Category: Ask Tim Grey

Today’s Question: I use several cameras with different sensor sizes, and therefore different factors for multiplying the focal length. Is there a way to display the 35mm equivalent focal length for all cameras in Lightroom Classic?

Tim’s Quick Answer: Lightroom Classic is only able to display the 35mm equivalent focal length if that information was written to metadata by the camera. For supported cameras, you can view this information in the “Focal Length 35mm” metadata field.

More Detail: Lightroom Classic will not automatically calculate the equivalent focal length for cameras with different sensor sizes. Some cameras, however, write the full-frame (35mm) equivalent focal length to metadata. For those cameras, you can view the equivalent focal length in metadata within Lightroom Classic.

Unfortunately, many (if not most) cameras do not write this metadata to the photos. For example, as far as I am aware none of the Canon or Nikon cameras with sensors smaller than full frame write the equivalent focal length to metadata. Therefore, the utility of this field is limited depending on which camera models you’re using.

If you’re using a camera that updates the “Focal Length 35mm” field (or if you want to check to see if your camera does) you can enable the display of this field in Lightroom Classic.

The first step is to switch to the Default metadata display configuration using the popup to the left of the Metadata heading on the right panel in the Library module in Lightroom Classic. Next, click the Customize button at the bottom of the Metadata section. This will bring up the “Customize Metadata Default Panel” dialog, where you can turn on the checkboxes for the metadata fields you want to have displayed in the Metadata section when you’ve enabled the Default view option.

Once you’ve turned on (or off) the desired checkboxes, you can also click the Arrange button to adjust the order of the metadata fields. You can then click the Save button in the Arrange Metadata Default Panel dialog, or the Done button in the Customize Metadata Default Panel dialog, and the Metadata section will be updated based on the changes you made.

This can enable you to display the “Focal Length 35mm” field to view the 35mm equivalent focal length from metadata, but again that information will only display if it was recorded by your camera. But you can also update the overall list of metadata fields displayed in the Default configuration based on your preferences.

Today’s Question: I am unable to pull the corners of a crop outside of the image canvas in Lightroom Classic, yet it is easy to do in Photoshop. When straightening an image this is especially applicable because I want to keep all that I have in the frame. I can use content aware or clone the blank spots later. Is there a way to enable this?

Tim’s Quick Answer: You can enable the option to crop beyond the image area in Lightroom Classic by reducing the value for the Scale slider in the Transform section of the right panel in the Develop module. However, you can’t alter the pixels beyond the image area in Lightroom Classic, so you would need Photoshop or other software for that purpose.

More Detail: By default, Lightroom Classic does not enable you to extend the crop box outside the actual image area. This is aimed at preventing you from having empty areas around the outer edges of the photo, but of course considering you can use image-cleanup techniques to fill in those areas, it would be reasonable to be able to extend the crop beyond the image area.

Fortunately, you can work around this limitation by reducing the value for the Scale slider found in the Transform section of the right panel in the Develop module. Reducing the value for Scale will effectively zoom the image out a little bit. You can then go back to the Crop tool and make sure the “Constrain to Image” checkbox is turned off. At that point you’ll be able to move the crop box beyond the edge of the image.

However, you still can’t alter the pixels that were created beyond the crop box in this scenario. Therefore, to perform image cleanup work to fill in those pixels, or otherwise alter the appearance of that area, you would need to send the image to Photoshop or another external editor. For this reason, there isn’t much advantage of using the above workaround to be able to extend the canvas area for an image within Lightroom Classic.

Today’s Question: You mentioned saving selections as alpha channels in Photoshop. Is this intended to save the work to return to that photograph for continued editing, or can you save the selection and use it in a new image?

Tim’s Quick Answer: The main reason for saving a selection in Photoshop is so you can return to that selection either to refine it or to use it as the basis of some other work. That said, it is actually possible to transfer a selection to a different image as well.

More Detail: Generally speaking, I don’t actually find it necessary to use the Save Selection command (found on the Select menu), which will preserve the selection as an alpha channel on the Channels panel. Note that with a selection saved as an alpha channel you need to save the image in a format that supports alpha channels, such as TIFF or PSD.

The reason I don’t generally need to save a selection is that the selection will most often be used as the basis of a layer mask, either for an adjustment layer or with an image layer in a composite image. That layer mask in effect represents a saved selection, even though it isn’t saved in the same way as with the Save Selection command.

Once a selection has been used as the basis of a layer mask, you can always load a selection based on that layer mask by holding the Ctrl key on Windows or the Command key on Macintosh while clicking on the thumbnail for the layer mask on the Layers panel. This is similar to loading a saved selection with the Load Selection command.

Of course, there may be situations where you’re working on a selection that is quite complex, and you want to save your work in stages along the way. In that type of situation, you can use the Select > Save Selection command to preserve the selection in the current state. You can then return to the image later to load the selection and continue refining it. Of course, in many cases I will actually create a layer mask based on the selection even if it is incomplete, and then continue working to refine the layer mask rather than a saved selection.

It is also possible to effectively transfer a selection to a different image, though this isn’t an especially useful feature since in many cases the destination image might be at least slightly different, requiring a different selection. However, you can save a selection to a different document.

With both images open, you can start by creating a selection in the first image. Then choose Select > Save Selection from the menu. In the Save Selection dialog you can select from the currently open images on the Document popup. Type a name for the new selection in the Name field and click the OK button. The selection from the current document will then be saved as an alpha channel in the document you selected in the Save Selection dialog. While there aren’t a large number of situations where most photographers would put this feature to use, it certainly can be helpful in some cases.

Today’s Question: I need to edit some JPEG files provided by a client and return modified JPEG files. I know that generally every time you save a JPEG it incurs some slight degradation. Is there any combination of Adobe Camera Raw/Lightroom Classic Develop followed by Photoshop editing that would not incur this degradation or would have the least degradation?

Tim’s Quick Answer: My recommendation is to minimize the amount of editing that is done while the images are in the JPEG format. In other words, I would convert to a different format and only save again as JPEG when you’re completely finished and ready to deliver the files to the client.

More Detail: The first thing I would do is see if the source images are available in something other than JPEG files. If the images were captured as JPEG images in the first place, then you should just obtain the JPEG images that have not been edited by the client. But if they were captured in a different format or scanned from slides or negatives, I would get the original images rather than JPEG copies.

If the images are only available as JPEG images, I suggest converting to another file format first to avoid the potential for cumulative degradation caused by JPEG compression. To be fair, this degradation is minimal, and only occurs when you have modified the image and then re-saved the result as a JPEG. That’s because when the pixel values have changed the image must be rendered again with the JPEG compression applied, which degrades image quality to some extent.

If you’re working in Lightroom Classic you can select the JPEG images and choose Photo > Edit In > Edit in Photoshop from the menu. In the dialog that appears, choose “Edit a Copy” and click the Edit button. This will open the image in Photoshop, creating a derivative TIFF or PSD file based on the current setting in Preferences. You can then perform all the work in Photoshop, preferably with a non-destructive workflow such as by using adjustment layers and additional image layers. When you’re finished, simply choose File > Save from the menu (not Save As or Save a Copy) and then close the image. You can export the result from Lightroom Classic as a JPEG to deliver to the client.

If you’re working directly in Photoshop you can simply open the JPEG images, and immediately use the File > Save As command to save them as a TIFF or PSD file. Once again I would suggest working non-destructively, and then save the updated image with layers intact. You can then use the File > Save a Copy command to save an additional copy of each image as a JPEG for the client.

The main thing to avoid in this context is to continually be updating the pixel values for a JPEG image and then saving the updates along the way, causing the compression to be applied to the image multiple times. Again, this degradation is very minimal in general, but I still consider it a best practice to work on images in a format other than JPEG to avoid the degradation and help ensure maximum image quality.

Today’s Question: Is there a way in Lightroom Classic to find all images with a specific color profile such as CMYK? I do some print books and bring back converted images to Lightroom Classic.

Tim’s Quick Answer: While there is not a built-in way to filter images based on their color profile in Lightroom Classic, there is a plugin that can enable this type of search.

More Detail: While Lightroom Classic includes a wide variety of filter criteria for locating specific photos, the range of options is still somewhat limited. Among other things, there is not an option in Lightroom Classic to filter by color profile. Fortunately, however, there is a plugin that enables you to search based on many different metadata values. The Any Filter plugin, in fact, currently supports searching based on 738 fields.

Using the Any Filter plugin is not as streamlined as simply working within Lightroom Classic to search for specific photos, but it does provide a considerably expanded range of filter options compared to Lightroom Classic. You can learn more about the Any Filter plugin here:

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

Another option would be to track this information yourself manually. For example, I often use what I refer to as “fake keywords” to identify specific attributes for my photos. For example, I add “InstagramShare” as a keyword to photos that I’ve shared to my Instagram feed (https://www.instagram.com/timgreyphoto/).

In the context of photos prepared for printing using the CMYK color space, for example, you could add “CMYKColor” or something similar as a keyword.

Fortunately, the Any Filter plugin enables you to perform the search you are looking for, but this issue provides a good reminder that if there are criteria you want to track for your images you can use other metadata for that purpose, such as by using color labels, keywords, or other metadata field updates.

Today’s Question: Can I back up an external RAID drive to a different external drive?

Tim’s Quick Answer: Yes! A RAID drive can be backed up to any other hard drive that has adequate storage capacity.

More Detail: A RAID (redundant array of independent disks) drive consists of two or more hard drives that appear as a single drive to the operating system. This can provide various benefits, including faster performance in a RAID-0 configuration to automatic data redundancy through other (and more common) implementations.

As I explained in a previous edition of the Ask Tim Grey eNewsletter, a RAID configuration with redundancy provides what is effectively an automatic backup of the data on that drive. However, if that drive is lost or destroyed the backup won’t do you any good. Therefore, I strongly recommend backing up a RAID drive to another drive, rather than depending on the redundancy of RAID as your only backup.

Since a RAID drive appears as a normal hard drive through the operating system, you can back up a RAID drive just like any other hard drive. That includes backing up to an external hard drive, to an online service such as Backblaze (https://timgrey.me/cloudbackup), or any other type of backup you use in your workflow.

Today’s Question: When you say that your backups make exact copies of your drive, are you saying you are making a mirror copy of the entire drive? In that case you would end up with one compressed file of the entire drive. Is this what you mean?

Tim’s Quick Answer: No, my backups are not compressed, but are instead an exact copy of the primary drive I’m backing up, which makes recovering from a failure remarkably easy.

More Detail: I use GoodSync software (http://timgrey.me/greybackup) to create a synchronized backup of each of my primary external hard drives. With this approach, each backup drive is maintained as an exact copy of the primary drive that is being backed up. That means the entire folder and file structure from the primary drive is created and regularly updated on the backup drive.

In other words, if you were to browse my primary drive and one of the backup drives side-by-side you would see that the backup is an exact match of the primary drive, with no compression or other alterations.

One of the significant advantages of this approach is that if the primary drive fails, I can recover by simply using one of my backup drives in place of the failed drive. No restore process is necessary, because the backup was maintained as an exact match of the primary drive.

Today’s Question: In one of your presentations on targeted adjustments in Adobe Camera Raw I saw that there was a Curves adjustment available when masking. I don’t see this adjustment in the Develop module in Lightroom Classic, but I thought they were supposed to be the same. Am I missing an update or something?

Tim’s Quick Answer: You’re not missing anything. The Tone Curve adjustment is not currently available for targeted adjustments in Lightroom Classic, while it is available in Camera Raw in Photoshop.

More Detail: In general, the adjustments available in the Develop module in Lightroom Classic and Camera Raw in Photoshop are identical. Adobe has overall done a good job of keeping the updates synchronized between their various applications that use the same engine for optimizing photos, which includes the cloud-based version of Lightroom.

However, with a recent update the masking features did get out of sync, with a Curves adjustment being added to the subset of adjustments available for targeted adjustments in Camera Raw, while the same adjustment is not available for targeted adjustments in Lightroom Classic.

I expect Adobe will resolve this issue with an upcoming release of Lightroom Classic, hopefully soon. I do find the Tone Curve adjustment can be very helpful in general for applying targeted tonal or color adjustments based on tonal values in the image. It would be nice, however, to have that same capability available in a more targeted way by having it added to the masking feature in Lightroom Classic. Perhaps more important, it would be helpful if Adobe ensured that these applications were once again synchronized in terms of the adjustments available.

Today’s Question: Is there any harm in removing the card after each shoot in order to download photos using a card reader, rather than connecting my camera to the computer via USB?

Tim’s Quick Answer: As far as I’m concerned it is actually much better to remove the media card from the camera and use a card reader to download photos, rather than connecting the camera to the computer for this purpose.

More Detail: There is certainly some degree of risk involved in removing a media card from the camera to download photos with a card reader. You might inadvertently lose the card, or potentially damage it if you’re not careful. But with reasonable care I don’t consider this to be a significant risk.

More to the point, there are advantages to using a card reader rather than connecting your camera to the computer. In most cases the download will be faster (in some cases much faster) using a card reader rather than connecting the camera to the computer. In other words, most cameras aren’t the best card readers available, and are often among the slowest at transferring photos to your computer.

I also prefer not to connect the camera to the computer because in my view it puts the camera at greater risk. I’m sure this is biased a little by the fact that I can be a little clumsy at times. But I don’t like the idea of the camera sitting on my desk connected via cable to my computer, where I might accidentally snag the cable or otherwise knock the camera to the floor. I’d rather keep my camera safely in my camera bag, while I use the media cards in a card reader to download photos to my computer.

It is worth noting that some cameras do support transferring photos via a Wi-Fi connection. This would generally be slower than using a card reader, but it does to some degree reduce the risk of damage to the camera or memory card during the download process.

Today’s Question: Regarding backups, why don’t you recommend the use of RAID drives? I have used one for several years with no issues.

Tim’s Quick Answer: I’m not opposed to RAID drives in general. However, I would never depend on a RAID drive in place of a backup to a separate physical drive.

More Detail: RAID stands for Redundant Array of Independent Disks (or Drives) and refers to what is effectively one housing with two or more drives inside that are interconnected. There are a variety of different RAID implementations, but many of them include redundancy. To oversimplify, you can think of RAID as representing what looks like a single hard drive but where your data is being written to two drives at the same time.

A RAID drive configured for redundant storage provides an efficient solution for a real-time backup of your data, considering that all files you save or update are automatically saved to two different drives. However, those two drives are contained within the same housing, so if that housing is damaged or destroyed you could lose your primary and backup storage all at once.

If you’re using RAID in addition to backing up to another local drive and ideally another remote drive (perhaps via an online backup solution such as Backblaze, https://timgrey.me/cloudbackup), then I have no problem with the use of RAID.

However, I often find that photographers who use a RAID drive think they’re safe, and don’t perform any other backups. I don’t consider this to be a good approach to keeping your photos and other important data safe.

Because of these issues, I simply prefer not to spend the extra money on a RAID drive, and instead put that money into additional backup drives, so I have even greater redundancy. This involves a little more effort to maintain, but I feel that is time worth spent in the interest of a backup workflow that provides greater confidence.