Category: Ask Tim Grey

Today’s Question: I only use a laptop with my [Lightroom Classic] catalog on the laptop and my photos stored on an external hard drive. When I travel it would seem like I could use the same catalog and store my travel photos on my laptop and then transfer the photos via Lightroom [Classic] to the external hard drive when I return home. Does this make sense?

Tim’s Quick Answer: Yes, if your Lightroom Classic catalog is on the internal hard drive of the laptop you’re traveling with, you can simply import photos captured during your travels into that catalog. You can then move the photos to their permanent storage location once you return home.

More Detail: Quite some time ago I abandoned my desktop computer, opting to use a laptop as my only computer. This was an easy decision to make, since I am typically traveling more than six months out of the year. (This year, of course, has turned into an exception.)

When you have your Lightroom Classic catalog available while traveling, you can of course make full use of that catalog when you are away from home. That enables you to, for example, browse your entire catalog of photos, even if the external hard drive containing your photos has been left back at home.

While traveling with your Lightroom Classic catalog, you can of course import new photos into the catalog. If you don’t have your external hard drive with you, then you can simply copy the photos onto the internal hard drive of your laptop when importing those photos into Lightroom Classic.

When you return home, you can connect the external hard drive to your laptop so you can transfer the photos captured during your travels to their permanent storage location. You could, for example, drag the entire folder containing the photos from your travels to the external hard drive in the Folders section of the left panel in the Library module in Lightroom Classic.

Today’s Question: Can you explain, briefly, what LUTs are, a word I’ve been seeing lately. What can they do for still photographers beyond the garden-variety sliders in Photoshop, say, or the use of plug-ins? And do LUTs exist for black-and-white as well as color?

Tim’s Quick Answer: A “LUT” is a Lookup Table, which is used in several contexts to adjust the appearance of a display, or a photo or video. LUTs have become popular for providing what is similar to a preset for altering the appearance of a photo.

More Detail: For photographers, the earliest reference they might have heard to a “LUT” would have been in the context of color management. When calibrating and profiling a computer monitor display, the software will update the LUT on the graphics card, which in turn alters the behavior of the display. In other words, the LUT in this context determines how color and luminance data from the computer actually appears on the monitor display.

More recently, “LUT” has become something of a buzzword in the world of photo optimization. In video production LUTs have long been used as a tool for editing the appearance of video. For example, video is often captured with a very neutral appearance. A LUT can then be applied in post-processing to adjust the overall tonality and color appearance of the video. This is often referred to as “color grading”.

This concept has been adapted by many photographers to alter the appearance of their photos. The use of a LUT in this context is similar in concept to applying a preset to a photo, altering the appearance of photos in a uniform way, to achieve a particular look. This has led to the availability of LUTs to be used for this purpose, including options for both color and black and white interpretations of a photo.

In Photoshop, for example, you can apply a LUT to an image by going to the menu and choosing Image > Adjustments > Color Lookup. In the Color Lookup dialog, you can then select (or load) a LUT you would like to apply to the current image.

Today’s Question: On several occasions I’ve seen you refer to Adobe Camera Raw alongside the Develop module in Lightroom Classic, as if the two were related. Aren’t these two completely different tools for editing photos?

Tim’s Quick Answer: Adobe Camera Raw and Adobe Lightroom Classic are indeed separate software tools, but they are related by virtue of sharing the same engine for processing photos.

More Detail: One of the key things to understand about Adobe Camera Raw and the Develop module in Lightroom Classic is that the two provide the same set of adjustment tools for processing photos. In other words, you could achieve the exact same results for a give photo with either of these tools.

However, there is also an important difference between Adobe Camera Raw and Lightroom Classic, at least insofar as the workflow involved.

In short, if you are using Lightroom Classic to manage your workflow, you should never use Adobe Camera Raw to process a raw capture. Rather, your raw captures should be processed in the Develop module within Lightroom Classic. If you then want to use the powerful tools within Photoshop to further refine a photo, you should send that photo to Photoshop from within Lightroom Classic.

Of course, once you send a photo to Photoshop from Lightroom Classic, you can still make use of many of the features of Adobe Camera Raw by using the Camera Raw filter in Photoshop, found on the Filter menu.

If you are a Photoshop user who is not using Lightroom Classic to manage your photos, you’ll use Adobe Camera Raw to process your raw captures before opening the resulting image in Photoshop proper. With Camera Raw you are getting all of the editing power of the Develop module in Lightroom Classic. In other words, you aren’t missing out on any photo-optimization features by not using Lightroom Classic. You are, however, missing out on what I consider to be a more powerful workflow for organizing photos in Lightroom Classic, assuming you’re using Adobe Bridge to manage your photos in the context of a workflow that revolves around Photoshop.

Today’s Question: When I make a virtual copy, there is nothing in the history for the original file to indicate that I did so. Sometimes I would like to know the “source” file for the virtual copy. If I have since made additional edits to the original file, is there any way to go back and figure out the point in time the virtual copy was made?

Tim’s Quick Answer: It is relatively easy to track down the source image for a virtual copy in Lightroom Classic using the file name referenced with the virtual copy, or by a trick for navigating to the folder that contains the source image.

More Detail: When you create a virtual copy from a source image in Lightroom Classic, you aren’t actually creating a copy of the source image file. Rather, you’re simply creating a unique version of the source image, which is focused on enabling you to create two interpretations of the same image using the adjustments in the Develop module.

You may find at times you have located a virtual copy, but you don’t know where the source image is. There are several easy ways to track down the source image in this scenario.

Perhaps the simplest approach is to automatically navigate to the folder containing the source image. For example, if you have located a virtual copy contained in a collection, you won’t necessarily know which folder the source image is stored. However, you can right-click on the virtual copy and choose “Go to Folder in Library” from the popup menu.

When Lightroom Classic switches you to the folder containing the source image, the virtual copy will still be selected. You can turn off any filters to make sure you’re seeing all photos, and then set the sort order to either Capture Time or File Name. The source image and virtual copy will then be right next to each other, since they share those two attributes as references to the same source capture.

It is also worth keeping in mind that a virtual copy in Lightroom Classic will still reference the filename of the original source image. While browsing a virtual copy, you can go to the Metadata section of the right panel in the Library module. There you can find the File Name field, where the virtual copy will show the filename for the source photo. Note that the Copy Name field shows the reference to the virtual copy, with a default name such as “Copy 1”. You can change that Copy Name value to something more meaningful if you prefer. But the point is that since you can find the source filename associated with the virtual copy, you could also easily search your library for that filename in order to locate the source image.

Today’s Question: I’m starting to try my hand a making videos in addition to still photos. I’ve discovered that the shutter speed can’t be set slower than 1/30th of a second. Why is that? And what shutter speed should I use?

Tim’s Quick Answer: The shutter speed for video is limited based on the frame rate for the video. So, at 30 frames per second, for example, the slowest shutter speed available would be 1/30th of a second. In general I prefer to use a shutter speed at or near this limit to maintain a persistence of motion effect.

More Detail: When recording a video at 30 frames per second (fps), each frame essentially represents 1/30th of a second. Therefore, the slowest shutter speed you could use at 30 fps is 1/30th of a second. For video captured at 60 fps, the slowest shutter speed available would be 1/60th of a second.

In some cases you may want to use a fast shutter speed for video, if it is important to freeze the motion of a moving subject. However, that can lead to a somewhat “stuttering” appearance in the video, which can be distracting to the viewer. Instead, you generally want to maintain a “persistence of motion” effect, where a slight motion blur makes movement in the frame appear more natural.

The general rule in video capture is to use a shutter speed with half the duration based on the frame rate. So, for example, you could use a 1/60th of a second shutter speed for video shot at 30 fps, and a 1/120th of a second shutter speed for video captured at 60 fps.

Personally, I tend to prefer the look with a slightly slower shutter speed for video, so I often shoot with the slowest shutter speed possible for video at normal frame rates. If I want to somewhat freeze the motion, such as when there is a particularly fast-moving subject you’ll be recording, you may want to use a slightly faster shutter speed. But in general, very fast shutter speeds for video at normal frame rates will produce a result that is not as pleasing compared to the use of slower shutter speeds.

Today’s Question: When in Lightroom Classic, I make adjustments to a RAW file, such as Lens Calibration, then send the image with adjustments into Photoshop, apply some adjustments, and return to Lightroom as a TIFF file. When I look at Lens Calibration for the new file, the boxes are unchecked. Does this mean I need to re-check those boxes, or are the adjustments baked into the returning TIFF file?

Tim’s Quick Answer: The adjustments appear to “reset” in this context because those adjustments were applied to the image that was sent to Photoshop. There is no need to re-apply those adjustments after the derivative image is returned from Photoshop.

More Detail: When you send a raw capture from Lightroom Classic to Photoshop, that raw capture is processed to create a new TIFF or PSD file (depending on the setting established in Preferences). All adjustments you applied in Lightroom’s Develop module for the raw capture are applied to the new TIFF or PSD file. For this reason, when you go to the Develop module for the TIFF/PSD image, the adjustments will have reset to their default values.

Because the adjustments have been applied to the TIFF/PSD image, there is no need to re-apply any of the adjustments. You can, of course, apply additional adjustments above and beyond what you had already applied in Lightroom before sending the image to Photoshop.

As for the Lens Corrections adjustments specifically, you would generally not want to apply those adjustments a second time to the derivative image. Doing so will apply an additional adjustment, which means the adjustment is going beyond the intended purpose of compensating for the behavior of the lens used to capture the image.

Of course, if you apply the adjustment again and like the result, that’s perfectly fine. But in general I would not apply Lens Corrections adjustments more than once to an image, including for a derivative image that has previously had the adjustments applied to it.

Today’s Question: Is there a way to use the HSL sliders [Hue, Saturation, and Luminance] in Lightroom Classic to bring back detail on over-saturated portions of an image? For example, a red or yellow flower lacks detail from over-saturation. If not HSL is there another way in Lightroom to correct the image? Reducing total saturation sometimes helps to bring out detail, but then all of the other colors are hurt by it and the red/yellow loses its richness.

Tim’s Quick Answer: Reducing saturation for an individual color can help improve perceived detail in that area of the image, if the colors have been over-saturated. If, however, detail was lost due to an over-exposure, reducing the overall exposure in post-processing may help, but it is also possible that there is not any recoverable detail in those areas if the image was over-exposed too much in the camera.

More Detail: Many photographers are in the habit of checking the histogram on their camera’s LCD display to confirm they have achieved a good exposure. However, it is important to keep in mind that detail can be lost even if only one color channel has lost detail, even if there are no areas of the image clipped to pure white, for example.

If you over-expose an image of a red rose, for example, you may lose detail on the red channel without actually having any areas of the image clipped to pure white. In this type of situation, you would not see a “blinkies” indication of clipped highlights, for example, while the red channel of the histogram would show that detail was lost on that channel.

With a raw capture it may be possible to pull back the exposure in post-processing to recover detail that had appeared to be lost in the original capture. And if the issue was a matter of over-saturation, reducing the saturation of individual colors can help. But in the case of saturation, the issue is more about making detail that is already there more visible. If the detail isn’t there in the first place, adjustments in post-processing won’t magically bring that detail back.

Today’s Question: Can you explain the difference between the Highlights and Whites sliders [in Lightroom Classic or Adobe Camera Raw]? Under what circumstances would you use one rather than the other?

Tim’s Quick Answer: The Whites slider is used to establish a white point for the image, affecting the brightest pixels the most. The Highlights slider enables you to brighten or darken the relatively bright areas of a photo, focusing on a range of tonal values darker than the range the Whites slider focuses on.

More Detail: You can think of the Whites slider as enabling you to set the value for white in the image. The emphasis is on a relatively narrow range of the brightest pixels in the photo. For a typical photographic image, you would adjust the Whites slider so that the brightest pixels in the image are at (or nearly at) pure white. Of course, for images where you don’t want a true white, you could use a lower value for the Whites slider.

The Highlights slider affects a wider range, emphasizing the effect on tonal values that are darker than those affected by the Whites slider. Naturally there is overlap between the effect of these two sliders, but the differences mean that the Highlights slider is really more about emphasizing or toning down bright highlight textures.

For example, you might typically use a value for Whites that causes the brightest pixels in the image to be pure white. This might cause some of the bright highlight areas to look too bright, without much visible texture. Reducing the value for Highlights will both darken those bright highlights, and also add a bit of contrast to enhance texture and detail.

The same basic concepts apply at the other end of the tonal range, with the Blacks and Shadows sliders. In my opinion, all four of these sliders should be reviewed and possibly refined for every image you optimize in Lightroom Classic or Camera Raw.

Note that you can hold the Alt key on Windows or the Option key on Macintosh while adjusting these sliders to get a clipping preview that enables you to see whether (and where) you are losing detail in the image based on the adjustments.

Today’s Question: In Photoshop it is possible to acquire a color for a brush from the image itself, or even other places on the screen [using the Eyedropper tool]. In Lightroom Classic I don’t see a way to do this. Many times, I have wanted to paint with a color that is in the image but end up having to approximate by eye. Dragging outside the color picker doesn’t work as it does in Photoshop.

Tim’s Quick Answer: In Lightroom Classic you can sample a color from the photo you’re working on by clicking in the color picker and then dragging (while still holding the mouse button) into the image area. It is not possible, however, to sample colors from the Lightroom Classic interface in this way.

More Detail: In Photoshop it is possible to sample a color from an image, or anywhere in the Photoshop interface. You start by selecting the Eyedropper tool, which enables you to click within an image to sample a color from that image. In addition, however, you can click within the image, then drag the mouse outside the image to sample a color from anywhere within the interface, or even in areas outside of Photoshop.

In Lightroom Classic you can sample a color from a photo, but not from the overall interface. For example, with the Adjustment Brush tool in Lightroom you can apply a color to an image, along with a variety of other adjustments you can paint into specific areas of the image.

Toward the bottom of the controls for the Adjustment Brush (or the Graduated Filter or Radial Filter) you’ll find a label for Color, with a color swatch to the right of it. Click on that color swatch, and a color picker will appear. If you hover your mouse over the color picker, you’ll see that your mouse turns into an eyedropper icon. You can click within the color picker to sample a color.

To sample a color from the image instead of the color picker, click within the color picker and keep the mouse button down. Then drag the mouse into the image area, with the mouse held down until you have located the color you want to sample. Note that a small square on the color picker will indicate the current color under your mouse. When you’re hovering over the desired color, release the mouse button and that color will be the active color for the Adjustment Brush (or other targeted adjustment tool).

However, as noted above, while you can sample a color from within the image in Lightroom Classic, you can’t sample a color from the overall interface.

Today’s Question: Please clarify a basic concept: is there any way Photoshop can irreversibly, destructively change the original raw file, the file the camera produces?

Tim’s Quick Answer: No, Adobe Photoshop (and by extension Adobe Bridge) will not alter the original raw capture. When you process a raw capture, any applicable settings are saved in an XMP “sidecar” file rather than altering the original capture. When you process the image, such as with Adobe Camera Raw, you are creating a new derivative image based on the original raw capture.

More Detail: A raw capture is a unique file format, in that it isn’t truly an image file (such as a JPEG or TIFF file), but rather is a data file containing the information gathered by the image sensor at the time a photograph was captured.

As such, a raw capture needs to be interpreted by software after the capture, in order to create a true image file. In the context of Photoshop, that processing is typically handled using Adobe Camera Raw. You could also, of course, process the raw capture in Lightroom Classic and send the resulting image to Photoshop for further processing.

Within Photoshop it is absolutely possible to permanently alter an image in a “destructive” way. In other words, you could open an image, paint pixels over the top of that image, save and close the file, and never be able to get back to the unaltered original. That is not the case with a raw capture.

Any metadata updates that are applied to a raw capture in Photoshop (or Adobe Bridge) will be written to an XMP “sidecar” file alongside the original raw capture. When you open a raw capture in Photoshop, you’ll first need to process that raw capture using Adobe Camera Raw. When you are finished applying adjustment settings in Camera Raw, opening the image causes a new image to be created, based on the raw capture.

You can then of course save and process that derivative image. You could use a layer-based non-destructive workflow for that additional processing, or a “destructive” workflow that alters pixel values, depending on your preference. But at any time you could return to the original raw capture, reset the adjustment settings in Camera Raw if you prefer, and start over with an unaltered original capture.