Ask Tim Grey

Today’s Question: Is there a way to adjust the export file sizes in Lightroom? I would like for them to be just a tad larger than what I’m currently getting.

Tim’s Quick Answer: You can most certainly specify pixel dimensions (image size) for photos you export from Lightroom, including creating an image that is larger than the pixel dimensions of the original capture. The options related to output size can be found in the Image Sizing section of the Export dialog.

More Detail: By default, when you use the Export feature in Lightroom to create a derivative image, that image will have the same pixel dimensions as the original capture you’re exporting. Obviously, in many cases you will want to change the pixel dimensions for that derivative image, such as for creating an image file for printing at a specific size.

If you turn on the “Resize to Fit” checkbox in the Image Sizing section of the Export dialog, you can specify the output dimensions you want to use. Note that in order to resize the image you are creating as part of this process, you need to have something other than “Original” or “DNG” selected from the Image Format popup in the File Settings Section of the Export dialog.

With the “Resize to Fit” checkbox turned on, you can then specify the output dimensions using the various options. The settings available allow you to choose from a variety of methods for describing the output size of the image being exported, the dimensions, and the unit of measure.

Note that there is a “Don’t Enlarge” checkbox that you can turn on if you want to make sure that the image you are exporting can’t be sized to dimensions that are larger than the original image. This will help ensure that, for example, you aren’t risking a reduction in image quality for lower-resolution source images. But if you leave that checkbox turned off you can specify dimensions that are larger than the original dimensions for the image you’re capturing, and the derivative image will then be sized based on the settings you have established.

I should add that here I’m referring to the overall pixel dimensions of the image file being created during the export process. The Quality setting also impacts the file size when you are creating a JPEG image from your source photo. That file size doesn’t relate directly to the potential output size for the derivative image, but rather to the overall quality. In other words, when it comes to producing derivative images for high-quality output I would focus on the actual pixel dimensions of the image, not on the file size (in megabytes, for example) of that image.

Today’s Question: When I removed my hard drive from the laptop, the photos in Lightroom showed as “this file is missing”. Is this correct? Should the original source remain plugged in order to work in Lightroom? I do understand that I won’t be working on the original photo.

Tim’s Quick Answer: When the source images are not available on the computer you’re using for Lightroom, the images will indeed show as “missing”. There is no need to be alarmed, provided you know that the photos are only missing because your hard drive is disconnected. And even while the drive is disconnected, you can still update metadata and perform certain other tasks based on the Lightroom catalog.

More Detail: Because Lightroom employs a catalog to maintain information about your photos, you can work with your photos to some extent even when the source images are not available. For example, you can still view thumbnails and previews of your photos, because Lightroom generates those images for reference and maintains them with the catalog rather than with the source photos.

You can also update metadata, such as assigning star ratings, adding keywords, and other details, since that information is written to the catalog as well. If you generate Smart Previews for your photos you can even work in the Develop module and even export copies of your photos based on Smart Previews, all while the source files are unavailable due to the disconnected hard drive.

So, while there are situations where you need to have the source photos available to Lightroom, you can also perform a wide variety of tasks even when you have disconnected an external hard drive that contains your photos. This is one of the benefits of using Lightroom to manage your photos, as opposed to other software tools that do not employ a catalog.

Today’s Question: When using a camera with an APS-C sensor (that we will assume for ease of calculation has a crop of 1.5X). If there is a 50mm lens on that camera, the field of view is actually equivalent to 75mm lens because of the crop factor. So when I look through the viewfinder of the camera, am I seeing a 75mm view? When I take the photo, does the photo itself take on the 50mm or the 75mm field of view?

Tim’s Quick Answer: The “crop factor” determines the field of view actually seen by the image sensor for the current lens, and also impacts what you see through the viewfinder. So with your example of a 50mm lens on a camera with a 1.5X crop factor, the viewfinder would show an angle of view equivalent to a 75mm lens, and the captured photo would reflect that angle of view as well.

More Detail: I really wish we could start using “angle of view” rather than “focal length” to describe the behavior of a given lens. In the days of film photography the general use of focal length made some sense, since 35mm film was arguably the film format used most often. But even with film photography there were different film frame sizes, resulting in different behaviors for a given lens focal length depending on what film size was being used.

Today the situation is perhaps even more confusing, with digital cameras offering “full frame” 35mm sensor sizes, “cropped” sensors of various sizes, medium format imaging sensors, and more. Thus, there is either confusion about what the focal length of a lens really is, or about what the behavior of that lens will be.

For example, the primary lens on the iPhone has an actual focal length of around 4mm (which varies depending on the specific model of iPhone), but with the small sensor size of the iPhone that lens behaves like a lens with a focal length of around 30mm (again, depending on model). Talking about “effective” focal lengths is cumbersome and potentially confusing, and talking about actual focal lengths doesn’t clearly describe the behavior of the lens.

When you are using a sensor with a size that differs from a single frame of 35mm film, the behavior of the lens will be different than a lens with the same focal length would be on a 35mm camera. That is because the image circle projected by the lens is being “cropped” due to the smaller sensor. That change in the field of view is reflected by the image captured by the sensor, as well as by the viewfinder of the camera.

Note, however, that in many cases the viewfinder of the camera is not showing you a 100% view of the actual final image. Some viewfinders, for example, show around 95% of the total field of view being captured by the sensor. But in general you can expect the final image to be cropped based on the cropping factor of that sensor, and for the viewfinder to reflect that cropped view of the scene.

Today’s Question: Can you address Auto White Balance (AWB) versus choosing Cloudy or Sunny or a given Kelvin temperature? AWB tends toward a blue cast. Is that fixed in the RAW file and can that be removed by changing temperature in Lightroom?

Tim’s Quick Answer: If you are shooting in RAW mode, the white balance settings you establish in the camera are purely metadata settings that establish the default adjustments when processing the RAW capture. Therefore, setting an optimal white balance compensation in-camera provides only a workflow benefit, not an image quality benefit. For JPEG captures, of course, the settings are fixed in the image, making those white balance settings important for JPEG capture.

More Detail: Current digital cameras generally do a very good job of determining a good setting for the white balance compensation, resulting in relatively accurate color in your initial captures. That is especially true under “normal” conditions, such as daylight. However, as noted in the question today, those settings are not always optimal. Fortunately, for RAW capture you have complete flexibility to refine your settings when processing the images after the capture, with no penalty in terms of image quality.

For RAW capture the white balance settings (generally a color temperature and tint setting) are simply metadata values. Those values will become the default settings for the RAW processing in Lightroom, Adobe Camera Raw, or other software. But you can refine those settings as needed to get the best final result, without any negative impact on the image quality.

In other words, from the standpoint of image quality, it doesn’t matter at all which setting you’ve used for white balance in the camera if you are shooting in RAW mode. No matter how inaccurate the settings are, you can adjust in post-processing.

Of course, from a workflow standpoint it is generally advantageous to have the color as accurate as possible in the initial capture. Thus, you may want to choose a specific white balance preset (such as Daylight or Cloudy). You can also dial in a specific Kelvin value to shift the balance between blue and yellow. For most cameras you’ll also find a Tint control, allowing you to make adjustments on a green/magenta axis. You can even use a “custom” option in many cases, where you photograph a gray card or other neutral target and use that image as the basis of an automatic in-camera white balance adjustment.

You might even find that setting the “wrong” white balance preset provides you with a good starting point. Using the “Cloudy” or “Shade” setting even on a sunny day, for example, will result in a photo that is a little warmer (more yellow) than you would otherwise achieve. Again, this isn’t critical for RAW captures, but may provide you with a workflow advantage, and a more pleasing image to review on your camera’s LCD display.

Today’s Question: Is it possible in Lightroom to capture a still image from a video sequence that I have?

Tim’s Quick Answer: Yes, you can most certainly create an image in Lightroom based on a frame of a video clip. Simply pause the video on the frame you want, click the rectangular icon to the right of the time indicator presented below the video during playback, and choose “Capture Frame” from the popup menu. A JPEG image will be created for the current frame of the video.

More Detail: Creating an image based on a single frame of a video clip can obviously be helpful in terms of creating a still image from a video capture. However, capturing a single frame from a video can also be helpful for optimizing the appearance of a video.

You can adjust the appearance of a video using the controls in the Quick Develop section of the right panel in the Library module. You cannot, however, adjust the appearance of a video in the Develop module. However, you can apply adjustments to a still image captured from a video, and then apply those adjustments to the video itself.

The first step, of course, is to capture a still image from the video, as noted above. Then optimize that still image in the Develop module. Just keep in mind that only a small number of adjustments can be applied to videos within Lightroom. Those adjustments include White Balance, Basic Tone (Exposure, Contrast, Whites, Blacks, Saturation, and Vibrance), Tone Curve, Treatment, Split Toning, Process Version, and Calibration.

Once you have finalized the adjustments for the still image within the Develop module, you can save those settings as a preset. Then return to the Library module, select the video clip you want to adjust, and choose the preset from the popup in the Quick Develop section of the right panel. The adjustments you applied in the Develop module for the still image will then be applied to the video clip. You can then export a new copy of the video to create a final version with the adjustments applied.

Today’s Question: Thank you for your excellent presentations at the Chicago Area Photographic School this weekend. In reviewing my notes I realized I missed the “secret” to viewing the full-resolution layer mask in place of the image [in Photoshop]. Can you remind me of that technique?

Tim’s Quick Answer: You can view a layer mask in place of the full image by holding the Alt key on Windows or the Option key on Macintosh and then clicking on the thumbnail for the layer mask on the Layers panel. This will display the layer mask in place of the image, and you can return to the image by once again holding the Alt/Option key and clicking on the layer mask thumbnail.

More Detail: This technique of viewing the full-resolution layer mask can be tremendously helpful for evaluating the quality of your layer mask, and fixing any “blemishes” within the mask. For example, if you were painting on the layer mask but didn’t quite paint all the way into the corners of the image, it will be very easy to see the problem once you’re viewing the full layer mask. You can then work with that view enabled to cleanup your layer mask.

It can also be helpful to temporarily disable the layer mask so that the adjustment applies to the entire image, and then toggle back to having the layer mask enabled. By switching back and forth between having the layer mask disabled versus enabled, you can often spot areas of the image where the layer mask isn’t quite perfect. To toggle whether the layer mask is enabled versus disabled, hold the Shift key while clicking on the thumbnail for the layer mask on the Layers panel.

If you are a GreyLearning subscriber, you can view a lesson with more information about evaluating your layer masks within the GreyLearning video training library (http://www.greylearning.com). Simply go to the “Photoshop: Targeted Adjustments” course and view Lesson 6, which is titled “Evaluating the Layer Mask”.

Today’s Question: I often use PNG files in compositing images, because they allow for transparent pixels. Are they like JPEGs in that every time you open, modify, then save the file, you lose image quality?

Tim’s Quick Answer: No, PNG (Portable Network Graphics) images do not have the same quality loss that can be a factor with JPEG images, because the PNG format supports lossless image compression to reduce file size. When you save a normal JPEG image, the compression applied always results in some loss of quality due to the type of compression used.

More Detail: The compression used for JPEG images is “lossy” compression, meaning some information is lost in the process of reducing the file size for a JPEG image. JPEG compression operates by simplifying the information within pixel grids (generally 16 by 16 pixels to a block). That compression causes a change in some pixel values, and can also result in artifacts such as a slight grid texture reflecting the grid used for compression.

Because the compression for a JPEG image is re-applied every time the file is saved, if there have been changes to the pixel values for the image it is possible to have a cumulative degradation effect for JPEG images that are repeatedly altered and saved. Simply opening a JPEG and re-saving it will not cause any further degradation, because the same algorithm would be applied to the same image data, resulting in the same result for the JPEG file.

The PNG file format employs lossless compression, so re-saving the image multiple times (even with changes) will not cause a further degradation of image quality.

I should hasten to add that while PNG images do include support for transparency, they don’t offer the flexibility of an image layer with a layer mask in Photoshop. The transparency of PNG images can most certainly be convenient when assembling images into a composite. However, if you have erased pixels to create that transparency, you can never get those pixels back in the PNG image.

Instead, I prefer to employ a layer mask in the original image, saving that result as a TIFF (Tagged Image File Format) image so that the layer mask is preserved. This approach enables you to employ the effect of transparency for a composite image, while still maintaining the ability to go back and alter which portions of the source image are actually visible versus hidden.

Today’s Question: I see that there is now a version 6.3 update to Lightroom. After the problems many photographers (including me) experienced with the 6.2 update, I’m a little nervous. Do you think it is safe to upgrade?

Tim’s Quick Answer: Based on my testing and feedback from others who have already installed the 6.3 (or 2015.3 for Creative Cloud customers) update for Lightroom, I do recommend installing this update. When you upgrade to version 6.3 (2015.3) update, you will gain access to support for some new RAW capture formats, benefit from a number of bug fixes, and also have the Import process returned (for the most part) to the version from before the major changes that were implemented in the 6.2 update.

More Detail: As I have probably made clear previously, I was not happy with the changes to the Import feature implemented in Lightroom 6.3. Several updated default options were (in my opinion) problematic, some features were removed, and the controls for changing various settings were hidden by default. So I’m happy that the 6.3 update to Lightroom reverts to the previous Import experience.

There had also been a variety of stability problems introduced in the version 6.2 update to Lightroom. While most of those were fixed with a 6.2.1 update, this latest update to version 6.3 includes additional improvements and bug fixes.

As noted above, I have tested the version 6.3 update rather extensively, and have found it to be very stable. I’ve also received feedback from others who have had a similar experience. So, my recommendation is to upgrade to version 6.3 (2015.3) right away. You can do so via the Creative Cloud application (if you are a subscriber), or by choosing Help > Updates from the menu.

Today’s Question: I’m still struggling with the fact that I keep being asked to log in and relicense every time I open the Creative Cloud. Do you know of a solution?

Tim’s Quick Answer: In my experience, there are two solutions (both of which are somewhat related). The first is to simply update to the latest version of the Creative Cloud application. The second is to uninstall and reinstall the Creative Cloud application. In my experience, this has solved the issue of being asked frequently to sign in to your Creative Cloud account.

More Detail: Installing the latest update to the Creative Cloud application is generally very straightforward, and often required to make use of the application. When you pull up the Creative Cloud application you should be asked to upgrade if there is a new version available. If such an update is available, installing it should resolve your issue.

Otherwise, I would recommend uninstalling and reinstalling the Creative Cloud application. You can find the uninstall option in the Adobe Creative Cloud folder within the Program Files folder on Windows, or in the Applications folder on Macintosh.

If neither of these options provide a solution, you can find some more information about possible solutions through the Adobe support website here:

https://helpx.adobe.com/creative-cloud/kb/signed-out-sign-in-required-error-248.html

Today’s Question: I’ve noticed that on Facebook several of my friends (including you) have placed what is essentially a transparent French flag over their pictures. Would you please explain how one would go about doing something like this?

Tim’s Quick Answer: I know that there had been some “automatic” options to update your profile photo in this way, but I opted to create the effect “manually” in Photoshop. I first added an empty image layer above my photo. Then I filled that layer with blue, white, and red in one-third increments, using selections to assist that process. Finally, the Color blend mode was used to cause the color to alter the appearance of the underlying photo.

More Detail: The first step, of course, is to open the photo to which you want to apply the effect. Next, click the “Create a New Layer” button (the blank sheet of paper icon) at the bottom of the Layers panel to add a blank layer.

I used guides to assist with dividing the image into thirds. To take this approach, choose View > New Guide from the menu. Enter “33%” in the Position field, and make sure the Orientation option is set to Vertical. Then click OK to create the new guide. Choose View > New Guide again, enter “66%” in the Position field, and click OK to add a second guide.

With guides added to the image, you can choose the Rectangular Marquee tool from the toolbox and click and drag to create a selection from one corner of the image to the opposite end of the nearest guide. Then choose Edit > Fill from the menu, and choose the “Color” option from the Contents popup to bring up the Color Picker. Select the color you would like to use, and click OK to select the color. Then click OK again to fill the selection with the color.

You can then deselect the active selection by choosing Select > Deselect from the menu. Drag to create the next selection (between the two guides for the second color area, and then from the second guide to the right edge of the photo for the third color area). Use the Fill command for each of the other selections to fill with applicable color for each section.

Finally, set the blend mode for the new layer to Color, using the popup at the top-left of the Layers panel. The solid colors you used to fill the new layer will then be used to alter the underlying color of the image. You can also adjust the Opacity setting for this layer, using the control at the top-right of the Layers panel, to adjust the strength of the final effect.