Manual Focus for ND

Facebooktwitterlinkedin

Today’s Question: I have a question of clarification on your answer to focusing with a strong neutral density filter. Can you please tell me if after you set the camera settings without the filter on do you then have to switch to manual focus on the lens or does it not matter?

Tim’s Quick Answer: Yes, if autofocus is enabled for your shutter release button, then you should disable autofocus on the lens after adding a neutral density filter for a long exposure.

More Detail: As mentioned in yesterday’s Ask Tim Grey eNewsletter, I recommend configuring all of the camera settings for your photo with the neutral density filter detached. You can then add the neutral density back to the lens, and adjust the shutter speed to increase the exposure duration based on the strength of the neutral density filter.

In other words, you should refine your composition, establish exposure settings, and set the focus with the neutral density filter removed from the lens. Make sure the exposure settings are established in manual mode, and then add the neutral density filter and adjust the shutter speed setting.

If your shutter release button is configured to activate autofocus, then pressing that button to capture the image will cause the camera to attempt to refocus on the scene. This can result in inaccurate focus, in part because of the presence of the neutral density filter.

By turning off autofocus on the lens, you’ll ensure that the camera isn’t able to autofocus when you capture the image. Of course, if you’re using back-button focus and have disabled autofocus for the shutter release button then this additional step is not necessary.

Also, be sure to re-enable autofocus when you’re finished capturing the photo.

Focusing with Neutral Density

Facebooktwitterlinkedin

Today’s Question: Is there any reason not to use autofocus when using a solid neutral density for a long exposure?

Tim’s Quick Answer: In some cases autofocus may be difficult or impossible to achieve when a strong solid neutral density filter is attached to the lens. Therefore, as a general rule I recommend a workflow that involves establishing focus before attaching the neutral density filter to the lens.

More Detail: Whether or not you will be able to use autofocus when a solid neutral density filter is attached to the lens depends on a variety of factors. That includes the strength (or overall density) of the filter, the type of autofocus your camera employs, and other factors.

In my experience it is often possible to achieve autofocus with a relatively strong neutral density filter. However, I’ve also found that in some cases the performance can be slow or the results can be inaccurate. In addition, it can be difficult to otherwise establish the overall composition and capture settings when a strong neutral density filter is attached to the lens.

In some cases the Live View display combined with exposure simulation can provide an adequate solution, but this too can be challenging. For example, the exposure simulation feature may result in a very noisy preview image, making it difficult to confirm accurate focus.

For these and various other reasons, I recommend configuring your shot without the neutral density filter attached to the lens, and then attach the filter and adjust the exposure settings.

The general process here involves first configuring the overall composition with your camera firmly mounted on a tripod. You can then use whatever method you prefer to establish exposure settings based on a photo without the use of the neutral density filter. If you used one of the semi-automatic modes (such as Aperture Priority mode) to determine the exposure settings without the neutral density filter attached, then you’ll want to switch to the manual exposure mode and dial in those same settings.

After everything is configured in manual mode, you can add the neutral density filter to the lens and adjust the shutter speed (increasing the exposure duration) based on the number of stops of light the neutral density filter will reduce your exposure by.

This overall approach makes it easier to configure the overall shot. Once you have established the camera settings based on not using the neutral density filter, you can add the filter and adjust the exposure time accordingly.

Balancing Shutter Speed

Facebooktwitterlinkedin

Today’s Question: I saw your recent photo of a crop duster on Instagram, and wonder how you managed to get a blurred propeller without having the airplane blurred too.

Tim’s Quick Answer: The photo you refer to (https://www.instagram.com/p/BVFQzi0AjPw/) was captured with a shutter speed of 1/350th of a second, which provides a good balance for providing an image that is sharp overall while retaining a blur for the propeller.

More Detail: When photographing a propeller-driven aircraft in flight, it is important to have a degree of blur visible in the propeller. Otherwise, the result makes it look like the propeller isn’t turning at all, which obviously would suggest an entirely different tone for the photo.

As a very general rule, a shutter speed of around 1/250th of a second will provide a degree of blur for the propeller, but will still provide an adequately fast shutter speed to sharply render the overall airplane, even when you are hand-holding the camera (as was the case with the photo linked above).

The specific shutter speed that will provide the best result will vary based on the rotational speed of the propeller for the aircraft you are photographing. In addition, you’ll want to take into consideration other factors such as whether you’re hand-holding the camera and the lens focal length you are using to capture the images. But in general I find that a shutter speed of around 1/250th of a second provides a good balance between propeller blur and a relatively high percentage of images that are otherwise sharp overall.

You can view more of my images from the Palouse (and elsewhere) by finding me (and following me!) under user name “timgreyphoto” in Instagram on your mobile devices, or by pointing your web browser here:

https://www.instagram.com/timgreyphoto/

Portable Backup

Facebooktwitterlinkedin

Today’s Question: Back in 2013 and 2014 you were not enthusiastic about any of the available backup storage options that did not need to be connected to a laptop for power.  Have the options gotten any better since then? I’d like to travel without a laptop and would like to copy my CompactFlash cards directly to a storage device, probably two of them, to have duplicate copies. Any new advice?

Tim’s Quick Answer: I have to admit I’m not terribly enthusiastic about any of the portable backup options that are currently available. About the best option I can recommend would be the HyperDrive products from Sanho.

More Detail: For whatever reason, there were a variety of portable backup options available a number of years ago, and there aren’t many options available now. Perhaps because laptops have gotten smaller and other mobile devices can be used to download photos from media cards, there simply isn’t as large a market for standalone portable storage devices capable of backing up your digital media cards when traveling.

You can find the 500GB model of the HyperDrive here:

http://timgrey.me/BH-HyperDrive500

This is the product I would probably recommend most at this point. It enables you to download images from your media cards to the portable hard drive storage, and you could obviously use two matching devices to create two download copies of your photos.

There was recently a Kickstarter campaign for a new portable storage device, which sounds somewhat promising. There seem to have been some delays in production, but the overall specifications look good. I’ve not had a chance to test this device personally, but you can learn more here:

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/dfigear/flash-porter-backup-and-protect-photos-and-video-f

For most of my travel I need the utility of a laptop in addition to storage (and backup storage). As a result, portable storage such as the devices above have not been a priority for me personally. That said, I certainly appreciate the value these devices can provide, and hope there will be improved solutions available soon. And perhaps the Flash Porter linked above will prove to be that solution.

Non-Destructive RAW Workflow

Facebooktwitterlinkedin

Today’s Question: Isn’t the RAW file already processed once it’s imported into Lightroom? Or is it just processed in the Lightroom catalog so the original captured file is truly untouched?

Tim’s Quick Answer: When you import a RAW capture into Lightroom, it truly is untouched, other than the actual process of copying that RAW capture file from one location to another.

More Detail: Lightroom employs a non-destructive workflow, which ensures that your original image files are not altered (or potentially damaged) by Lightroom. With a normal workflow Lightroom won’t apply any changes to your original RAW capture, in order to help protect that important original capture data.

The only situation where you might actually enable Lightroom to alter an original RAW capture is if you have enabled the option to update proprietary RAW capture files when you change the capture time for specific images.

By default, all changes you make within Lightroom are only updated within the Lightroom catalog, not with the original image files on your hard drive. There is an option to save metadata to your images, but in the case of RAW captures that will cause an XMP “sidecar” file to be created or updated, without actually altering the original RAW capture file.

However, you can choose to apply changes to the capture time to the original RAW capture files on your hard drive if you prefer. This is the only scenario where you would actually be altering the original RAW capture using Lightroom. This option (along with the option to actually save changes directly to your files) can be found in the Catalog Settings dialog.

But again, importing RAW captures into Lightroom will not cause those original captures to be modified. They are simply copied to the destination you specify, and added to the Lightroom catalog so you can use Lightroom to manage, optimize, and share the photos.

Unwanted Flattening

Facebooktwitterlinkedin

Today’s Question: Why did a photo with many layers flatten when I needed to Convert to Profile in Photoshop’s latest version? The original image was a slide scan from a Nikon scanner profile. I needed to convert it to ProPhoto RGB and when I did, all the layers disappeared leaving only the base layer.

Tim’s Quick Answer: The image was flattened because you left the “Flatten Image to Preserve Appearance” checkbox turned on in the Convert to Profile dialog. You can keep this checkbox turned off if you want to retain the layers when converting the image to a different color profile.

More Detail: When you convert an image from one color profile to another, there is a risk that you will lose some color fidelity in the process. This is in large part because some colors that are available in your source color profile may not be available in the destination color profile.

In addition, the process of converting an image from one profile to another can cause a small degree of change in the color appearance of the photo. This is generally not significant, but it is possible. Turning on the “Flatten Image to Preserve Appearance” checkbox will help reduce these issues, by removing any adjustment layers and image layers that might cause variability in the final effect, based on how those layers impact the underlying image data.

In most cases I am perfectly comfortable leaving the “Flatten Image to Preserve Appearance” checkbox turned off. The change in color in the image will generally be extremely minor, and generally not visible within the image.

If you are concerned about a color shift when converting an image to a different color profile, I generally recommend creating a flattened copy of the image rather than flattening your master image. To do so you can choose Image > Duplicate from the menu. In the Duplicate Image dialog you can turn on the “Duplicate Merged Layers Only” checkbox so that the duplicate you’re creating will be flattened. You can then convert that duplicate image to the desired color space and continue working with that copy of the image as needed, preserving the original master image with all layers intact.

Folder Strategy Challenge

Facebooktwitterlinkedin

Today’s Question: I saw your video on your workflow for importing photos. That works great for a single place or date or subject/trip. But what is your recommended workflow for importing a batch of photos taken over time at various locations/months and varied unique subjects/events. This happens when I periodically import my iPhone/iPad photos or take a while to import photos from my camera.

Tim’s Quick Answer: As a general rule, I recommend using a folder structure that reflects the way you think about your photos with an individual folder for each photo trip or outing. In cases where that approach doesn’t work, I recommend a hybrid approach that may include a handful of general folders. In some cases a date-based folder structure might even be appropriate.

More Detail: In my opinion it is critically important to define a folder structure that can serve as a foundation of your overall image-management workflow. In general I find that most photographers (including myself) use the folder structure as a first step in locating a specific folder. While metadata values such as keywords, star ratings, and other details might also prove very helpful in locating a particular photo, navigating to a specific folder is often the first significant step toward locating an image.

That said, there are certainly situations where this approach doesn’t quite fit the needs when it comes to organizing your photos. For some photographers this folder strategy doesn’t work at all, and for other photographers (such as reflected in today’s question) the approach doesn’t work in certain situations.

In this type of situation I recommend first considering whether a hybrid approach provide a good solution. For example, you could organize most of your photos using a folder structure where the folders are named based on the way you think about a given photo shoot or trip. For those photos that don’t really fit well into this approach, you could create a separate folder structure.

For example, if you’re also managing more “casual” captures made with a smartphone alongside your master collection of photos, you might want to create a folder called “Phone Captures”, for example. Any captures from your phone that were part of an overall photo trip or outing could be placed in the folder along with the other photos from that trip. Images that don’t fit into your existing folder structure can be placed into the “Phone Captures” folder.

You might also consider a date-based folder structure as part of this strategy for photos that don’t fit into your normal folder structure. In general I prefer to avoid the use of date-based folders, since they often lead to confusion in the context of an image-management workflow. However, in some cases it may be the only option that really makes sense.

For example, consider a street photographer who lives in a big city and goes out just about every day to explore on foot and capture images. Those images are always captured in the same city, and there may not be a theme that ties together the photos from a given day or week. The only real way to divide those images into manageable segments may be to create a date-based folder structure.

To me the most important thing is to have a strategy that makes sense for your folder structure. To the extent possible, try to be very consistent about the approach you use. When there are exceptions to your normal structure, try to have define a specific strategy for those exceptions, such as by having folders for the categories of photos that don’t fit into your normal folder structure strategy.

As for the actual process of importing those “exception” photos into Lightroom, if the photos you’re importing will end up being placed into a variety of different folders, I recommend first downloading the images into a “download” folder so that you are getting the images into your workflow as quickly as possible. You can then sort through those images and move them into different folders as needed.

When creating that “download” folder, I recommend using a folder name that will ensure the folder appears at the very top of the alphabetical list of folders. For example, you could precede the folder name with an underscore (_) character to ensure this “temporary” folder will always appear at the top of your list of folders.

Bit Depth in Lightroom

Facebooktwitterlinkedin

Today’s Question: Does Lightroom process RAW captures in a 16-bit per channel mode?

Tim’s Quick Answer: Yes, RAW captures within Lightroom are processed within a 16-bit per channel workspace internally. Furthermore, the original RAW capture file is not directly modified when working within the Develop module in Lightroom.

More Detail: Lightroom provides a non-destructive workflow in the context of the Develop module, meaning your adjustments don’t affect the original image file on your hard drive. Therefore, in some respects you could say that the internal bit depth is not a significant factor, since it only really affects the preview you’re seeing in the Develop module while applying adjustments.

The effect of the higher bit depth really takes effect in the context of the final image you might share, whether that involves printing, presenting online, or simply creating a derivative image. It is at that point that the information within the original RAW capture (or other file type) is processed with the adjustment settings you’ve applied.

By using a 16-bit per channel mode internally, Lightroom helps ensure you will maintain the smoothest gradations of tone and color possible within your images. The resulting data is then used when you share your photo. If necessary, the original 16-bit per channel data may be converted to 8-bit per channel data if you have saved, for example a JPEG image. But by working in a 16-bit per channel space internally, that final image will be of the highest quality possible.

Bit Depth for Filters

Facebooktwitterlinkedin

Today’s Question: As an add-on question related to working in 16-bit per channel mode, can you offer a recommendation for how to fit in filter effects in Photoshop that generally only work on 8-bit files? Can the 16-bit file be “legitimately” converted to 8-bit for filter gallery effects and then converted back to 16-bit afterwards?

Tim’s Quick Answer: It is not recommended that you convert an image from 16-bit per channel mode to 8-bit mode and then back to 16-bit mode, as doing so may cause you to lose most of the benefits of working at a high bit depth in the first place. Instead I recommend making a copy of the image for the purposes of applying creative filters.

More Detail: There are two basic approaches you could take to applying creative filters that only support 8-bit per channel mode when your master image is in the 16-bit per channel mode.

The first approach is to simply create a copy of the master image. With that image open, first be sure to update the file on your hard drive by choosing File > Save from the menu. Then create a copy of the image by choosing Image > Duplicate from the menu. In the Duplicate Image dialog that appears, turn on the Duplicate Merged Layers Only checkbox. This will cause the duplicate image to be a flattened version of the original, so that all adjustments are applied directly to the pixel values. Click the OK button in the Duplicate Image dialog to create the duplicate.

At this point I recommend closing your original master image that has all of the layers intact, just to avoid any confusion with the derivative image you’re currently working on.

Next, convert the duplicate image to the 8-bit per channel mode by choosing Image > Mode > 8 Bits/Channel from the menu. Then choose File > Save As from the menu, and save the derivative image. In general I recommend saving this duplicate image in the same folder as the master image, with the same base filename, but with text added to the end of the filename to indicate it is a creative interpretation of the original.

You can now apply any of the creative filters you’d like, such as by choosing Filter > Filter Gallery from the menu. You may want to create one or more copies of the Background image layer as part of this process, depending on your specific intent for the image. For example, an additional layer would be necessary if you wanted to use a layer mask to apply a creative effect only in specific areas of your image.

When you are finished applying creative effects to the derivative image, be sure to choose File > Save to save the final changes to that image. When you’re finished, your original master image with all layers intact will of course still be available.

Lightroom versus Bridge

Facebooktwitterlinkedin

Today’s Question: I’ve just read your clarification of using Lightroom versus Camera Raw. Not being a user of Lightroom, I’m wondering if you could give a similar clarification between Lightroom and Adobe Bridge. I’ve recently started using Camera Raw for some processing, and use Bridge to label, rank, and search my photos. But I’m wondering if you can clarify what advantages you find that Lightroom has over Bridge for managing your portfolio.

Tim’s Quick Answer: The core difference between Adobe Lightroom and Adobe Bridge is that Lightroom uses a catalog that serves as a central database for managing your photos. The primary advantage of the catalog is that it enables you to more quickly search across your entire collection of photos, and to review photos even when the source files are not available. The disadvantage is that the catalog adds an additional element to manage in your workflow.

More Detail: In terms of your overall workflow for managing your photos, Lightroom and Bridge provide the same basic tools. For example, both enable you to identify favorite photos with star ratings, add keywords, and browse among photos across a large number of folders. Fundamentally, you can manage the same basic workflow with either application.

The difference is the catalog, which can be an advantage or disadvantage based on your perspective. I consider the catalog to be the biggest reason to consider Lightroom as the foundation of your workflow. That said, the catalog is also the perhaps the most maligned feature of Lightroom.

Because of the catalog, Lightroom makes certain tasks possible that would be difficult or impossible with Bridge. With Lightroom you can very easily browse and filter based on your entire library of photographic images. For example, with just a few clicks you can have Lightroom display every single image that you have assigned a five-star rating to.

In addition, because the Lightroom catalog contains both preview images and all of the metadata for your photos, you can actually browse and perform certain tasks with your photos even if the actual image files aren’t available. So, for example, if your photos are stored on an external hard drive but that drive is not connected to your computer, you can still browse those photos and review or update the metadata for the images.

That said, Lightroom also requires that you manage the catalog to a certain extent. As readers of my Ask Tim Grey eNewsletter can probably appreciate, many photographers have struggled with making proper use of the Lightroom catalog. For example, they have updated folders and images outside of Lightroom, creating a variety of challenges within the context of a Lightroom based workflow.

On balance, I very much prefer the benefits provided by the Lightroom catalog. That said, I do recognize that there are inherent challenges involved in managing that catalog. As a result, I do think it is important for each photographer to consider the potential advantages and disadvantages of each potential approach to their image-management workflow.