Ask Tim Grey

Today’s Question: This is just a simple question, but one that confuses me. I have a Nikon D7100, and have always used an image size of “Small/Fine”, as I do not need any prints larger than 8”x10″. Someone told me that increasing the image size to Medium would give me a better print, as it gives more information. I’m not sure if I received the right information on this. Does increasing the image size to Medium actually give me more information and better colors?

Tim’s Quick Answer: As a general rule, if you’re going to be using JPEG capture instead of RAW capture, I recommend using the highest resolution and quality settings available for your camera. This will ensure both the highest quality and the largest potential print size.

More Detail: I should hasten to add that I highly recommend using RAW capture to ensure the highest image quality and greatest overall flexibility in your workflow. That said, I realize there are situations where JPEG capture may provide benefits that are more meaningful for a photographer than the potential benefits of RAW capture.

In terms of the quality setting, I highly recommend always using the highest quality option available when employing JPEG capture. This setting directly relates to the compression being applied to your images right from the moment they are captured, and with JPEG images the compression always causes a loss of detail and quality in the image. Therefore, I consider it very important to use the highest quality setting to minimize the negative impact on the quality of your photos.

The size option relates to the overall resolution of the photos being captured. In theory you can use a lower resolution setting if you tend not to print your photos at a particularly large size.

For example, the Nikon D7100 that is the subject of today’s question provides a native resolution of 4,000 x 6,000 pixels. At an output resolution of 360 pixels per inch (a common output resolution for a photo inkjet printer), that translates to a potential output size (without enlarging the image) of about 11 inches by 16 inches. The lowest resolution setting in this case is 2,000 by 2,992 pixels. At 360 pixels per inch that still provides a print size of about 6 inches by 8 inches.

As you can see from the numbers above, the “small” size for a JPEG image in the case of the Nikon D7100 provides fewer pixels than are actually necessary to produce an 8×10 print. The “medium” size is well suited to an 8×10 print, providing output dimensions of about 8×12 inches.

However, I think it is also important to keep in mind that you may want to crop your images from time to time. Therefore, I consider it critically important to capture at the highest resolution available in most cases (and most certainly in this example). Unless you are using a camera with an extremely high resolution that far exceeds any output size you’ll ever produce (taking into account potential cropping), I would not recommend using anything other than the full resolution of your camera when capturing photos.

Today’s Question: Does what you say about photos saved as TIFF images [with respect to file sizes] also apply to files saved as PSD images?

Tim’s Quick Answer: Yes, TIFF and Photoshop PSD images will produce files that are of similar file sizes, all other things being equal. In both cases the file size will be significantly larger than the same image saved as a JPEG.

More Detail: Today’s question is a follow-up to a prior question that addressed TIFF images producing significantly larger file sizes than a JPEG image.

In the edition of the Ask Tim Grey eNewsletter that focused on TIFF versus JPEG file sizes, I made reference to the option to save TIFF images with compression applied. JPEG compression is always lossy, meaning some level of detail or quality will be lost in the process. However, with TIFF images you have the option to save the image with lossless compression, such as the LZW compression option that is generally available in software that enables you to save TIFF images.

The Photoshop PSD (Photoshop Document) image format is actually a TIFF container, and lossless compression is applied automatically when you save a PSD image. In that way, saving a PSD image is very similar to saving a TIFF image with the LZW compression option selected.

However, the actual compression used by PSD versus TIFF images is different, resulting in different file sizes. The actual results will vary based on the composition of the images, such as the number and type of layers used within the image.

The bottom line is that both TIFF and PSD images will produce a file size that is significantly larger than a JPEG image. Lossless compression is automatically applied with PSD files, while it is an option with TIFF images.

Today’s Question: I have been processing photos from a recent trip to the Canadian Rockies in Lightroom CC. After completing the post processing, I tried to change the order of some of the photos in the filmstrip at the bottom of the screen. When I try, I get a screen that says, “The currently selected source does not support custom order. Cannot reorder photos.” I have changed the order of photos in the past, but don’t know what has changed. Can you help?

Tim’s Quick Answer: In order to apply a custom sort order in Lightroom, you need to be browsing a single folder or a “normal” collection. You can’t be viewing the contents of multiple folders, and you can’t sort in a custom order when browsing a smart collection.

More Detail: Lightroom enables you to define a custom sort order for any individual folder or “normal” collection, simply by dragging and dropping the thumbnails into the desired order on the filmstrip or in the grid view. You can then return to the custom sort order later, after changing the sort order to another option. This can be done by choosing the “Custom Order” option from the Sort popup on the toolbar below the grid view display.

However, the custom sort order is only available for an individual folder or for a “normal” collection.

You can’t use the custom sort order for the collections found in the Catalog section toward the top of the left panel in the Library module. You also can’t use a custom sort order for a smart collection. If you have selected multiple folders from the Folders list, or if you are browsing images from subfolders in addition to the current folder, you also won’t be able to use the custom sort order. That means you may want to turn off the “Show Photos in Subfolders” option found on the Library menu on the menu bar. You also can’t select multiple collections at one time if you want to sort in a custom order.

So, the key is to make sure you are only browsing a single folder or “normal” collection (not a smart collection), and that you aren’t browsing images from more than one source location.

Today’s Question: After working on images for a while [in Lightroom] without sidecar files, when I change over to utilize the sidecar files will all of the already adjusted images have sidecar files created?

Tim’s Quick Answer: Yes, when you enable the option in Lightroom to save metadata out to the images themselves, Lightroom will immediately start updating all existing images. Thus, XMP sidecar files will be created for all RAW captures, and the metadata within the image file will be updated for other file types.

More Detail: Enabling the option to have Lightroom save metadata out to the images (instead of only within the Lightroom catalog) provides a couple of benefits. One, it enables you to see standard metadata updates (such as keywords and star ratings) with other applications used to browse outside of Lightroom. Second, it provides a backup for most of the metadata updates for your images beyond the Lightroom catalog.

When you turn on the “Automatically write changes into XMP” checkbox in the Catalog Settings dialog, Lightroom will immediately get to work creating (or updating) XMP sidecar files for RAW captures, and updating the image files for other file types. To enable this setting choose Edit > Catalog Settings from the menu on Windows or Lightroom > Catalog Settings on Macintosh. Then go to the Metadata tab and turn on the “Automatically write changes into XMP” in the Editing section at the top of the dialog.

If for any reason you want to make sure the updates were applied, you can also “manually” save the updates so you’ll see an indication of the progress on the identity plate. To do so, go to the All Photographs collection in the Catalog section of the left panel in the Library module. Choose Edit > Select All from the menu to select all photos in your catalog, and then choose Metadata > Save Metadata to Files from the menu to initiate the process of saving metadata to your files.

Today’s Question: When I send an image from Lightroom to Photoshop and save it back to Lightroom, the TIFF is always stacked with the original and I must right-click to unstack them. Since I do not like stacking at all is there a way to permanently turn it off?

Tim’s Quick Answer: Yes, you can turn off automatic stacking for images sent to an external editor (such as Photoshop) by turning off the “Stack With Original” checkbox on the External Editing tab of the Preferences dialog.

More Detail: By default, when you send a photo from Lightroom to an external editor such as Photoshop, the new derivative image created in the process will be stacked with the source image used to create the derivative. So, for example, if you send a RAW capture to Photoshop, the TIFF or PSD file that results will be stacked with the RAW image.

You can turn off this feature in the Preferences dialog. Start by choosing Edit > Preferences from the menu on Windows or Lightroom > Preferences on Macintosh. Then go to the External Editing tab and turn off the “Stack With Original” checkbox toward the bottom of the dialog. From that point forward, photos you send to an external editor will not be stacked with the original.

Today’s Question: Due to an accident in the field I shot a lot of images in only JPEG instead of RAW plus JPEG. In order to avoid lossy compression after numerous image edits I saved the JPEGs as TIFFs. The resulting file size increase was hard to explain: 19 MB for the JPEG to 147 MB for the TIFF. What happened here?

Tim’s Quick Answer: These file sizes are actually no surprise at all to me. Images saved as a JPEG will generally have a file size that is significantly smaller than a TIFF, even if the JPEG file is saved at a high quality setting and the TIFF image is saved with lossless compression.

More Detail: Put simply, JPEG compression is relatively aggressive. The results will vary based on the complexity of the image. An image with tremendous texture and detail will result in a larger JPEG image than a relatively simple image with minimal variations in tone and color. But the file size will still be significantly smaller than a TIFF image.

Let’s assume a relatively low resolution image, saved as a TIFF file with no compression applied, with a file size of 8 MB. If that same image is saved with the LZW compression option (which is a lossless compression algorithm), that same TIFF image would be around 5 MB or so in size. Saved as a JPEG at a high quality setting, that same image would be a fraction of a megabyte (probably around 300 KB).

Note that if layers are included in the TIFF image, the file size can grow significantly larger. For example, creating a copy of the Background image layer in Photoshop will cause the TIFF image to double in size.

What is most surprising about JPEG compression is how well image quality can be maintained when you use a high quality setting for the JPEG. While the compression for a JPEG image is always lossy, at a high quality setting the amount of degradation to the image is minimal.

In most cases the most significant negative affect of JPEG compression is a grid pattern that can appear. This is caused by the approach used for JPEG compression, where the image is divided into a grid (typically into blocks of 16 by 16 pixels) and the information within each block of the grid is simplified to reduce file size. The result is that pixels on either side of a grid line may not match up as well as they did before JPEG compression was applied, causing a faint (but sometimes obvious) grid pattern in the image. This is the primary reason I recommend avoiding JPEG capture whenever possible.

While file sizes for a TIFF image can be significantly larger than for the same image saved as a JPEG image, if you will be applying strong adjustments to the image and re-saving the image multiple times after applying changes, it is a good idea to save the JPEG capture as a TIFF image. I do recommend using LZW compression for the TIFF image to help keep the file size smaller, but the an image saved as a TIFF will always be quite a bit larger than the same image saved as a JPEG.

Today’s Question: I have a question about how to set up my backup system. Currently my desktop has two internal drives: a 2 TB drive that is using only 225 GB and a 4 TB drive that is using 2.39 TB. I then have an external 4 TB drive that is configured to backup both of the internal drives, and it is almost full. In addition I alternate my external drive with another 4 TB drive and always keep one in a offsite.

What do you recommend I do so that I have access to all of my photos and yet still assure myself of a backup process?

Tim’s Quick Answer: There are two basic options I would suggest considering. My preference would be to add an additional set of drives to backup the 2TB internal drive, so the 4TB backup drives are used to backup the 4TB internal drive. The second option would be to “upgrade” to a 6TB drive to backup everything.

More Detail: The reason I would prefer to add a set of 2TB drives to the mix is that I prefer to have a backup that is an exact duplicate of the original. This involves the use of synchronization software (such as GoodSync, http://timgrey.me/greybackup) to backup the full contents of each drive to the applicable backup drive.

That said, in this case we’re talking about backing up internal drives to external drives. That means that in the event of a failure you can’t simply replace the failed drive with the backup drive (although in theory you could accomplish this, depending on the overall hardware configuration).

Therefore, it is also perfectly reasonable to purchase a 6TB drive for backup purposes. You could still use a synchronization approach, simply creating two “master” folders on the backup drive to represent the source drives you are backing up. So, for example, you could create a “2TB Backup” folder and a “4TB Backup” folder on the new 6TB drive, and then create synchronization jobs to synchronize from the internal drives to the applicable folders on the large external backup drive.

Today’s Question: For an upcoming family event I will be the designated photographer, and so I’ll need to capture of the group. This calls for the typical timer delay and hustle to join the group for the photo. Is there a way to capture a burst of photos rather than a single frame when capturing a group photo in this way?

Tim’s Quick Answer: My recommendation would be to configure your camera to capture a series of images such as you would for a time-lapse, either with a built-in feature if your camera is so equipped, or with a cable release that includes an interval timer feature.

More Detail: I actually used this time-lapse approach for a group photo at a class reunion I attended last weekend (though I won’t be disclosing how many years this reunion celebrated!).

There are a few advantages to this time-lapse approach. First, you’ll ensure you have multiple captures so you can choose the best one, hopefully with everyone smiling with their eyes open. Second, this approach provides a “hands off” approach, which can help streamline the process. I also find that in many cases when you use a wireless transmitter to trigger the captures that the appearance in the photo for the person triggering the captures can be slightly unnatural.

If your camera includes an interval capture feature, this approach is remarkably easy. You can also employ a cable release that includes an interval feature for the same purpose. I typically set the interval so that a photo is captured every five seconds, with no specific limit on the number of photos to be captured. I just stop the capture when I feel that enough photos were captured to ensure a good result.

Of course, the potential drawback is having a relatively large number of photos to go through. You can mitigate this issue by waiting until everyone is in position before starting the capture process. You might also consider increasing the interval time between captures, although I do find that setting an interval of too much time can create challenges for the group that is being asked to pose for an extended period of time.

In addition to streamlining the process of capturing multiple frames for a group photo through the use of a moderate interval between multiple captures, you can also have a bit of fun by assembling a time-lapse video of those captures. The result can often be a rather amusing look at the process of posing for photos, which the group may enjoy seeing in addition to the best still photo from the batch.

Today’s Question: What do you consider the best time to rename photos? In your video you suggest doing it at the time of import, but I was wondering if a more appropriate time might be at the end after I have imported and refined to just the images that I want.

Tim’s Quick Answer: In general I prefer to rename photos at the time of download or import. This helps ensure there will never be any inconsistencies, such as if you sent a copy of a photo to a client right before renaming the photo. However, as long as you don’t delay significantly in reviewing your photos, it also makes sense to rename after you have deleted any outtakes so there won’t be any gaps in the file numbering for the photos that remain.

More Detail: In large part the question here relates to your tolerance for having “missing” image numbers in the filename sequence.

As noted above, my personal preference is to rename as early in the workflow as possible to avoid any risk of confusion. Essentially I want to ensure that the filenames applied when renaming the images represent the only filenames anyone will ever see. If you rename upon downloading your photos or when importing into Lightroom, that will ensure that nobody will have seen any filename other than the “new” filename.

That said, some photographers prefer to rename later in their workflow so that deleting photos won’t cause gaps in the sequence number that is typically used as part of the file renaming structure. I certainly understand this preference, but to me that is secondary to renaming earlier in my workflow.

So, the bottom line is that I recommend renaming photos as early in your workflow as possible. If you want to rename after deleting outtakes, that would mean trying to be sure you review for outtakes as soon after downloading your images as possible, and that you rename immediately after that review.

Today’s Question: You showed us in several videos how to correct a misspelled keyword in Lightroom with a right click. However, if the word is also listed correctly and you try to change the misspelled one, Lightroom will tell you that word is already used and won’t let you change it. So how do I fix those?

Tim’s Quick Answer: In this scenario you will need to filter based on the misspelled keyword, add the correct keyword from the Keyword List, and then delete the misspelled keyword from the Keyword List.

More Detail: Lightroom enables you to quickly correct a misspelled keyword for multiple photos by simply editing the misspelled keyword tag on the Keyword List found on the right panel in the Library module. However, if the correct spelling already exists as a keyword, Lightroom won’t let you edit the misspelled keyword to the correct spelling. So you’ll need to first add the correctly spelled keyword and then delete the misspelled keyword. Fortunately that process is also quite simple.

Start by filtering all of your images that have the misspelled keyword. You can do this very quickly by hovering your mouse over the misspelled keyword in the Keyword List on the right panel in the Library module, and then clicking on the right-pointing arrow that appears to the right of the number indicating how many images have that keyword applied. This will take you to the All Photographs collection with a filter applied for the keyword you selected.

To apply the correctly spelled keyword to the photos you’ve filtered, you’ll first need to select all of them. You can do that by choosing Edit > Select All from the menu (or pressing Ctrl+A on Windows or Command+A on Macintosh). You need to be in the Grid view (rather than the Loupe view), but this will have been set automatically when you applied the filter based on the misspelled keyword.

To add the correctly spelled keyword to the selected photos, you need to turn on the checkbox for that keyword on the Keyword List. So, click in the space to the left of the correct keyword so that a checkmark appears there. Note that if the correctly spelled keyword had already been applied to some of the selected images you’ll see a dash rather than an empty space to the left of the keyword on the Keyword List.

Now that the correct version of the keyword has been applied to all images that had the incorrectly spelled version applied, you can delete the keyword with the incorrect spelling. To do so simply right-click on the incorrectly spelled keyword on the Keyword List and choose Delete from the popup menu that appears.