Ask Tim Grey

Today’s Question: I have a follow-up question on your recent post regarding 4K monitors. I love my 27″ 4K monitor but wondered how important the color gamut is. My monitor supports 100% of the sRGB color space. Is it worth upgrading to one with the Adobe RGB specification?

Tim’s Quick Answer: A monitor with a wide color gamut can be helpful in terms of providing a more refined view of the colors in your images and a more accurate preview of what a print will look like. However, in general I would say that it is not critically important to have wide-gamut support in a monitor display.

More Detail: Virtually every monitor available will support 100% (or nearly so) of the sRGB color space. This is in part because the sRGB color space itself was created with the specific intent to encompass the color range supported by a typical monitor display. A smaller percentage of monitors support a wider color gamut, such as those that support all (or most) of the Adobe RGB color space, which is a bit larger than the sRGB color space.

By the way, literally zero monitors support the even larger ProPhoto RGB color space, and no monitor ever will. I can say that confidently because the ProPhoto RGB color space is so large that it actually includes colors that are beyond the visible spectrum.

It can certainly be advantageous to have a monitor that is capable of displaying a wider range of color values. After all, if the display can’t present all the colors that appear in an image you’re reviewing, you aren’t getting a completely accurate display of the color information in the image.

That said, many images are only shared digitally, such as on a monitor display or with a digital projector. In these cases, the sRGB color space would be more than adequate for evaluating your photos, especially considering that the vast majority of displays and projectors are only going to support the sRGB color space to begin with.

If you print images on a regular basis, and if you are particularly critical of the nuance of colors in the image, then a display that can present a larger color gamut can certainly be helpful. Whenever possible I do suggest opting for a display that supports 100% (or nearly so) of the Adobe RGB color space, because that is a better match for photos that will be printed.

In my own workflow, for example, I don’t tend to print images all that often. Most of my work focuses on digital sharing of photos and on video production work. Therefore, a wide-gamut display isn’t a high priority for me personally. But for photographers with a strong focus on printing their photos, a display with a wider gamut can be helpful. I’m not sure I would replace a perfectly good monitor just to gain support for the Adobe RGB color space, but it is certainly a specification I would consider when you do decide to purchase a new display.

Today’s Question: When I send a Raw file from Lightroom Classic to Photoshop via Edit In, it opens in the main Photoshop window rather than Camera Raw. What am I doing wrong?

Tim’s Quick Answer: You’re not doing anything wrong, as this is exactly the expected behavior. In this workflow the Develop module in Lightroom Classic is taking the place of Camera Raw in Photoshop.

More Detail: When you open a raw capture in Photoshop it needs to be processed into a “normal” image format rather than a raw capture format so it can be edited directly in Photoshop. When opening a raw capture with Photoshop that means the image is opened in Camera Raw as an intermediate step. When sending a raw capture from Lightroom Classic the use of Camera Raw is not necessary, because the raw processing is handled by the Develop module.

In effect, you can think of Camera Raw in Photoshop and the Develop module in Lightroom Classic as being the exact same thing. The interface is a little different, and sometimes they get slightly out of sync based on upgrade timing from Adobe, but they are effectively the same.

When you send a raw capture from Lightroom Classic to Photoshop it is processed by the Develop module as though you were opening via Camera Raw. That results in an image with the initial processing completed being opened in Photoshop. If you simply choose File > Save from the menu in Photoshop the image will be saved as a Photoshop PSD or TIFF file based on the settings established on the External Editing tab of the Preferences dialog in Lightroom Classic.

Note that while you are working with the image in Photoshop it is possible to access the Camera Raw adjustments by choosing Filter > Camera Raw from the menu. However, in general I would suggest just saving those additional adjustments for when you get back to Lightroom Classic after editing the image in Photoshop and saving the result. You can then use the Develop module to further refine the image as needed.

Today’s Question: I’ve bought into the 72 ppi [pixel per inch] misinformation for 20 years. Curious if it was EVER true. Since we can’t know what displays our clients will use, what should we do for a photo in an email or on a website? Should I just pick a number around 200 [for ppi resolution] and hope for the best?

Tim’s Quick Answer: The pixel per inch (ppi) resolution is irrelevant for images that will only be displayed digitally, as only the actual pixel dimensions really matter in that context. The 72 ppi value was actually accurate for the original Macintosh 9-inch display, which featured a resolution of 512×342 pixels (not a lot of pixels!).

More Detail: Today’s question is a follow-up to my answer from the December 12th newsletter where I addressed the general topic of pixel per inch (ppi) resolution for digital images. As noted in that answer, the ppi resolution is only a factor when printing. Even then, it is really there for convenience. Referencing a ppi resolution enables you to describe a print size in more familiar terms. Instead of saying that you need to resize an image to 2,400 pixels by 3,000 pixels, you can say that you need to resize the image to 8-inches by 10-inches at 300 pixels per inch.

While the ppi resolution really doesn’t mean anything for images intended to be displayed digitally, that isn’t to say you should necessarily completely ignore this value when resizing an image for digital sharing.

I most certainly don’t suggest setting the image to a resolution of 72 ppi, since that doesn’t align with any method for sharing images today. I also don’t recommend the 96 ppi value that had similarly become commonly used with the (false) notion that Windows computers used a display resolution of 96 ppi while Macintosh computers used 72 ppi.

I think the best default value for the ppi resolution for images that will be shared digitally is a resolution that would be suitable for printing. That way if the image does get printed by a client, for example, it would already be configured at a reasonable setting.

While output resolution varies depending on printing equipment and other factors, a good general value is 300 ppi. So, for images that are going to be shared digitally, the ppi resolution doesn’t really matter at all. But you may as well set it to something like 300 ppi by default, since that is a commonly used resolution setting when an image is printed.

Today’s Question: You referred to using a 4K monitor as your “primary display”, which I assume means you are using more than one monitor on your computer. Is this something you generally recommend, or do you have unique needs for multiple displays that wouldn’t apply to most photographers?

Tim’s Quick Answer: I do find it very helpful to have two monitor displays and recommend that just about anyone consider taking this approach. Two displays can be helpful in general when working on a computer, but I also find two displays particularly helpful when working in Photoshop, and to some extent helpful in Lightroom Classic.

More Detail: To be sure, a big part of why I find it helpful to have two (or more) monitor displays is that I often have a lot going on when I’m working on my computer. That is especially true when I’m presenting online, for example, when I’m sharing my primary screen with viewers but also monitoring the broadcast software, watching for questions from viewers, and more, all on my secondary display.

But even when focused on my photography workflow, I find two displays to be very helpful. In Photoshop, for example, I love being able to put all the panels on my secondary display while only having the general Photoshop interface and the image I’m working on visible on my primary display. This provides much more space for the image I’m focused on.

While I don’t use dual displays as often in Lightroom Classic, this is something that is possible and that can be helpful. Lightroom Classic supports having a secondary window on a second display, though the features are a little limited. However, this does make it possible, for example, to view a grid of all images you’re currently browsing on the secondary display while focusing on the current image in the loupe view on your primary display.

So, yes, I absolutely think using two (or more) monitor displays can be very helpful and would certainly recommend that photographers consider this approach. For example, if you are considering getting a new display you could keep the old display so you can connect both and test out the benefits of multiple monitors for yourself.

Today’s Question: I’m wondering if I should consider a 4K monitor, which all the marketing suggests is a great thing. When I’ve seen 4K monitors on display it seems everything on the screen is really tiny, so why would I want such a display?

Tim’s Quick Answer: I actually highly recommend using a 4K display, even if you set it to a lower display resolution, because the details on the display will be significantly crisper and sharper with a 4K monitor.

More Detail: A 4K monitor is a display that has a resolution of approximately 4,000 pixels (thus 4K) across. With most displays that feature 4K resolution the actual number of pixels across will be 3,840, but the specification rounds this up to a tidy “4K” designation. Various displays will feature a different specific resolution but still be referred to as 4K.

I had long resisted switching to a 4K display, knowing that I would not want to use 4K resolution because interface elements would be incredibly small. Put simply, I knew I would likely never want to use the 4K resolution based on the tasks I tend to perform and the applications I typically use on my computer.

However, even if you don’t want to run a 4K monitor at a 4K resolution, there is still a significant advantage in terms of display quality to using a display with a resolution of 4K (or higher). I was actually a bit surprised at just what a significant difference it made when I switched from a display with 1080p resolution (1920×1080 pixels) to one with 4K resolution (3840×2160 pixels).

In particular, with a high-resolution display set to a lower resolution, text looks significantly sharper that with a display that has a native resolution that matches what you’ve set the high-resolution display to. The overall interface also looks crisper, though this isn’t quite as obvious as the benefit for text. The overall experience of using a 4K display set to a lower resolution is significantly better in my view.

I happen to be using an LG 27UL550-W 27-inch monitor (https://bhpho.to/3NimIlq), but there are many other options available. I’ve also been happy with displays from ViewSonic, BenQ, Dell, and others.

Today’s Question: When updating applications in the Adobe Creative Cloud application I saw an alert that said, “Creative Cloud Files sync is going away”. I followed the link to get info but didn’t understand what the implications were for me. Does this mean I won’t be able to synchronize collections from Lightroom Classic?

Tim’s Quick Answer: The feature being discontinued only relates to the local “Creative Cloud Files” folder, which enabled files stored in that folder to be synchronized to the Adobe servers so they could be accessed from virtually anywhere. You’ll still be able to save files to the cloud via Creative Cloud applications, and you’ll still be able to synchronize collections to the cloud in Lightroom Classic.

More Detail: When you subscribe to a Creative Cloud plan from Adobe one of the benefits of your subscription is a set amount of cloud-based storage. This allows you to store photos or documents on Adobe’s servers, so they can be accessed from virtually anywhere.

For example, from Photoshop you can click the “Save to cloud documents” button to switch to saving to the cloud rather than locally on your computer. If you were then on another computer with Photoshop installed, or using the Creative Cloud application or a web browser to access your account (https://assets.adobe.com/cloud-documents), you could access the files you saved to your cloud-based storage. This option will continue to be available.

In addition, cloud-based synchronization for collections in Lightroom Classic will still be supported, and of course synchronization will remain available for the cloud-based version of Lightroom.

The only feature that is being discontinued is the option to save files to a local “Creative Cloud Files” folder on your computer and have the files in that folder synchronized to the Adobe Creative Cloud. This had previously provided a more general way to save files in a way that they could be accessed from nearly anywhere with an internet connection, but Adobe is discontinuing this feature.

My experience has been that very few photographers had been making use of the Creative Cloud Files synchronization option, and there remain several other very good options for storing photos or other documents in the cloud if you prefer to use that option for making your photos and other files available more broadly, in addition to being able to use this type of feature as an additional option for backing up critical files.

Today’s Question: What are the key different uses for the Texture, Clarity and Dehaze sliders in Lightroom and other processing programs [including Camera Raw]? Sometimes they seem to give similar results and other times one or the other is significantly better than the others.

Tim’s Quick Answer: The Texture, Clarity, and Dehaze adjustments are all somewhat similar in the effect they create, with each operating at a different scale in terms of detail within the image.

More Detail: The Texture, Clarity, and Dehaze sliders all enhance contrast in an image. I often describe these adjustments as applying an effect that is similar to sharpening, but with each operating at a different scale. You can sort of think of them in this context as offering enhancement for small, medium, and large areas of detail, but of course there is an overlap between each of the adjustments.

Texture operates at the smallest scale, which makes it closest to a typical sharpening effect. As the name implies, the Texture adjustment is focused on enhancing (or toning down) the finest texture details in an image. For example, I often increase the value for Texture when I want to enhance things like fine wood grain, sand or stone textures, and similar areas of fine texture. The Texture adjustment can also be used with a negative value to reduce texture, such as to smooth out skin textures in a portrait.

The Clarity adjustment can be thought of as being focused on midtone contrast in an image. This can enhance detail and texture, though at a larger scale than the Texture adjustment. It can also help reduce the appearance of haze, though at a smaller scale and with less impact than the Dehaze adjustment. I use the Clarity with many—if not most—images when I want a bit more overall contrast, drama, or impact in the photo. A negative value can be used with the Clarity adjustment if you want to reduce overall midtone contrast and add a somewhat dreamlike or ethereal quality to an image.

The Dehaze adjustment, as the name implies, is primarily focused on reducing the appearance of haze in an image. While it overlaps with the Clarity adjustment, it has a much stronger impact on overall haze, in many cases making the haze in a photo seem to magically disappear. I use this effect almost exclusively for reducing the appearance of haze in a photo, though it can be used to add a bit of dramatic contrast in other images as well. The Dehaze adjustment can also be used with a negative value to add a hazy or foggy appearance to a photo.

Today’s Question: I recently saw a tutorial from a photographer who recommended cropping images at a resolution of 72 ppi when the intent is to share to a digital display. But is this the correct number regardless of the display, such as with different monitors or digital projectors?

Tim’s Quick Answer: No, 72 pixels per inch (ppi) is not the correct resolution for digital displays. In fact, the ppi resolution is only relevant when you are preparing an image for print, while for digital sharing only the actual pixel dimensions matter.

More Detail: One of the most persistent misunderstandings about resolution for photographic images relates to the pixel per inch (ppi) resolution. For digital images this information is essentially meaningless.

For an image that will be displayed digitally, all that really matters when it comes to resolution are the pixel dimensions of the display upon which the image will be presented. For example, if an image is intended to be displayed full screen on a display or digital projector with a resolution of 1920×1080 pixels (often referred to as “1080p” resolution), the image should be resized to pixel dimensions close to 1920×1080 pixels.

In the context of a display the pixel per inch resolution doesn’t impact the resolution needed for the image prepared for such a display. You simply want to size the image based on the pixel dimensions of the display. The setting for the output resolution is simply another metadata value in this context.

The only time the pixel per inch resolution is really helpful is when printing, and even in this context it is only a convenience in terms of describing the resolution needed for optimal quality. For example, with offset press printing the effective resolution is generally around 300 pixels per inch. With that information you can resize an image easily, because you know how many pixels are required based on the intended output size. For example, an 8″x10″ print would require 2,400 pixels by 3,000 pixels based on 300 pixels per inch.

With a digital display the pixel per inch resolution isn’t as meaningful, in large part because different displays will have widely variable pixel per inch resolutions. For example, my 27-inch 4K display has a resolution of 163 ppi. The same size display at 1080p resolution would have a resolution of about 82 ppi. A digital projector at 1080p resolution projected onto a 10-foot-wide screen would have a resolution of 9 ppi. The point is that the pixel per inch resolution isn’t as uniformly helpful in the context of a digital display the way it is with print, so you can simply resize the image based on optimal pixel dimensions and effectively ignore the pixel per inch resolution.

Today’s Question: Do you have a recommendation for a 35mm slide scanning service?

Tim’s Quick Answer: I have used ScanMyPhotos (https://www.scanmyphotos.com) with good results, though I will say that I do not like their extensive use of add-on fees in their pricing structure.

More Detail: If you have slides and negatives you’d like to digitize, you could certainly use a scanner to scan the images yourself. Of course, these days there aren’t very many scanners still in production, so if you don’t already have a scanner there aren’t very many options available to you.

Fortunately, there are a variety of services that can scan your slides and negatives for you. One service I’ve used with good results is ScanMyPhotos (https://www.scanmyphotos.com). The only thing I dislike about their service is the way they structure their fees.

For example, with ScanMyPhotos you can opt to pay for a box that you can fill with the slides you want scanned for a flat fee (they also offer pricing per slide scanned). The flat fee for the slide scanning box is quoted as starting at $275, which would work out to a little over $0.50 per slide. However, you’ll likely want to upgrade to 4,000 dpi scans rather than 2,000 dpi, which costs an additional $59. In addition there is a $29.95 fee to have your slides returned to you, and if you don’t want the slides returned you have to instead pay a $24.95 disposal fee.

The scanned images will be available for download for five days, and you can pay an additional fee to have them available for a longer period of time. There are additional fees for additional features that are reasonable. But based on what a photographer would typically want as a basic starting point the cost for the slide scanning box would be about $364, which works out to about $0.67 per slide if you’re able to fit 540 slides in the box. That’s still a reasonable rate in my view, I just wish the pricing structure was more straightforward.

Note that you could also use a digital camera to digitize slides, such as by using a slide adapter. For example, Nikon offers the ES-1 Slide Copying Adapter (https://bhpho.to/3RC8gHF) that is designed to attach to a 55mm macro lens (20mm extension tube would also be needed for a cropped sensor camera). This enables you to simply place a slide in the adapter and photograph the slide rather than using a film scanner.