Category: Ask Tim Grey

Today’s Question: Is there a suggested monitor brightness that should be used? I’m not interested in calibration but rather the brightness in cellphone, laptop, and computer monitors. I usually set brightness between 70-80% and some shared images are very dark until I go to 100% brightness.

Tim’s Quick Answer: In the absence of calibration, and when simply viewing images rather than editing them, I generally find that a brightness setting of around 80% works well. However, the best setting can vary significantly with changing ambient lighting conditions.

More Detail: When calibrating for print I typically recommend a brightness of 120 cd/m² (candelas per square meter). This helps ensure a relatively accurate view of the image on your monitor in terms of what would be expected when the image is printed. However, this also requires relatively dark viewing conditions so you’re able to see the image effectively at the reduced brightness setting.

In the absence of calibration, you’re really depending on your own evaluation of the brightness level of the display in the context of the current lighting conditions. And especially if the lighting levels are significantly variable, you’ll need to make significant adjustments to the display.

So, when you want to have an accurate view of an image for optimizing and especially when the intent is to print, I strongly recommend calibrating the display to a target brightness of about 120 cd/m² and working in a relatively dark environment when evaluating the image on your monitor display.

Otherwise, you can certainly adjust the brightness of the display to compensate for the ambient lighting conditions, but keep in mind that making adjustments under those circumstances may not yield optimal results. If the display is too bright, you’ll tend to make the image too dark, and vice versa.

This is also the reason that images received from others might look too bright or too dark. Without calibration on both sides, the image may not be optimized properly, and you may not be getting an accurate view of the image.

So, in general I find that a brightness level of around 80% works well, there are a number of variables that will cause you to need different settings in different circumstances. And when complete accuracy is your goal, it is best to calibrate and work in a relatively dark environment.

Today’s Question: I noticed that I have a discrepancy in my Lightroom Classic catalog that I can’t explain. I have all filters off, but Lightroom says I have 88,298 of 93,730 photos. I’m not sure why that with all filters off there is a discrepancy. Does that make sense to you, or is there something else I am missing?

Tim’s Quick Answer: In this scenario I’m sure the mismatch is simply due to some of your photos being grouped into stacks that are collapsed within Lightroom Classic. If you expand all stacks (Photo > Stacking > Expand All Stacks) with the filter set to None then you’ll be viewing all photos within the catalog.

More Detail: In Lightroom Classic you can stack photos together so that when the stack is collapsed a single thumbnail represents the full stack of photos. By default, when you merge photos into a high dynamic range (HDR) image or a panorama, the source photos and the assembled image are grouped together into a stack. You can also stack photos together manually.

If any stacks of photos are collapsed, with a single thumbnail representing the group of images in the stack, Lightroom Classic counts the stack as a single image. Therefore, you would see an indication that you are browsing a portion of the images, such as text that indicates “9,500 of 10,000 photos”. This text is found toward the top-left of the bottom panel, above the filmstrip of thumbnails. If all photos are shown there is simply an indication of the total number of photos currently being browsed.

As today’s question suggests, if you have applied a filter to your images then the number displayed would be less than the total number of photos. You might, for example, set a filter to only see images with a star rating, so you would only be browsing a portion of the images based on how many have the applicable star rating.

If you have selected “None” on the Library Filter bar then you would naturally expect that you would be seeing all photos in the location you’re currently browsing. However, as noted above, collapsed stacks result in some photos being hidden from view, and Lightroom Classic takes that into account when indicating how many photos are being browsed.

You can expand all stacks in the current location by going to the menu and choosing Photo > Stacking > Expand All Stacks. If you want to collapse all stacks in the current location, you can choose Photo > Stacking > Collapse All Stacks from the menu instead.

Today’s Question: I know if I adjust the Masking slider for sharpening [in Lightroom Classic or Camera Raw], the sharpening will only affect the area shown in White. Does this work regardless of whether or not I hold the Alt/Option while adjusting the Masking slider?

Tim’s Quick Answer: If you increase the value for the Masking slider when sharpening in Lightroom Classic or Camera Raw, the sharpening will indeed be confined to the areas shown in white when you hold the Alt/Option key. You don’t have to hold the Alt/Option key at all to have the sharpening constrained in this way.

More Detail: When adjusting the sharpening settings in Lightroom Classic or Camera Raw, you can hold the Alt key on Windows or the Option key on Macintosh to enable a preview that can make it much easier to choose the right settings for each of the sliders. Holding the Alt/Option key will cause the preview image to appear as a black and white image when adjusting the Amount slider, an embossed view when adjusting Radius or Detail, and a black and white masking preview when adjusting the Masking slider.

Holding the Alt/Option key has no impact on the actual adjustment being applied. The only difference is that the preview changes when holding the Alt/Option key. In other words, if you knew which setting you wanted to use for a given slider, or you simply want to use a normal preview when adjusting the sharpening settings at all, you don’t have to hold the Alt/Option key.

I personally find that holding the Alt/Option key can be tremendously helpful in deciding what setting to use for the various sharpening sliders, but this is only a tool aimed at helping find the right adjustment settings. The actual effect of sharpening in the image is not altered based on whether or not you held the Alt/Option key at any time while adjusting the slider values.

Today’s Question: I deleted about 8,000 photos from Lightroom Classic, did the complete delete from disk option, but it did not increase the available space on my hard drive. Is there an additional step?

Tim’s Quick Answer: Yes, in order to free up hard drive space after deleting photos from Lightroom Classic you need to empty the trash on Macintosh or the recycle bin on Windows.

More Detail: On both Macintosh and Windows when you delete files they aren’t removed from the hard drive, which means additional hard drive space is not freed up. To actually clear up the additional space you need to empty the trash on Macintosh or the recycle bin on Windows.

It is also worth noting that the default option when deleting photos in Lightroom Classic is to remove the photos from the catalog but not to remove them from the hard drive. In my view if you want to remove photos from your catalog you would almost always want to delete the source image files. After all, there’s generally no reason to have photos taking up space on your hard drive if you aren’t managing them in your Lightroom Classic catalog.

Even if you choose the “Delete from Disk” option in the confirmation dialog when you delete photos, the files aren’t automatically removed from the hard drive. Rather, they are moved to the trash on Macintosh or the recycle bin on Windows. You’ll therefore need to empty the trash or recycle bin in order to reclaim the hard drive space taken up by the photos you deleted.

Today’s Question: I turned on the “Automatically write changes into XMP” checkbox [in Catalog Settings in Lightroom Classic]. Later when I wanted to exit Lightroom Classic I got a dialog telling me it was saving data to XMPs and that if I closed down it would quit but resume next time I opened Lightroom Classic. I didn’t mean to do this for the 250,000 files currently in my catalog. Is this going to increase the size needed to store all my images? What do you advise?

Tim’s Quick Answer: I recommend leaving the “Automatically write changes into XMP” checkbox turned on, primarily as an additional backup of key metadata for your photos. If you do decide to delete the files, you will need to do so manually because Lightroom Classic does not include a facility for this.

More Detail: The “Automatically write changes into XMP” checkbox in Lightroom Classic is turned off by default, but I recommend turning it on. It can be found on the Metadata tab of the Catalog Settings dialog. This will cause key metadata updates to be saved to the source image files on your hard drive, in addition to being saved in the Lightroom Classic catalog.

While enabling the XMP option doesn’t preserve all information from your Lightroom Classic catalog, it does preserve key metadata such as star ratings and keywords. Besides providing a backup of that key metadata, this option also enables you to browse those metadata updates using other software, such as Adobe Bridge.

The XMP files are quite small, taking up just kilobytes each. I would estimate that for 250,000 photos enabling the XMP option would only consume about three gigabytes. That is certainly a fair amount of storage space, but it is relatively small in the context of a typical hard drive, and I feel that consuming the additional storage space is worthwhile in terms of the benefits of saving metadata to XMP.

If you decide you don’t want to have the XMP files, you would need to delete them manually through the operating system. While this can be a bit of an inconvenience, it is safe to delete the files since the data they contain is already contained in the Lightroom Classic catalog.

Note, by the way, that it is possible to save metadata to XMP for individual photos if you prefer not to enable the option for the entire catalog. Simply select a photo (or multiple photos) in the Library module in Lightroom Classic and from the menu choose Metadata > Save Metadata to File. This will save the metadata for the selected image(s) to an XMP sidecar file, or directly to the image file for non-raw images.

Today’s Question: The method of creating masks in Lightroom Classic and Camera Raw doesn’t seem to be available in Photoshop. Is there any way to use such a mask created in Camera Raw as a Photoshop layer mask? If not, is there a way to create “intersecting” layer masks in Photoshop the way you can in Camera Raw or Lightroom Classic?

Tim’s Quick Answer: Within Photoshop you can use the same masking features found in Camera Raw or Lightroom Classic by using the Camera Raw filter. You can also make use of layer groups in order to create compound masks based on more than one layer mask.

More Detail: The masks you create in Camera Raw or Lightroom Classic can’t be converted to a layer mask in Photoshop, but that doesn’t mean you don’t have options for using intersecting or other compound masks in Photoshop.

To begin with, the exact same features you’ll find in Camera Raw or the Develop module in Lightroom Classic can be used in the context of the Camera Raw filter. If you select an image layer and choose Filter > Camera Raw Filter from the menu. This will bring up the Camera Raw dialog, where you can make use of the masking features to apply a targeted adjustment to the selected layer.

You can also create compound layer masks in Photoshop using layer groups. For example, if you create a selection of the sky in a photo you can add a layer group and then add a layer mask to the group based on the active selection. You could then create, for example, another layer group with a gradient layer mask. If you put the sky layer group into the gradient layer group, any adjustment layers you add to the sky layer group will only affect the sky and only in a gradient fashion, based on the combined shape of the layer masks.

In addition, you can combine various selections (or saved selections) in Photoshop, making use of the options to add, subtract, or intersect those selections. In most cases I prefer to work with layer masks rather than selections when it comes to fine-tuning the result to perfection, but the point is that you do have considerable flexibility.

I covered the topics of masking in Camera Raw as well as selections and layer masks in Photoshop in my comprehensive video course “Photoshop for Photographers”, which you can learn more about here:

https://www.greylearning.com/courses/photoshop-for-photographers-2024

Today’s Question: For photos where you do want to have the lines appear perfectly horizontal or vertical, how do you recommend achieving that result?

Tim’s Quick Answer: To achieve perfect alignment in an image, I recommend applying profile-based lens corrections as well leveraging the Guided option for the Upright controls. Both of these adjustments (and additional manual controls for fine-tuning) can be found in both Camera Raw and Lightroom Classic.

More Detail: Today’s question is a follow-up to an answer I shared last week, where I explained that it wasn’t always necessary to have lines in an image appear perfectly horizontal or vertical just because that seems like the right approach. However, when you do want to achieve this type of alignment, a couple of adjustments can prove tremendously helpful.

As a basic starting point for achieving good alignment for a photo I recommend enabling the profile-based corrections, which apply a correction based on the behavior of the specific lens used to capture the image. Just keep in mind that not all lenses are supported for this feature.

To apply profile-based lens corrections turn on the “Use profile corrections” checkbox on the Profile tab of the Optics section of the right panel in Camera Raw, or turn on the “Enable Profile Corrections” checkbox on the Profile tab of the Lens Corrections section of the right panel in the Develop module in Lightroom Classic. Then make sure the appropriate profile is selected from the Profile popup based on the lens used to capture the photo.

I then recommend using the Guided option for the Upright corrections found in the Geometry section in Camera Raw or the Transform section in Lightroom Classic. With the Guided option you can draw between two and four lines to define lines in the image that should be perfectly horizontal or vertical. For example, with a photo of a building you might draw a line across the top of the roof and along the foundation line at the bottom, and then along the left and right edges of the building. This will apply a correction so the lines you drew are perfectly horizontal or vertical, which in turn means perspective of the image will be corrected accordingly.

You can also use the sliders in the Geometry section of Camera Raw or the Transform section of Lightroom Classic to further refine the overall perspective correction for the image, such as to further ensure that lines within the image appear perfectly horizontal or vertical.

Today’s Question: Since the last Lightroom Classic update, when I export a photo in any format, the colors of the exported image don’t “pop” and look washed out/faded in comparison to my image as viewed before export. Any comments or help would be greatly appreciated.

Tim’s Quick Answer: I suspect the issue you’re describing is being caused by an incorrect color profile, and possibly by using viewing software that is not taking the color profile into account.

More Detail: When you export a photo from Lightroom Classic you can choose which color profile should be used for the image. The options can be found on the Color Space popup in the File Settings section of the Export dialog in Lightroom Classic. For images that will be displayed digitally, such as on a computer display or smartphone, I recommend using the sRGB color profile.

The sRGB color space is well-suited for digital displays because the profile was actually originally created to encompass the range of colors that a typical monitor display was capable of reproducing. If you use a larger color space such as Adobe RGB or ProPhoto RGB, because that color space is likely beyond the capabilities of the display the image is being viewed on, the colors in the image will appear much more muted and possibly inaccurate.

In addition, if you’re using software that doesn’t support color management or has that support turned off, the colors will not be interpreted correctly. For a digital display if the source image is in the sRGB color space and viewed with software that isn’t using color management, the colors will probably remain relatively accurate. However, if an image that is in the Adobe RGB or ProPhoto RGB color space is viewed with software that doesn’t support color management, the colors will likely appear quite muted and possibly somewhat inaccurate.

Today’s Question: With a subject that includes horizontal and vertical lines, such as a building, how important is it to get the final image to have lines that are perfectly horizontal and vertical, versus being a little askew due to perspective issues?

Tim’s Quick Answer: While accurate alignment in a photo can be important, I don’t think it is always necessary to completely correct perspective issues for all images. In some cases, having lines that are not aligned perfectly can actually add to the impact of a photo.

More Detail: One of my biggest pet peeves when it comes to evaluating a photo is seeing blemishes or other distractions in the photo. In some cases that distraction takes the form of improper alignment, such as when a horizon is crooked. A more extreme example of a lack of proper alignment is when straight lines within the image don’t appear straight, and perhaps aren’t perfectly horizontal or vertical.

However, in many cases a lack of proper alignment can actually be a good thing. For example, if you use a very wide fisheye lens that has perhaps an angle of view of around 180 degrees, straight lines within the scene are most certainly going to appear curved and distorted. But that distortion is a big part of what makes a photo captured with a fisheye lens so interesting and eye-catching.

I think the most important consideration when it comes to correcting for perspective and alignment issues in a photo is what looks right or most pleasing for an individual photo. I rarely correct an image so that all lines are perfectly horizontal or vertical, though in some cases I most certainly do.

To provide a very general guideline, if you have a photo where the key (or solitary) subject clearly stands out in the frame and looks like it should have perfect alignment, then it probably makes sense to ensure that all lines are perfectly horizontal or vertical.

For photos that have a relatively wide angle of view, and especially when the perspective effect makes the image more interesting, I might apply some slight corrections such as to ensure that the lines of a key subject in the center of the frame are perfectly vertical. But I most certainly won’t correct all images to remove all distortion or to ensure that all lines are perfectly horizontal or vertical.

Again, in my view the emphasis should be on what looks appropriate and pleasing for the individual image. If lines look like they should be perfectly horizontal or vertical, it is generally worth making sure they are aligned properly. But keep in mind that in many cases having lines that are somewhat askew or perhaps are slightly curved can very much enhance the look of an image.

Today’s Question: I’m a little confused. Many, if not most, professional photo labs request that you send them images in a JPEG format. If artifacts are an issue, why don’t they request images in a TIFF format?

Tim’s Quick Answer: In my view photo labs should not suggest using the JPEG file format for printing because of the risk of visible artifacts. They do so, I assume, because the JPEG format is widely supported and results in a small file size that is easy to transmit via the internet.

More Detail: In some ways you could say that photo labs request JPEG images because photo labs have always requested JPEG images, at least in the context of online submission of images. The JPEG format is very widely supported and yields smaller file sizes than other file formats. However, that smaller file size comes at a potential cost in terms of print quality. Therefore, for printing I suggest submitting images as a TIFF or PNG file.

To provide some context, I saved a 20-megapixel image as a TIFF file with ZIP (lossless) compression and the file size was 146MB. The same image saved as a PNG file with maximum (lossless) compression was 95MB in size. The same image saved as a JPEG image with maximum quality (but lossy compression) was only 12MB.

In my view the risk of visible artifacts is a very real concern whenever printing a photo, and especially when that print will be relatively large. I therefore strongly recommend not using JPEG files for photos that will be printed. With high-speed internet being relatively ubiquitous today, sending a file that is around 100MB rather than around 10MB is not a major inconvenience, and in my view well worth it when it comes to helping ensure optimal print quality.

If a printer only supports uploading images in the JPEG format, I suggest finding a different printer. For example, I have had very good results getting prints from Bay Photo (https://bayphoto.com), and they allow you to upload images in a wide variety of image formats, including TIFF.