Ask Tim Grey

Today’s Question: I am running out of disk space and would like to know the best way to archive photos that are part of my Lightroom catalog without loosing the ability to restore them if needed.

Tim’s Quick Answer: There are a couple of options you might consider. First, you could simply move some of your photos to a different storage location, without removing them from your Lightroom catalog. Second, you could export some of your photos to a separate catalog, and then remove them from your master catalog.

More Detail: My personal preference in this situation would be to obtain a larger hard drive and then transition all photos to that new hard drive. This approach enables you to retain all of your photos within your Lightroom catalog, with the ability to gain access to greater storage capacity.

If you don’t want to transition to a larger hard drive, you could certainly archive a portion of your catalog to a different drive. The first approach would be to simply move some of your folders to a different drive, doing so within Lightroom.

For example, you could create an archival storage location on a different drive. Start by clicking the plus (+) icon to the right of the Folders header on the left panel in the Library module in Lightroom, choosing Add Folder from the popup menu that appears. Navigate to a location that has adequate storage, and click the New Folder button. Create a new folder named something like “PHOTO ARCHIVE” and click the Choose button to add that folder to Lightroom.

Make sure you have a good backup of your photos before actually moving images. You could then drag individual folders from the existing storage location to the new “PHOTO ARCHIVE” folder you created on a different storage device. This will free up space on your primary storage device, while still enabling you to access those photos within your Lightroom catalog.

If you prefer to move the photos and remove them from your Lightroom catalog, I recommend creating a new “archive” catalog. You can select all of the photos you want to archive, and then use a two-step process to copy them to another catalog and remove them from the current catalog.

The first step here would be to use the Export as Catalog command found on the File menu to create a new catalog with the selected images. Be sure to turn on the “Export negative files” checkbox so that the actual image files are copied as part of this process. Once you’ve confirmed the photos have been copied successfully and that you have a full backup of all of your photos, you can use the Photo > Remove Photo command to remove the selected photos from your Lightroom catalog, using the option to delete the photos from the disk as part of that process.

It is important to use caution with either of these approaches in order to safeguard your images and avoid problems in your catalog.

Today’s Question: How would using ZIP compression rather than “None” [in the External Editing settings for Preferences in Lightroom] affect opening the resulting photo once it is sent back to Lightroom or Photoshop?

Tim’s Quick Answer: TIFF image files with ZIP compression are supported by a variety of software applications, including Photoshop and Lightroom. As a result, there is not a significant issue with using the ZIP compression option for images you are managing in a workflow that includes Lightroom and Photoshop. The only potential issue would be the risk of other software applications not supporting TIFF images with ZIP compression. In general you won’t find this to be a problem.

More Detail: In the External Editing section of the Preferences dialog in Lightroom you can specify the file type and other settings to be used when sending a photo to another application, such as Photoshop or various plug-ins.

In the past there had been issues with a lack of support for TIFF images with compression applied, especially with the LZW compression option. These issues have largely been resolved, with most imaging applications supporting both ZIP and LZW compression for TIFF images.

As a result, I generally don’t hesitate to apply compression to TIFF images. I typically employ the LZW option rather than ZIP, but both of these options provide lossless compression and are widely supported. In other words, either option will typically be perfectly fine, and will result in smaller file sizes compared to the “None” option.

Frankly, the bigger issue here relates to the potential to create layered images in Photoshop. When you create layers in Photoshop the resulting image cannot be opened with layers intact using other software applications, because the features in question are specific to Photoshop. But again, in the context of a workflow employing Lightroom and Photoshop, this isn’t a significant concern.

Today’s Question: I have 98,000 photos in my Lightroom catalog. When I select all and use the Save Metadata command I get a message that some photos have been changed in an external application. Should I choose Cancel or Overwrite?

Tim’s Quick Answer: If you are confident that the Lightroom catalog reflects all of the metadata for your photos, you can choose the Overwrite option. If you’re not sure, you could review the metadata for photos individually, and then resolve the mismatch for each image.

More Detail: The message you’re receiving indicates that there is metadata in the actual photos on your hard drive that is not reflected within your Lightroom catalog. As you can probably appreciate, using the Overwrite option will replace the metadata in the photo on your hard drive using the metadata in the Lightroom catalog for each photo.

When there is a metadata mismatch it means there was an update to the metadata for an image outside of Lightroom. So, for example, you might have opened a RAW capture directly in Photoshop (without using Lightroom), causing Adobe Camera Raw settings to be updated in metadata. Or you might have added some metadata in Adobe Bridge, for example.

If you’re confident that you haven’t performed any metadata updates outside of Lightroom, it is probably safe to simply overwrite the existing metadata for the photos themselves. But you’ll want to be sure that you are truly confident that Lightroom contains all of the correct metadata for the photos.

You can review specific images to try to determine the nature of the metadata mismatch. For example, you can go to the Metadata option on the Library Filter Bar (View > Show Filter Bar from the menu in the Library module). Set a column to Metadata Status, and choose the option to display images with a mismatch, making sure that all other filter columns are set to “All”.

You can then review individual images, examining the metadata in Lightroom as well as with a browser such as Adobe Bridge to confirm there aren’t any metadata values shown in Adobe Bridge that are not reflected in Lightroom.

Once you’re confident that Lightroom reflects all of the metadata you are concerned about for your photos, you can overwrite the metadata for the image files on your hard drive.

Today’s Question: Is it more difficult for autofocus systems to grab focus at wider (lower numerical) f-stops? Specifically, does the camera spend more time hunting at f/4 than at f/11 due to factors such as narrower depth of field?

Tim’s Quick Answer: Actually, you could say that the opposite is true. There are actually two considerations here. First, under normal circumstances your aperture setting on the camera doesn’t impact autofocus, because the camera essentially ignores your aperture setting when it is establishing autofocus. However, the maximum aperture size for a given lens does impact autofocus, with a larger aperture size (smaller f-number) providing an advantage.

More Detail: You may have noticed that it can be much more difficult for your camera’s autofocus to achieve focus when photographing a scene at night. The camera might search back and forth attempting to achieve focus, and it might fail to establish focus altogether. This is due to the lack of available light in the scene.

Similarly, the maximum aperture size (smallest f-number) available for the lens impacts the amount of light that will be available. When you reduce the size of the lens aperture by stopping down the lens to a larger f-number, you are restricting the amount of light that enters the lens. Less light makes it more difficult to achieve autofocus, as noted above.

However, most cameras today ignore the aperture setting you have established when attempting to focus. The aperture is left wide-open until you actually take a photo, at which point the aperture closes down based on the setting you have established, the mirror moves out of the way if you are using a digital SLR camera, and the image is captured.

So your camera is establishing autofocus based on a wide-open aperture. But different lenses offer different maximum aperture sizes. For example, there are a variety of 70-200mm lenses available, and in many cases a given manufacturer will offer an f/2.8 version as well as an f/4 version of the lens. With the f/2.8 version of the lens you can obviously achieve narrower depth of field. But you may also be able to achieve autofocus faster with the f/2.8 depending on the specific circumstances, because more light is being let into the lens when the camera is focusing.

The bottom line is that in general the aperture setting on the camera (for most cameras and lenses) has no impact on autofocus performance. However, the maximum aperture size of the lens being used will have an impact on autofocus performance as well, with a larger maximum aperture size providing an advantage.

Today’s Question: I am going to be going on an African safari where we will be photographing in early morning and early evening light. I will be using a Panasonic FZ300 bridge camera, which tends to have some noise. I have the camera set so that it won’t go beyond an ISO of 400, because the noise gets pretty bad beyond that, but I usually shoot at ISO 100. It occurred to me that I might be better off setting my exposure compensation to the plus side rather than increase the ISO. My question is: Are they pretty much the same or would one be better than the other?

Tim’s Quick Answer: No, exposure compensation is not the same as ISO, and you can’t interchange the two. When it comes to photographing in low light conditions, you’ll need to keep a careful eye on the ISO setting, shutter speed, and lens aperture, to make sure you are creating the best image based on the necessary compromises.

More Detail: When we are photographing under relatively strong lighting conditions, we are often able to make our decisions about exposure settings without too much compromise. When photographing under low light conditions, there is going to be some compromise involved.

I recommend that you start off by evaluating the current conditions and determining a basic set of appropriate exposure settings. For example, you may very well be able to use a wide-open lens aperture (smallest f-number) if you are focusing from a relatively large distance and you aren’t worried about minimal depth of field.

Next, you’ll need to consider how fast a shutter speed you need based on movement within the scene and your ability to hold the camera steady if you won’t be using a tripod. As a general rule, you want to use a shutter speed that “matches” or exceeds the lens focal length. In other words, if you are using a 500mm lens you want a 1/500th of a second shutter speed (or faster), while with a 100mm lens you can probably use a 1/100th of a second shutter speed. You’ll also want to take into account motion within the scene, beyond your ability to hold the camera steady.

So, for example, you might be shooting with an aperture of f/4 and a shutter speed of 1/500th of a second when using a long lens. Now the question is how high do you need to set the ISO in order to achieve a proper exposure for the lighting conditions. In early morning light, before the sun is above the horizon, you might need to increase the ISO setting up to around 1600 in order to achieve a proper exposure.

Appropriate exposure settings will vary based on the specific conditions, of course, but the point is to evaluate the available light based on the settings you need to establish. In this specific scenario you can probably shoot with the lens aperture wide-open. Then consider a shutter speed that will be appropriate based on the degree of motion in the scene, and choose an ISO setting based on that.

Regardless, you want to achieve a proper exposure. Exposure compensation should be used to compensate for situations where the camera’s meter is “tricked” by the current lighting conditions. Exposure compensation does not, however, take the place of an appropriate ISO setting for the exposure.

In the type of situation you describe, noise will likely be unavoidable. Fortunately, through the use of noise-reduction software you can produce acceptable results even when there is noise in the original capture. But a bit of noise is better than a shot blurred by a shutter speed that is too slow, for example.

Today’s Question: As you know, Adobe Standard is the default camera calibration option applied to images in Lightroom and Adobe Camera Raw. I read a recent article discussing high contrast images where the application of Adobe Standard could increase the risk of clipping because of its default contrast enhancement, necessitating the use of exposure, shadow, highlight controls to remedy.

I would much prefer to start with what may appear to be a flatter image and then make my own judgments and adjustments concerning contrast. Secondly, I certainly don’t want the calibration standard to increase the risk of default clipping in my RAW images. So my own conclusion is that Adobe Standard should be abandoned and the use of a “flat” or “neutral” camera calibration should be applied to all imported images.

What are your thoughts?

Tim’s Quick Answer: This isn’t an issue I would worry too much about. In some respects, you can think of this as a situation where regardless of which Profile option you choose for Camera Calibration, you’re going to need to fine-tune your overall adjustments for the image.

More Detail: Processing RAW captures in general involves interpreting the information gathered by the image sensor to create the initial file. This is why each software application for processing RAW captures will produce a slightly (or sometimes significantly) different interpretation of the image.

The Camera Calibration controls in Lightroom and Adobe Camera Raw are primarily aimed at compensating for the behavior of the camera. For example, you can essentially change the definition of the primary colors (generally Red, Green, and Blue) used to create the final image.

The Profile popup within the Camera Calibration adjustments can be thought of in some ways as an overall preset that determines the basic interpretation of the photo. There are certainly differences in overall tonality and contrast based on the preset you select, but the various adjustments can also be compensated for relatively easily.

If the profile you select (such as the default “Adobe Standard” option) results in too much contrast, you can compensate by reducing the value for Whites and increasing the value for Blacks. If the profile you’ve selected results in a flat appearance you could instead increase the value for Whites and decrease the value for Blacks.

But again, the adjustments based on the Profile setting will not be so extreme that you’re not able to compensate with other adjustments. If you find that you’re happier with the initial interpretation of your images based on a Profile option other than “Adobe Standard”, there is no reason not to switch to that Profile option, perhaps even changing the default settings in Lightroom or Adobe Camera Raw based on your preferred Profile.

Today’s Question: Sometimes I don’t realize that I forgot to invert my selection [in Photoshop] until after I’ve added an adjustment layer, causing the layer mask to be the opposite of what I meant. Is there an easier way to fix that instead of using the Undo command to take a few steps back so I can invert the selection and then add the adjustment layer again?

Tim’s Quick Answer: Yes! You can simply invert the layer mask to reverse the area of the image being affected by an adjustment layer.

More Detail: I actually prefer to perform most of my work on a layer mask rather than a selection, in large part because this approach enables you to evaluate your work based on the actual effect in the image. Therefore, I often invert a layer mask for an adjustment layer rather than inverting the selection originally created as the basis of that layer mask.

A layer mask is really just a pixel-based image used in a different way compared to “normal” pixels in a photographic image. As such, you can use all of the various tools within Photoshop to alter a layer mask just as you would an image. In this case, for example, you can simply invert the layer mask to reverse the area being affected by a targeted adjustment.

The first step is to make sure that the layer mask is active, which you can do by clicking the mouse on the thumbnail for the layer mask on the Layers panel. Then simply use the Invert command to invert that layer mask. You can, for example, choose Image > Adjustments > Invert from the menu. You can also press Ctrl+I on Windows or Command+I on Macintosh as a keyboard shortcut to invert the currently active layer mask.

Today’s Question: Do you think Google’s announcement that the Nik Collection is now free means the end of the Nik Collection?

Tim’s Quick Answer: Yes. I suspect we will never see another update to the Nik Collection, as noted in the latest episode of Tim Grey TV (https://youtu.be/2Z0pYDysVDU).

More Detail: When Google originally acquired Nik Software, there was speculation that Google was really only interested in the Snapseed app for mobile devices. Rumors swirled that staff from Nik Software had been let go, and everything I heard suggested there would not be any updates to the Nik Collection.

I was a bit surprised when shortly after the acquisition there was an update to Analog Efex Pro, but I suspect that was just a matter of delivering an update that had already been nearly complete before the acquisition.

In the announcement posted on Google+ (https://plus.google.com/+NikCollection/posts/AFGsG2Di7EK), part of the explanation indicates that, “As we continue to focus our long-term investments in building incredible photo editing tools for mobile, including Google Photos and Snapseed, we’ve decided to make the Nik Collection desktop suite available for free….” Perhaps that means that means the Nik Collection will be updated and still be offered for free, similar to other apps that are available. But I interpret this statement as an indication that this is the end of the line for the Nik Collection.

I’ve been a big fan of many of the tools in the Nik Collection, and continue to use several of those tools in my workflow. I would love to see future updates to make these tools even better than they already are, but I suspect that won’t be the case.

Today’s Question: In your video about making photo buttons you recommended using a “dye sublimation” printer. Can you explain what this type of printer is, and why you recommended it?

Tim’s Quick Answer: A dye sublimation printer is a printer that uses solid dyes that are converted to a gaseous form and then impregnated into the surface of the paper. The result is a print that is more durable than other types of prints where the ink sits on the surface of the paper.

More Detail: In many respects, dye sublimation printers are very well suited for photographic prints. As noted above, prints made with a dye sublimation printer tend to be more durable than other types of prints, because the dyes are impregnated into the paper and thus better protected from the elements.

In addition, because dye sublimation printers employ dyes that are applied to paper in a gaseous form, these printers are a true continuous tone printer. A photo inkjet printer, by contrast, must apply many small ink droplets of varying colors and sizes to produce smooth gradations of tone and color. Dye sublimation printers produce smoother gradations because they are truly continuous tone, without the use of individual “dots”.

These attributes make dye sublimation printers an excellent choice for a variety of photo printing applications. As noted in the latest episode of Tim Grey TV (https://youtu.be/EaTgqyke-9I), one such use is for the creation of photo buttons. With a dye sublimation print you don’t even need to use the clear plastic sheet that would otherwise be necessary to protect the photo being applied to the button.

Of course, there are drawbacks to dye sublimation printers as well. In most cases dye sublimation printers are only able to print at a single paper size, which can be a significant limitation in many cases. In addition, dye sublimation printers tend to be a little slower than other types of printers, in part because of the multiple passes required to produce the final print.

These days I consider dye sublimation printers to be a specialty printer that is an excellent choice for certain applications, but not necessarily an ideal choice for all photographic situations.

Today’s Question: I’m looking at a couple of camera systems that offer varied advantages for my intended use. Suggestions regarding RAW conversion with one system are mixed. The other system offers DNG capture files. I’m curious if DNG has a decided advantage over other proprietary capture files when brought into Lightroom?

Tim’s Quick Answer: In my view the issue of using DNG files is a bit mixed, but on balance I prefer not to use the DNG format. This is primarily related to other workflow issues, however, and doesn’t relate to any image quality issues or other significant concerns.

More Detail: The Adobe Digital Negative (DNG) format was introduced as an openly documented alternative to proprietary RAW capture formats. While I certainly understand the concerns about proprietary RAW file formats, the availability of many software tools for processing these proprietary RAW formats makes those concerns largely unfounded in my view.

Therefore, I prefer to focus on the workflow considerations as they relate to the DNG format compared to RAW capture formats. That said, I would certainly concede that there is at least some advantage to using a format that is openly documented, compared to proprietary RAW formats that need to be reverse-engineered in many cases in order to be supported by image-processing software.

The DNG file format is capable of applying lossless compression to the image data, which helps to produce smaller file sizes than proprietary RAW capture formats without sacrificing any of the image data. In general a DNG file will be somewhere around 20% smaller than a similar proprietary RAW capture format. This can obviously be a considerable advantage when it comes to storage requirements.

One of the features of the DNG file format that is often touted as an advantage is actually something I consider to be a significant disadvantage for my workflow. That feature is the ability to embed metadata updates within the DNG file rather than storing that information in a separate XMP “sidecar” file as is the case for proprietary RAW capture formats.

One of the key problems with storing metadata within the DNG file is that doing so complicates the process of backing up that metadata. If you are using a synchronization-based approach to backing up your photos, for example, then updating metadata for a photo typically requires you to backup a completely new copy of the DNG image rather than simply updating the very small XMP sidecar file.

I would certainly say that there is no problem with using the DNG file format as a capture format in your photography as it relates to overall image quality. However, I do feel there are some disadvantages from a workflow perspective that cause me to prefer the use of proprietary RAW capture formats rather than DNG.

That said, I’m not sure this issue is important enough that I would choose one camera over the other based on whether a DNG versus proprietary RAW capture format were available with the camera.