Ask Tim Grey

Today’s Question: I periodically get an email from Backblaze featuring “Your Backup Summary”. Is it important that I review the backup summary, or can I just ignore it and let it run in the background?

Tim’s Quick Answer: I do recommend periodically reviewing your online backup summary with Backblaze, even if only to confirm that all drives have been successfully backed up recently.

More Detail: The Backblaze service provides an online backup, which means you don’t have direct access to the backup on a local hard drive. That’s part of the point of using a service such as Backblaze, since it provides an offsite backup. However, because it is an offsite backup that you’re not controlling directly, it can be good to review the status of the backup periodically to make sure your photos and other important data are indeed being backed up.

There are two basic things you can check when reviewing your online backup status. First is the overall summary of the backup. When you visit the Overview page of your online account with Backblaze, you’ll see a summary showing when the most recent file was backed up from each drive that you are backing up with Backblaze. This is a good way to confirm that the backup for all drives has been updated recently and can serve as a good reminder that you need to connect a particular drive so the backup can be updated.

In addition, you may want to periodically check the View/Restore Files tab for your online account. There you can navigate to a particular folder on a particular drive to confirm that files have been backed up. For example, you could check the files for a folder containing your most recent photos to ensure they were actually added to the backup properly.

While I have grown to trust Backblaze to properly manage my online backup, I do appreciate the peace of mind of being able to check the status of the drives I am backing up with Backblaze as well as specific folders and photos. I therefore recommend that all Backblaze users do a similar review periodically, if for no other reason than to improve your peace of mind.

You can learn more about the Backblaze online backup service that I recommend by following this link:

https://www.backblaze.com/cloud-backup/personal#af9pdk

Today’s Question: I have Lightroom Classic and have limped along with it fine for some time. But I have a lot to learn about organizing my images into folders and collections, and learning how to find them. My question for you is am I better off learning Bridge and Camera Raw, or sticking with Lightroom Classic for file management? I hate to switch to Bridge/Camera Raw, as it is yet something new to learn, but maybe it is superior to Lightroom Classic?

Tim’s Quick Answer: I wouldn’t say that Bridge or Lightroom Classic are necessarily better than one another, but rather that they are different. Bridge is a little easier and more forgiving, while Lightroom Classic offers some unique benefits but requires that you have a pretty good understanding of how it works to avoid problems.

More Detail: In many respects, Adobe Bridge is the safer choice compared to Lightroom Classic, in that Bridge is a browser that doesn’t rely on the catalog. Therefore, if you’re struggling with Lightroom Classic it might make more sense to consider Bridge, if for no other reason than to avoid the potential problems that can be created if you forget that all updates should be applied within Lightroom Classic, not through other software or the operating system.

While Bridge is overall a little simpler and more forgiving, there are some advantages to the catalog that is a core feature of Lightroom Classic. That includes being able to browse all photos even when the source files aren’t available (such as when an external hard drive is disconnected), the ability to search across your entire catalog of photos quickly and easily, and more.

I personally use Lightroom Classic to manage my catalog of almost 400,000 photos, and very much appreciate the benefits the catalog provides. But I also appreciate the potential problems that can occur when photographers use Lightroom Classic without fully understanding it. There’s a reason, after all, that my “Cleaning Up Your Mess in Lightroom Classic” course (https://www.greylearning.com/courses/lightroom-mess) is one of my best sellers.

Put simply: I personally prefer Lightroom Classic compared to Bridge (or the cloud-focused version of Lightroom). However, I will caveat that by saying if you’re going to use Lightroom Classic it is very important to make sure to understand it well before getting too deep into using it in your workflow.

For more information on choosing between Adobe Bridge, Lightroom, and Lightroom Classic, check out my webinar presentation from early this year on my “Tim Grey TV” channel on YouTube here:

https://www.youtube.com/live/BwpneG4y0nQ?si=hE1txjZ3HWxCH-TH

Today’s Question: Is there a way to get a histogram in Bridge? I feel my several requests on this to Adobe have fallen on deaf ears. Or is there something else to use instead of a histogram in Bridge to evaluate exposure? For example, [without a histogram] I could not easily choose which exposure from a bracketed set was exposed to the right and did not have slightly blown out highlights.

Tim’s Quick Answer: Adobe Bridge does not include a histogram panel, but you could select multiple images and open them in Camera Raw to evaluate the histogram there.

More Detail: Adobe Bridge is a popular tool for organizing photos, especially for photographers who are primarily using Photoshop to optimize their photos and who do not want to use Lightroom Classic (or the other versions of Lightroom). However, the absence of a histogram panel in Bridge can create a little bit of a workflow challenge, such as when you want to evaluate the exposure of several bracketed exposures.

While you can’t view a histogram directly in Bridge, you can do so in Camera Raw. If you select one or more photos in Bridge and then double-click, by default the images will open in Photoshop within the Camera Raw dialog. However, you can work more efficiently (especially if you simply want to view the histogram without editing a photo) by turning on the option to edit with Camera Raw via Bridge rather than Photoshop.

To edit with Camera Raw directly in Bridge rather than launching Photoshop, go to the General tab of the Preferences dialog in Adobe Bridge and turn on the “Double-Click Edits Camera Raw Settings in Bridge” checkbox. With this option enabled you can select multiple photos and double-click one of the selected photos to open all of them in Camera Raw. You can switch among the photos on the filmstrip in Camera Raw, evaluating the histogram for each. You can then click the Done button to return to Bridge, or select one or more images on the filmstrip in Camera Raw and click the Open button to open them in Photoshop.

While this process isn’t as efficient as it would be if Bridge simply included a histogram, it is still a relatively streamlined workflow overall. That’s especially true if you’ll ultimately want to open an image in Photoshop after evaluating the histogram.

Note that my comprehensive course on “Adobe Bridge for Photographers” can help you learn to use Bridge to organize your photos. This course is included in the GreyLearning Ultimate Bundle at no additional cost, but is also available as a standalone course here:

https://www.greylearning.com/courses/adobe-bridge-for-photographers

Today’s Question: Is it possible to create a still photo from a video clip? I recorded videos with my camera of whales breaching and wish I had still images as well. Is this possible?

Tim’s Quick Answer: Yes, you can capture an individual frame of a video using software such as Photoshop or Lightroom Classic (among others). However, it is important to keep in mind that the image may be at a relatively low resolution depending on the resolution of the video.

More Detail: Many cameras support the recording of video in addition to capturing still images. In many cases, however, that video is recorded at a lower resolution than the still images the camera is capable of capturing. For example, many cameras capture video at 1920×1080 pixels, which equates to just over 2 megapixels. Some cameras offer 4K resolution video, which typically has resolution of 3840×2160 pixels, which translates to just over 8 megapixels. The point is that in many cases capturing a still image from a video may result in an image of lower resolution (and therefore lower quality) than you might have anticipated.

In Photoshop you can capture a still frame from a video by first opening the video in Photoshop. This can be done just like opening a still image. When you open a video, you should see the Timeline panel automatically. On the Timeline panel you can use the playhead to navigate to the position in the video that you want to capture as a still image. When you’re at the frame you want, go to the menu and choose File > Save a Copy. You can then update the filename, choose the location, and specify the file format and any other available options to save a still image based on the current frame of the video.

In Lightroom Classic you can browse the video you want to capture a still frame from in the Library module. Drag the playhead to the position in the video you want to capture a still image based on. Then click the Frame button (the rectangular icon toward the far right of the playhead area) and choose “Capture Frame” from the popup menu. This will save a JPEG image based on the current frame of the video, in a stack with the video. You could then export a copy of that image, for example.

In many cases it is better to capture a still photo rather than planning to extract a still frame from a video after the capture. However, for situations where you only captured a video, you can most certainly extract an image from the video.

I covered the topic of capturing a still frame from a video, as well as the overall process of optimizing videos in Lightroom Classic, in my lesson “Optimizing Video”, which is Chapter 3, Lesson 10, in my comprehensive video training course “Mastering Lightroom Classic”. This course is included at no additional cost in my GreyLearning Ultimate Bundle, but is also available as a standalone video course here:

https://www.greylearning.com/courses/mastering-lightroom-classic-2023

Today’s Question: In Lightroom Classic I see the “Move files on disk” message regularly and I like having it there so I don’t accidentally move images or folders. If you turn on the “Don’t show again” checkbox, and then change your mind about wanting to see the messages again, do you have any idea how to restore this dialog box?

Tim’s Quick Answer: Yes, you can restore this (and all other warning dialogs) by clicking the “Reset all warning dialogs” button on the General tab of the Preferences dialog in Lightroom Classic.

More Detail: Many of the warning dialogs in Lightroom Classic include a “Don’t show again” checkbox. If you turn on that checkbox for a particular warning dialog, that specific warning will not be presented again.

If you have changed your mind and want to restore one or more of the warnings, the only option is to enable all of them again by clicking the “Reset all warning dialogs” button on the General tab of the Preferences dialog.

After clicking this button, all warning dialogs you had previously disabled will be enabled again. Therefore, if there are dialogs you still don’t want to see, you’ll need to turn on the “Don’t show again” checkbox again for the specific dialogs you want to disable.

The task of configuring the Preferences and other settings in Lightroom Classic is a topic I covered in great detail in the lesson “Configuring Lightroom Classic”, which is Chapter 1, Lesson 3, in my comprehensive video training course “Mastering Lightroom Classic”. This course is included at no additional cost in my GreyLearning Ultimate Bundle, but is also available as a standalone video course here:

https://www.greylearning.com/courses/mastering-lightroom-classic-2023

Today’s Question: When assembling a composite panorama is there any significant differences or advantages between processing the RAW files in Camera Raw or Lightroom before merging into a composite panorama versus simply merging the original RAW files into a composite panorama, flattening it and saving it as a PSD image file, and then using the Camera Raw Filter for editing using the selected image layer in Photoshop?

Tim’s Quick Answer: There is at least a theoretical advantage to processing the raw captures via Camera Raw or Lightroom rather than rendering into a composite panorama first. From a practical perspective the advantage is more about workflow flexibility.

More Detail: If you process raw captures and assemble a composite panorama using Camera Raw or Lightroom, you are processing the original raw data using the applicable adjustments. This provides a potential benefit in terms of image quality compared to applying adjustments to rendered pixel data later in your workflow, such as with the Camera Raw filter in Photoshop.

The advantage in terms of image quality generally won’t be very significant unless relatively strong adjustments are required. The stronger the adjustments, the greater the advantage of working with the raw capture data rather than rendered pixel data.

In my view, however, the key advantage is more about workflow flexibility and efficiency. If you assemble a composite panorama using Camera Raw or Lightroom you are creating an Adobe DNG file that essentially amounts to a new raw capture. If you process that image, the adjustments you applied before assembling the composite panorama are still non-destructive, so you can change the settings without degrading image quality.

For example, if you convert raw captures to black and white in Camera Raw or Lightroom and then merge the images to a composite panorama using Camera Raw or Lightroom, the adjustments are simply metadata values. You could later change the Treatment option from black and white to color, and you would be back to the original color version of the image.

From a workflow perspective, I therefore prefer to use Camera Raw or Lightroom to assemble composite panoramas. The only reason I would use Photoshop to assemble with a more manual process is if the panorama didn’t come together well with Camera Raw or Lightroom. In that case, the images can be assembled into layers in conjunction with layer masks to merge the images together. Thankfully, most of the time Camera Raw or Lightroom do a great job of assembling composite panoramas.

Note that I covered the process of assembling composite panorams in great detail in my lesson “Panoramas and High Dynamic Range Images”, which is Chapter 3, Lesson 8, in my comprehensive video training course “Mastering Lightroom Classic”. This course is included at no additional cost in my GreyLearning Ultimate Bundle, but is also available as a standalone video course here:

https://www.greylearning.com/courses/mastering-lightroom-classic-2023

Today’s Question: As a follow-up to your discussion of the Adobe DNG file format, what is your opinion of setting the camera to use DNG rather than a proprietary raw capture [for cameras that support DNG as a capture format]?

Tim’s Quick Answer: As long as you don’t need to make use of camera features (if applicable) that require a proprietary raw capture format, I think it is perfectly fine to capture in DNG (Adobe Digital Negative).

More Detail: As noted in yesterday’s Ask Tim Grey eNewsletter, while there are potential advantages to converting raw captures to the Adobe DNG format, I personally prefer to retain the original proprietary raw captures rather than converting.

That said, some cameras do support native capture in the Adobe DNG format. As long as doing so doesn’t cause you to be unable to make use of special camera features that are important to you, I think capturing in DNG is perfectly fine. And I should hasten to add that in my experience very few photographers make use of the types of special features that require a proprietary raw capture format.

In my view there frankly isn’t a strong argument one way or the other when it comes to choosing between Adobe DNG and a proprietary raw capture format. If one of the potential advantages for one over the other is compelling to you, then you should choose based on that.

I personally prefer to use the proprietary raw capture format, in part so that updating a backup when there have been metadata changes only requires backing up the very small XMP “sidecar” file rather than backing up an entire DNG file. But that is frankly a minor issue. Either option can be perfectly fine depending on your preference and workflow needs.

Today’s Question: I’m still not clear about the pros and cons of converting RAW files to DNG in my workflow. Can you clarify?

Tim’s Quick Answer: The primary advantage of converting raw captures to the Adobe Digital Negative (DNG) format is to avoid the use of proprietary file formats that may not be supported in the long term. The primary disadvantage is the risk of losing access to certain features that can only be accessed by using software from the camera manufacturer in conjunction with a raw capture file.

More Detail: My personal view is that the advantages of converting to the Adobe DNG format are not so compelling that I’m willing to discard my original proprietary raw captures. That said, there are some advantages to consider if you’re thinking about using the DNG format in your workflow.

One of the primary reasons the Adobe DNG format was created was to address concerns about proprietary raw capture formats that might not be supported in future software or operating systems. The DNG format is openly documented, so that even if Adobe discontinued support for the format other software developers could provide solutions. Seeing how a number of software developers (including Adobe) have reverse-engineered raw capture formats to provide support, this isn’t a significant concern in my view.

Another potential advantage of the DNG format is that the file size will generally be somewhat smaller than the raw capture it replaces, based on lossless compression. This can often reduce the file size by about 15% or more, which can obviously have a significant impact when dealing with a large number of photos.

The DNG format is also touted as not requiring an XMP “sidecar” file, because metadata is saved within the DNG file. While this does provide consolidation, there are also some drawbacks to this, such as requiring more time to perform an incremental backup because the updated DNG file is significantly larger than an updated XMP file.

The main drawback of converting to DNG is that you’re potentially losing the original raw capture data. You could always keep both files or embed the original raw capture in the DNG as part of the conversion, but to me both of these options take away some of the key advantages of converting to DNG in the first place.

For most photographers under most circumstances, converting to DNG probably won’t cause them to miss out on any important data. But if you use certain features of certain cameras, such as the automatic dust spot removal supported by some Canon cameras, you need the proprietary raw capture to be able to make use of the feature.

All things considered I don’t see any compelling reason to convert proprietary raw captures to Adobe DNG. But I also don’t think there is any significant risk in doing so for most photographers with a typical workflow. But on balance, I prefer to retain the proprietary raw capture format and not convert those images to DNG.

Today’s Question: In Adobe Bridge can you make changes on-the-fly to an existing workspace, for example the Light Table workspace without saving the changes or are all modifications saved automatically?

Tim’s Quick Answer: If you make changes to a workspace without saving, then the changes are not preserved as part of the selected workspace. In other words, if you then reset the workspace, you’ll undo the changes you made that were not saved.

More Detail: Adobe Bridge provides a pretty good amount of flexibility in terms of configuring the interface. This primarily revolves around choosing which panels will be visible versus hidden and how the visible panels are arranged and grouped.

To customize the workspace, you can start by selecting a workspace that represents a good starting point by choosing Window > Workspace from the menu and then selecting the desired workspace from the submenu. You can then choose panels from the Window menu to reveal or hide panels based on your preference. You can also drag panels around to arrange them to better suit your workflow preferences, including the option to group panels together to consolidate them.

As you make changes to the current workspace, those changes are not saved as part of the workspace you selected. The changes will simply be retained until you make a change or choose a different workspace.

If you want to preserve the changes you’ve made to the workspace, you can go to the menu and choose Window > Workspace > Save Changes to this Workspace to update the current workspace to reflect the changes you’ve made. If you want to preserve the existing workspace and save a new workspace, you can choose Window > Workspace > Save as New Workspace.

Note that after making changes to an existing workspace, you can also revert to the saved version by choosing Window > Workspace > Reset to Saved Layout.

You can learn more about customizing the interface in Adobe Bridge in the video “Customizing the Interface”, which is Chapter 1, Lesson 2, in my video course on “Adobe Bridge for Photographers”. This course is included at no additional cost in my GreyLearning Ultimate Bundle, and is also available as a standalone course here:

https://www.greylearning.com/courses/adobe-bridge-for-photographers

Today’s Question: In Lightroom Classic, is there a way to apply a profile to only part of an image? I do not see how and assuming I am correct, is there a way to determine what settings the creator of the profile used so that I can duplicate that as a preset and then use masks?

Tim’s Quick Answer: No, it is not possible to apply a profile to part of an image with the Masking feature in Lightroom Classic (or Camera Raw). Unfortunately, it isn’t possible to easily mimic the results of a profile because they aren’t based on adjustments in the Develop module.

More Detail: The Profile option found in the Basic section of the right panel in Lightroom Classic (or near the top of the Edit panel in Camera Raw) enables you to apply a baseline interpretation of an image to alter the appearance or apply a creative effect. While choosing a profile will alter the appearance of the image, the effect is not the same as a preset with saved settings from the Develop module, but rather a basic interpretation of the image data. For those familiar, you can think of these profiles as being more like an ICC profile used for color management rather than a preset from the Develop module.

When you select a profile for an image it affects the entire image, altering how the image data is interpreted before the adjustment settings from the Develop module are applied. The profile option is not available as a targeted adjustment for the Masking features.

Furthermore, it is not possible to reveal what the underlying profile is actually doing to the image, at least not easily. The included profiles are part of the application, not separate profile files. Third-party profiles are XMP files, but without a clear indication of what they represent in terms of how the image is affected.

Therefore, the only real way to reproduce the effect of a profile for a targeted adjustment is to evaluate the effect of the profile and try to reproduce that effect as best you can using other adjustments in the Develop module. If the intent is to use the effect for a targeted adjustment, that task is made more difficult by the fact that the Masking features don’t include all adjustments that are otherwise available in the Develop module.