Ask Tim Grey

Today’s Question: Am I loosing anything by converting files from Canon raw format to Adobe DNG? I’ve read that it is better to use the camera manufacturer’s raw format rather than DNG because the camera manufacturer may include data that DNG doesn’t include or support. Yet, I’ve never seen anyone name any such data. Do you know of any examples of data that are in native raw files that are excluded from a derived DNG file?

Tim’s Quick Answer: If you convert raw captures to Adobe DNG files and discard the original captures, the only potential information that could be lost would be “private” metadata. This is generally information that requires software from the camera manufacturer to access, with one example being the automatic sensor dust spot cleanup feature available on some models of Canon cameras.

More Detail: When you convert an image from a proprietary raw capture format to an Adobe DNG file you are retaining the original capture data as well as the standard metadata recorded at the time of capture. That metadata would include things like the details about the camera and lens used, the exposure settings, and more.

In addition to the standard metadata fields that are recorded by the camera, there may be some “private” metadata that is created by the camera but not necessarily openly documented. This type of metadata is often referred to as “maker notes” because they are a form of notes recorded by camera for purposes of the company that made the camera.

As noted above, one example of information saved in maker notes supported by some Canon cameras relates to the feature for automatic dust spot removal. When this feature is enabled, the camera determines where there are dust spots or other blemishes on the image sensor, and what amounts to a map of where those spots are is recorded into the maker notes for the capture. That metadata is not available to third party software, which means you need to use Canon’s software to make use of the data to perform an automatic image cleanup.

If you’re not making use of any features that can only be accessed using software from your camera manufacturer, and you don’t anticipate needing to make use of such a feature later, then it is safe to convert your raw captures to Adobe DNG files.

Today’s Question: I know that when you take photos with your phone you don’t keep them there. But surely you do have photos on your phone and I’m wondering what your workflow is for that and where you keep them. Do you use a synched Lightroom Mobile album or something else?

Tim’s Quick Answer: I happen to synchronize selected photos to my smartphone directly from my computer through the operating system. However, in general I consider synchronizing collections from Lightroom Classic to the Lightroom mobile app to be an excellent approach.

More Detail: In my view one of the most convenient ways to synchronize selected photos to a smartphone is to enable synchronization for selected collections in Lightroom Classic. Those collections and the photos they contain will then appear as albums in the Lightroom app on your smartphone.

The only reason I don’t make use of the option to synchronize photos from Lightroom Classic to the cloud so they are available in the Lightroom mobile app is that you can only synchronize a single catalog, and I need to be able to use that feature when teaching Lightroom Classic. I therefore have synchronization enabled for my current demo catalog, not the primary catalog that I use to manage all my photos.

If not for this issue, I would simply turn on synchronization for the collections in my Lightroom Classic catalog that I want to share, and those collections would appear as albums in the Lightroom app on my smartphone.

Therefore, I find it easiest to use computer-based synchronization for this purpose. I use an iPhone, and so I’m able to configure synchronization settings through the operating system when my iPhone is connected to the computer via USB. After connecting my iPhone to the computer, I can select it through the operating system similar to selecting an external hard drive. I can then go to the Photos tab and configure the settings for which images I want to synchronize. I maintain various folders to which I export copies of photos from Lightroom Classic that I want to be able to share.

My preference is to not keep new photos on my smartphone for very long. I download new photos, import them into Lightroom Classic, and delete them from my smartphone. I then use synchronization to make only selected photos available on my smartphone so I can easily share them with others directly on my device.

Today’s Question: In reading the article on collections in Adobe Bridge [in the November 2023 issue of Pixology magazine] I wondered, is doing this an alternative to Collections in Lightroom Classic for someone who doesn’t use Lightroom?

Tim’s Quick Answer: Yes, collections in Adobe Bridge function much the same as collections in Lightroom Classic, including both normal collections and smart collections.

More Detail: In Adobe Bridge you can create collections to group photos together beyond the folder structure in much the same way that you can create collections in Lightroom Classic. This includes the ability to create a normal collection that you manually add photos to, as well as the ability to create a smart collection that is essentially a saved search result based on metadata criteria you define.

Adding photos to a collection is simply a way to group those photos together. The images in a collection are simply references to the original, so you aren’t making copies of the source files or moving them to a different storage location, for example.

There is one potentially significant limitation of collections in Bridge compared to Lightroom Classic. Because Bridge doesn’t employ a catalog the way Lightroom Classic does, you can only view the photos in a collection if the source files are currently available. For example, if you store your photos on an external hard drive and that drive is not connected to the computer, Bridge will show the images as missing, and you won’t be able to see thumbnails for the photos within the collection until the source files are available again.

Lightroom Classic, on the other hand, enables you to see all photos in folders and collections even if the source files are not currently available, provided previews have already been generated for the images. That’s because the information about the photos as well as previews for the photos are stored as part of the catalog.

Despite this limitation in Bridge compared to Lightroom Classic, the ability to create collections in Bridge is a very useful feature. I discussed collections in Bridge in detail in an article in the November 2023 issue of my Pixology magazine for photographers, which you can learn more about here:

https://www.greylearning.com/courses/pixology-magazine

Today’s Question: Is there a suggested monitor brightness that should be used? I’m not interested in calibration but rather the brightness in cellphone, laptop, and computer monitors. I usually set brightness between 70-80% and some shared images are very dark until I go to 100% brightness.

Tim’s Quick Answer: In the absence of calibration, and when simply viewing images rather than editing them, I generally find that a brightness setting of around 80% works well. However, the best setting can vary significantly with changing ambient lighting conditions.

More Detail: When calibrating for print I typically recommend a brightness of 120 cd/m² (candelas per square meter). This helps ensure a relatively accurate view of the image on your monitor in terms of what would be expected when the image is printed. However, this also requires relatively dark viewing conditions so you’re able to see the image effectively at the reduced brightness setting.

In the absence of calibration, you’re really depending on your own evaluation of the brightness level of the display in the context of the current lighting conditions. And especially if the lighting levels are significantly variable, you’ll need to make significant adjustments to the display.

So, when you want to have an accurate view of an image for optimizing and especially when the intent is to print, I strongly recommend calibrating the display to a target brightness of about 120 cd/m² and working in a relatively dark environment when evaluating the image on your monitor display.

Otherwise, you can certainly adjust the brightness of the display to compensate for the ambient lighting conditions, but keep in mind that making adjustments under those circumstances may not yield optimal results. If the display is too bright, you’ll tend to make the image too dark, and vice versa.

This is also the reason that images received from others might look too bright or too dark. Without calibration on both sides, the image may not be optimized properly, and you may not be getting an accurate view of the image.

So, in general I find that a brightness level of around 80% works well, there are a number of variables that will cause you to need different settings in different circumstances. And when complete accuracy is your goal, it is best to calibrate and work in a relatively dark environment.

Today’s Question: I noticed that I have a discrepancy in my Lightroom Classic catalog that I can’t explain. I have all filters off, but Lightroom says I have 88,298 of 93,730 photos. I’m not sure why that with all filters off there is a discrepancy. Does that make sense to you, or is there something else I am missing?

Tim’s Quick Answer: In this scenario I’m sure the mismatch is simply due to some of your photos being grouped into stacks that are collapsed within Lightroom Classic. If you expand all stacks (Photo > Stacking > Expand All Stacks) with the filter set to None then you’ll be viewing all photos within the catalog.

More Detail: In Lightroom Classic you can stack photos together so that when the stack is collapsed a single thumbnail represents the full stack of photos. By default, when you merge photos into a high dynamic range (HDR) image or a panorama, the source photos and the assembled image are grouped together into a stack. You can also stack photos together manually.

If any stacks of photos are collapsed, with a single thumbnail representing the group of images in the stack, Lightroom Classic counts the stack as a single image. Therefore, you would see an indication that you are browsing a portion of the images, such as text that indicates “9,500 of 10,000 photos”. This text is found toward the top-left of the bottom panel, above the filmstrip of thumbnails. If all photos are shown there is simply an indication of the total number of photos currently being browsed.

As today’s question suggests, if you have applied a filter to your images then the number displayed would be less than the total number of photos. You might, for example, set a filter to only see images with a star rating, so you would only be browsing a portion of the images based on how many have the applicable star rating.

If you have selected “None” on the Library Filter bar then you would naturally expect that you would be seeing all photos in the location you’re currently browsing. However, as noted above, collapsed stacks result in some photos being hidden from view, and Lightroom Classic takes that into account when indicating how many photos are being browsed.

You can expand all stacks in the current location by going to the menu and choosing Photo > Stacking > Expand All Stacks. If you want to collapse all stacks in the current location, you can choose Photo > Stacking > Collapse All Stacks from the menu instead.

Today’s Question: I know if I adjust the Masking slider for sharpening [in Lightroom Classic or Camera Raw], the sharpening will only affect the area shown in White. Does this work regardless of whether or not I hold the Alt/Option while adjusting the Masking slider?

Tim’s Quick Answer: If you increase the value for the Masking slider when sharpening in Lightroom Classic or Camera Raw, the sharpening will indeed be confined to the areas shown in white when you hold the Alt/Option key. You don’t have to hold the Alt/Option key at all to have the sharpening constrained in this way.

More Detail: When adjusting the sharpening settings in Lightroom Classic or Camera Raw, you can hold the Alt key on Windows or the Option key on Macintosh to enable a preview that can make it much easier to choose the right settings for each of the sliders. Holding the Alt/Option key will cause the preview image to appear as a black and white image when adjusting the Amount slider, an embossed view when adjusting Radius or Detail, and a black and white masking preview when adjusting the Masking slider.

Holding the Alt/Option key has no impact on the actual adjustment being applied. The only difference is that the preview changes when holding the Alt/Option key. In other words, if you knew which setting you wanted to use for a given slider, or you simply want to use a normal preview when adjusting the sharpening settings at all, you don’t have to hold the Alt/Option key.

I personally find that holding the Alt/Option key can be tremendously helpful in deciding what setting to use for the various sharpening sliders, but this is only a tool aimed at helping find the right adjustment settings. The actual effect of sharpening in the image is not altered based on whether or not you held the Alt/Option key at any time while adjusting the slider values.

Today’s Question: I deleted about 8,000 photos from Lightroom Classic, did the complete delete from disk option, but it did not increase the available space on my hard drive. Is there an additional step?

Tim’s Quick Answer: Yes, in order to free up hard drive space after deleting photos from Lightroom Classic you need to empty the trash on Macintosh or the recycle bin on Windows.

More Detail: On both Macintosh and Windows when you delete files they aren’t removed from the hard drive, which means additional hard drive space is not freed up. To actually clear up the additional space you need to empty the trash on Macintosh or the recycle bin on Windows.

It is also worth noting that the default option when deleting photos in Lightroom Classic is to remove the photos from the catalog but not to remove them from the hard drive. In my view if you want to remove photos from your catalog you would almost always want to delete the source image files. After all, there’s generally no reason to have photos taking up space on your hard drive if you aren’t managing them in your Lightroom Classic catalog.

Even if you choose the “Delete from Disk” option in the confirmation dialog when you delete photos, the files aren’t automatically removed from the hard drive. Rather, they are moved to the trash on Macintosh or the recycle bin on Windows. You’ll therefore need to empty the trash or recycle bin in order to reclaim the hard drive space taken up by the photos you deleted.

Today’s Question: I turned on the “Automatically write changes into XMP” checkbox [in Catalog Settings in Lightroom Classic]. Later when I wanted to exit Lightroom Classic I got a dialog telling me it was saving data to XMPs and that if I closed down it would quit but resume next time I opened Lightroom Classic. I didn’t mean to do this for the 250,000 files currently in my catalog. Is this going to increase the size needed to store all my images? What do you advise?

Tim’s Quick Answer: I recommend leaving the “Automatically write changes into XMP” checkbox turned on, primarily as an additional backup of key metadata for your photos. If you do decide to delete the files, you will need to do so manually because Lightroom Classic does not include a facility for this.

More Detail: The “Automatically write changes into XMP” checkbox in Lightroom Classic is turned off by default, but I recommend turning it on. It can be found on the Metadata tab of the Catalog Settings dialog. This will cause key metadata updates to be saved to the source image files on your hard drive, in addition to being saved in the Lightroom Classic catalog.

While enabling the XMP option doesn’t preserve all information from your Lightroom Classic catalog, it does preserve key metadata such as star ratings and keywords. Besides providing a backup of that key metadata, this option also enables you to browse those metadata updates using other software, such as Adobe Bridge.

The XMP files are quite small, taking up just kilobytes each. I would estimate that for 250,000 photos enabling the XMP option would only consume about three gigabytes. That is certainly a fair amount of storage space, but it is relatively small in the context of a typical hard drive, and I feel that consuming the additional storage space is worthwhile in terms of the benefits of saving metadata to XMP.

If you decide you don’t want to have the XMP files, you would need to delete them manually through the operating system. While this can be a bit of an inconvenience, it is safe to delete the files since the data they contain is already contained in the Lightroom Classic catalog.

Note, by the way, that it is possible to save metadata to XMP for individual photos if you prefer not to enable the option for the entire catalog. Simply select a photo (or multiple photos) in the Library module in Lightroom Classic and from the menu choose Metadata > Save Metadata to File. This will save the metadata for the selected image(s) to an XMP sidecar file, or directly to the image file for non-raw images.

Today’s Question: The method of creating masks in Lightroom Classic and Camera Raw doesn’t seem to be available in Photoshop. Is there any way to use such a mask created in Camera Raw as a Photoshop layer mask? If not, is there a way to create “intersecting” layer masks in Photoshop the way you can in Camera Raw or Lightroom Classic?

Tim’s Quick Answer: Within Photoshop you can use the same masking features found in Camera Raw or Lightroom Classic by using the Camera Raw filter. You can also make use of layer groups in order to create compound masks based on more than one layer mask.

More Detail: The masks you create in Camera Raw or Lightroom Classic can’t be converted to a layer mask in Photoshop, but that doesn’t mean you don’t have options for using intersecting or other compound masks in Photoshop.

To begin with, the exact same features you’ll find in Camera Raw or the Develop module in Lightroom Classic can be used in the context of the Camera Raw filter. If you select an image layer and choose Filter > Camera Raw Filter from the menu. This will bring up the Camera Raw dialog, where you can make use of the masking features to apply a targeted adjustment to the selected layer.

You can also create compound layer masks in Photoshop using layer groups. For example, if you create a selection of the sky in a photo you can add a layer group and then add a layer mask to the group based on the active selection. You could then create, for example, another layer group with a gradient layer mask. If you put the sky layer group into the gradient layer group, any adjustment layers you add to the sky layer group will only affect the sky and only in a gradient fashion, based on the combined shape of the layer masks.

In addition, you can combine various selections (or saved selections) in Photoshop, making use of the options to add, subtract, or intersect those selections. In most cases I prefer to work with layer masks rather than selections when it comes to fine-tuning the result to perfection, but the point is that you do have considerable flexibility.

I covered the topics of masking in Camera Raw as well as selections and layer masks in Photoshop in my comprehensive video course “Photoshop for Photographers”, which you can learn more about here:

https://www.greylearning.com/courses/photoshop-for-photographers-2024