange, and yellow. At the higher end of the scale are “cool” colors such as blue.

The Kelvin scale is based on a theoretical black body radiator. In other words, when you heat something up, the color of light emitted as it glows with heat relates to a value on the Kelvin scale.

As you heat up an object, it will glow first with a “warm” color, such as orange. As it gets hotter and hotter, it will eventually glow with a “cool” blue light, until becoming “white hot”.

So, the Kelvin scale goes from “warm” colors to “cool” colors based on our psychology of color, but those color values actually relate to the color temperature of light given off by an object as it is heated.

Adding further confusion, the Temperature scale also seems “backwards”. You drag the slider to the right for a higher Kelvin value, but that also results in a warmer appearance in the image. But this is because this slider value relates to the color temperature you want to compensate for. So a high value represents a “cool” color, and the software compensates for that cool light by warming up the image.

Today’s Question: If I upgrade to Photoshop CC from CS6, will I be able to maintain a RAW image instead of having to convert to DNG? I would like to stay with RAW and not maintain DNG files.

Tim’s Quick Answer: Yes, if you upgrade to Photoshop CC via a Creative Cloud subscription, you will be able to process your RAW captures without the need to convert to the Adobe DNG file format first.

More Detail: One of the ways Adobe encourages photographers to upgrade to the latest version of Photoshop is to provide updates to the latest proprietary RAW capture formats only in the latest major version updates of Photoshop. So, for example, if you are using an older “CS” version of Photoshop you won’t be able to get updates to Adobe Camera Raw to support the latest RAW file format updates in the newest digital cameras.

One workaround for this issue is the free Adobe DNG Converter. The Adobe DNG (Digital Negative) file format is an openly documented file format that can be used in place of a proprietary RAW capture. In fact, many cameras now support DNG as an alternative (or exclusive) form of RAW capture.

So, with an older version of Photoshop that doesn’t support a newer RAW capture format, you could simply convert those files to the Adobe DNG format with the free Adobe DNG Converter, and then open those DNG files in your older version of Photoshop.

One of the advantages of upgrading to the latest version of Photoshop is that newer proprietary RAW capture formats will still be supported, without the need to convert to the Adobe DNG file format first. And, of course, you’ll gain access to a large number of new features that have also been added to Photoshop since the transition to the Creative Cloud model. In some cases those new updates are rather impressive, so there is more to gain than simple support for the latest RAW capture formats.

Today’s Question: I created a workspace in Photoshop based on your recommendations long ago. The problem is that I sometimes move panels around for various reasons, essentially breaking my saved workspace. When I then try to choose my workspace it doesn’t go back to the saved version. How can I get back to my workspace just the way I saved it?

Tim’s Quick Answer: To reset your current workspace to the saved version, simply choose Window > Workspace > Reset [Workspace Name] from the menu. This will reset the current Photoshop workspace to the saved version of the selected workspace.

More Detail: I find that many photographers leave Photoshop configured with the default workspace. That means that panels you don’t really need are visible within the interface, and that panels you could benefit from aren’t readily available. For this reason, I highly recommend creating your own custom workspace.

Start by hiding panels you don’t want and revealing any “missing” panels that you do want. You can choose among the many available panels from the list on the Window menu. Then arrange the panels in the desired layout by dragging panels around, grouping panels together, and more.

When you’ve configured the Photoshop interface just the way you want it, go to the Window menu and choose Workspace followed by New Workspace. In the New Workspace dialog enter a meaningful name so you’ll be able to choose your workspace from a list. For example, I just use my own name as the name of my saved workspace. But you could also name different workspaces based on the tasks you use each workspace for. Click Save to save your workspace.

You can then choose your workspace from the submenu displayed by choosing Window > Workspace from the menu. And as noted above, if you make a bit of a mess of your workspace after activating it, you can reset it by going to the Window menu, choosing Workspace, and then selecting the “Reset” command that will include the name of the current workspace as part of the menu item. This will reset the current workspace to the version you saved.

Today’s Question: Recently I read an article by a photographer in which he suggested using 6000K [Kelvin] as the target color temperature for monitor calibration, since he felt that temperature produced the most accurate image reproduction. As for me, I’ve never come across that before.

Tim’s Quick Answer: I would actually (mostly) agree with the recommendation to use a slightly “cool” color temperature target for a monitor display. Even though the “standard” illuminant for a print is a slightly “warm” 5000K, I recommend 6500K as an appropriate color temperature target for your monitor display.

More Detail: When it comes to a color-managed workflow for photography, the key is to ensure consistent and predictable results. That includes making sure that you are viewing an accurate image on your monitor display, and that you are producing prints that are an accurate reflection of the image file you are printing.

The “standard” illuminant for evaluating prints is a 5000K light source. This is a relatively neutral (though arguably slightly warm) light source used as the basis for printer profiling, for example. Naturally you won’t always display prints using a 5000K light source, but color management standards generally revolve around this illumination color temperature.

It might seem reasonable to assume that if you will evaluate prints based on a 5000K light source you should also calibrate your monitor display to a color temperature of 5000K. However, doing so will produce a very yellow and dingy appearance on your monitor display.

Instead, I recommend calibrating your monitor display to a color temperature that is closer to the native white point of that display. I recommend 6500K as that target value. The result will be slightly shifted toward blue, especially compared to a 5000K illumination source. But the result will be a more accurate rendition of your image on the monitor display.

Keep in mind that there is always a degree of interpretation involved when comparing an image on a monitor display compared to a print. This is in large part due to the dramatic difference between emitted light (with a monitor display) and reflected light (with a print). This is part of the reason that the calibration target values are different for monitors versus prints.

Of course, if you’re not calibrating your monitor display, then you can’t expect accurate prints. A great tool for display calibration you might consider is the ColorMunki Display from X-Rite, which you can find here:

http://timgrey.me/munkidisplay

Today’s Question: Is there a way to back up the Lightroom catalog to an external drive from within Lightroom? To me this seems to be a logical choice but if there is a way I cannot find it.

Tim’s Quick Answer: Yes. You can initiate a Lightroom backup at any time by choosing the “When Lightroom next exits” from the “Back up Catalog” popup in the Catalog Settings dialog. And when you initiate the actual backup, you have the option of specifying the location where you want the backup saved.

More Detail: By default Lightroom will prompt you to backup your catalog once each week. If you don’t specify a location where you would like the backup copy saved, the backup will be saved in a folder structure along with the source Lightroom catalog. Hopefully it goes without saying that keeping your backup copy on the same storage device as the original isn’t the best idea. So you’ll want to refine the default settings.

First, as noted above, you can initiate a backup of your Lightroom catalog at any time. Start by choosing Catalog Settings from the Lightroom menu on the Macintosh version or from the Edit menu on the Windows version. In the Catalog Settings dialog go to the General tab and click the “Back up Catalog” popup. Choose the “When Lightroom next exits” option, then close the Catalog Settings dialog and quit Lightroom.

At this point you will be prompted to backup your Lightroom catalog. The “Backup Folder” label indicates the destination where the backup copy will be saved. You can click the “Choose” button to bring up a dialog where you can specify the location to save the backup copy. I always recommend saving this backup on a drive other than the drive where your Lightroom catalog is actually stored.

I recommend always leaving the two checkboxes in the Back Up Catalog dialog turned on. The first is “Test integrity before backing up”, which as the name suggests will cause Lightroom to check that there aren’t structural problems with your catalog file before the backup. The second checkbox is “Optimize catalog after backing up”, which will clean up the catalog to help improve overall performance in Lightroom.

The “When Lightroom next exits” option in the Catalog Settings dialog is actually a temporary setting. When you select this option and quit Lightroom, you will be prompted to backup the catalog. However, the next time you launch Lightroom you will find that the setting has reverted back to whatever it had been set to previously. So, for example, if you have Lightroom set to backup your catalog weekly but then you use the option to backup the next time you quit Lightroom, the setting will actually return to a weekly backup schedule after that.

Today’s Question: When taking a RAW file through post-processing, creating a master file (a TIFF or PSD), and then creating a derivative file from the master file for social media, etc., is it possible to trace the derivative file back to the original RAW file and/or master file? I ask because in organizing my Lightroom catalog, I came across a JPEG that looks like it was processed from one of my RAW files, but has no information in the EXIF data identifying where it originated from. My file renaming over the years has screwed-up any naming associations I could possibly make to help with identifying this JPEG’s origins, so no help there.

Tim’s Quick Answer: For an existing image, you can generally use metadata values (such as capture time) to help you locate the original photo that was used as the basis of a derivative image. In this case it sounds like that isn’t an option because the exported JPEG had some (or most) of the metadata excluded. That certainly makes it difficult to match up a derivative image with the source image. Moving forward you might consider retaining metadata in exported images, and grouping derivative images into a stack with the original source image.

More Detail: By default, when you send a photo from Lightroom to another application (such as Photoshop) the derivative image will have the same base filename as the source image, and will be saved in the same folder. This generally makes the task of locating the source image for a given derivative relatively easy.

If the derivative was moved to a different location and you have renamed that file so that it no longer matches the source image, the search for the source image can be a little more complicated.

As long as the metadata from the original image is included with the derivative image, that metadata can often be used to locate the original photo. For example, you could navigate to the “All Photographs” collection in the Catalog section of the left panel in the Library module, and then filter images based on the capture date of the derivative image. Sorting by capture time would then reveal the source and derivative images right next to each other.

In a similar way, you could use any other metadata that was somewhat unique to the image in question as the basis of a filter to help you locate the original. But if the metadata from the original image is not included in the derivative image, the use of metadata obviously won’t be helpful in your search.

Another option relates to stacking images together. By default, when you send a photo to Photoshop from Lightroom, the derivative image will be placed into a stack with the original. You can turn this option off in Preferences, but I recommend leaving it turned on so that you will have the original and the derivative grouped together in your Lightroom catalog. In addition, I prefer to retain the same base filename, and keep all derivatives in the same folder as the source image.