Ask Tim Grey

Today’s Question: Is it easy to import the digital images that you get back from scanmyphotos.com into Lightroom Classic?

Tim’s Quick Answer: Yes, the digital images you get back from a slide scanning service can easily be imported into Lightroom Classic, as they are saved in standard image formats.

More Detail: The specific details of the files you get back will depend on the slide scanning service you use. For example, ScanMyPhotos.com saves all scanned images as JPEG images. Other services, such as DigMyPics (https://www.digmypics.com), offer an option to save the scans as TIFF images, which is a better option if you want optimal quality especially for later printing the images.

Regardless, the image files are saved into standard image formats that are supported by Lightroom Classic. In most cases the files are either available for download through the company’s website, or shipped to you on a portable storage device. In either case you can save the files into the desired folder location and import into your Lightroom Classic catalog.

My typical approach in this type of situation is to save the images into the intended folder location, then import using the “Add” option at the top-center of the Import dialog in Lightroom Classic. If you copy the photos into a folder that is already being managed within Lightroom Classic, you could also right-click on that folder in Lightroom Classic and choose “Synchronize Folder” from the popup. The new photos in that folder will be identified so they can be imported into the catalog with ease.

Ultimately, importing digital files received from a scanning service is basically the same as importing any other photos, except that in many cases you may be adding the photos from their current storage location rather than copying them during import as you typically would when importing from a media card taken out of the camera.

Today’s Question: I recall your online talks warning about “never move photos outside if Lightroom” but here is a new twist. I bought a new computer and need to transfer my Lightroom Classic catalog to that computer. How do I transfer my photos on external hard drives so Lightroom Classic can find them on the new computer?

Tim’s Quick Answer: This migration can actually be handled with relative ease. You just need to copy the entire catalog folder to the new computer, and make sure the new computer is identifying the external hard drives with the same identifier as had been used on the previous computer.

More Detail: Because the Lightroom Classic catalog references your photos based on their specific storage location, it is actually quite easy to migrate to a new computer when the photos are stored on external hard drives. The key is to make sure the hard drives have the same drive letter (Windows) or volume label (Macintosh) on the new computer, so they will appear the same to Lightroom Classic on the new computer based on the configuration from the old computer.

You’ll need to copy the catalog files to the new computer, which involves quitting Lightroom Classic and copying the entire folder containing your catalog and supporting files to the new computer. You can copy that folder to any location you’d like on the new computer, though the default for Lightroom Classic is to store the catalog in the Pictures folder. Make sure you then open that catalog rather than a new empty catalog that may have been created when you installed Lightroom Classic on the new computer.

With the catalog available on the new computer, you can connect the external hard drives and ensure they are configured properly based on what Lightroom Classic is expecting. For Macintosh users this simply means making sure not to change the volume label, which is the name of the hard drive. For Windows users you’ll need to make sure the drive letters assigned on the new computer match the assignments on the old computer. This can be changed in the Disk Management utility, and you’ll find an article outlining the process here:

https://www.technewstoday.com/change-drive-letter-windows-10-11/

When you open the catalog you copied to the new computer and have the hard drives configured as they had been on the old computer, you’ll be right back to your expected workflow in Lightroom Classic, with everything just as it had been on your old computer.

Today’s Question: My son-in-law has been using the Cloud version of Lightroom. He’s just come back from a safari with many images and he’s wondering whether he should consider going over to Lightroom Classic. Would this be a good time for him to make the switch, or should he continue as he is? I know that he is interested in printing and may not have done a lot of that before. Is that a factor?

Tim’s Quick Answer: In my view most photographers would benefit from using Lightroom Classic rather than the cloud-based version of Lightroom. That is especially true for photographers who want to print their images, since the cloud version of Lightroom does not support printing.

More Detail: The primary difference between the cloud-based Lightroom and Lightroom Classic is where photos are stored. With Lightroom Classic you manage the storage of your photos locally, while with the cloud-based version the photos are stored primarily in the cloud (Adobe’s servers) and are downloaded to your computer or device as they are needed.

In addition, the cloud-based Lightroom doesn’t include all of the sharing features of Lightroom Classic, including printing. All things considered, I think Lightroom Classic is the better choice for most photographers. The only reason a photographer may prefer using the cloud-based version of Lightroom is if they want to have all their photos synchronized to the cloud. However, in my view this is not a significant benefit for photographers, especially considering that you can synchronize selected collections of photos to the cloud with Lightroom Classic.

It will take some work to transition from cloud-based storage to local folders, since the cloud-based version of Lightroom doesn’t allow you to create folders. However, I do feel that work is worth doing in order to gain the benefits of Lightroom Classic.

Today’s Question: When I send an image from Lightroom Classic to Photoshop, the canvas is not centered. When I use the Move tool, I can move the image, but the canvas does not move.

Tim’s Quick Answer: You can adjust a few settings in Photoshop to ensure that the image is displayed within the interface, without extending beyond the main Photoshop image area unless you have zoomed in on the image enough that only part of the image is visible.

More Detail: The first thing to check is the “Overscroll” setting in Preferences. From the menu choose Edit on Windows or Photoshop on Macintosh, then select Preferences > Tools. Turn off the “Overscroll” checkbox, which will prevent the image canvas from being moved beyond the main Photoshop window, such as when using the Hand tool.

Next, be sure that the image is in a tab rather than a floating window. You can do this by choosing Window > Arrange > Consolidate All to Tabs. This will cause all images to be in tabs rather than a floating window that could be dragged beyond the main window area.

Floating panels can also obscure the image, so if you have any floating panels, you can either close them or dock them. You can, for example, drag a set of floating panels to the right edge of the Photoshop window. When you see a blue highlight indicating the docking position you can release the mouse button and the panels will be docked rather than floating.

If you want to see the entire image, keep in mind that you can fit it to the available area with the “Fit on Screen” command. You can choose View > Fit on Screen from the menu or hold the Ctrl key on Windows or Command key on Macintosh while pressing 0 (zero) on the keyboard.

Today’s Question: I’ve recently started getting an error indicating that Lightroom Classic does not have access to some “standard folders”. The Learn More link explains what to do, but is there any reason not to enable this security setting for Lightroom Classic?

Tim’s Quick Answer: The issue in question only applies to Macintosh users, and I do recommend enabling Lightroom Classic to access to the folders to avoid potential confusion or problems in your workflow.

More Detail: The message in question relates to security settings in the Macintosh operating system, related to permission for applications to access the “standard” folders in the operating system, which includes folders such as Desktop, Documents, and Downloads, among others.

It appears to me that this issue has arisen anew with the update to MacOS Monterey (12.5.1), although the overall security settings have been in place since the release of MacOS Mojave. Thus, users who have upgraded their operating system recently, including myself, may be seeing the alert message about folder permissions.

I do recommend providing Lightroom Classic with access to the standard folders, especially if you will be storing photos within any of those folders. The setting can be updated in the Security & Privacy section of System Preferences.

To get started click on the Apple logo at the far left of the menu bar and choose System Preferences. Go to Security & Privacy and navigate to the Privacy tab. Click the lock icon at the bottom-left corner of the System Preferences dialog and enter your system password to enable changes. Then turn on the checkboxes under Adobe Lightroom Classic on the list to the right of the “Files and Folders” selection. I recommend turning on all the checkboxes for Lightroom Classic, though you could obviously leave some off if you have a reason to prevent Lightroom Classic from accessing specific storage locations.

With this option enabled you should no longer see the message about this permission issue unless it arises again with a future update to the operating system or to Lightroom Classic.

Today’s Question: In your answer about film scanners, you made reference to “pixels per inch” resolution. The scanner manufacturers list the resolution in “dots per inch”. Are these two terms interchangeable?

Tim’s Quick Answer: In my view the term “pixels per inch” (ppi) is more correct in the context of digitizing film images because the scanner is creating pixels based on the original, and the ppi resolution indicates the density of information being gathered from the original.

More Detail: In some respects I think it would be fair to say that the terms “pixels per inch” (ppi) and “dots per inch” (dpi) are interchangeable. Of course, some purists on the subject would say I am absolutely wrong about that!

In general, ppi resolution is used to refer to a digital image in the context of output size. This resolution is really only applicable when printing a photo, because when an image is shared digitally all that really matters is how many pixels there are. For example, if a monitor has a horizontal resolution of 1,920 pixels, you would need an image to be 1,920 pixels wide to fit the full width of the display. It doesn’t matter what the ppi resolution is set to for the image, because each pixel in the image would simply be represented by one pixel on the monitor display.

When printing the ppi resolution becomes important, because it impacts the quality of the print. In actual fact it is still the number of pixels that is important, but the ppi resolution provides an indication of whether you have enough pixels. For example, a typical photo inkjet printer requires at least 360 ppi resolution for optimal quality, which means an image that is to be printed ten inches wide would need to have at least 3,600 pixels in width.

The “dots” in the dpi resolution refers to dots on the paper when printing. That effectively translates to pixels in the context of the print, but the term “dots” is generally used instead. This is despite the fact that with many printing processes a single “dot” in the image is not produced by a single ink droplet. For example, many photo inkjet printers that render image data at 360 ppi typically place up to 1,440 or 2,880 (or more) ink droplets per inch.

So, in a very general sense dpi resolution relates to physical mediums, which is why I suspect the term came into common use for scanners. The ppi resolution is generally used when referring to a digital image. However, in my view the terms can be very reasonably considered interchangeable in most cases.

Today’s Question: What about [a camera versus scanner for] slides?

Tim’s Quick Answer: In general, you’ll get better resolution with a dedicated film scanner for slides (or negatives). However, considering there aren’t too many film scanners currently in production, you may find it easier to photograph the slides on a lightbox or send the slides out to a service provider.

More Detail: Film scanners can provide an excellent option for digitizing slides or negatives. There are currently scanners available that are capable of scanning at 7,200 to 10,000 pixels per inch (ppi). By comparison, a 47-megapixel digital camera produces an image of about 5,500 pixels per inch. In other words, in many cases you’ll find that a film scanner will exceed the resolution of a digital camera for digitizing slides or negatives.

Of course, there aren’t that many film scanners currently in production. A couple of options that are available include the 7,200 ppi Plustek OpticFilm 8100 film scanner (https://bhpho.to/3AemZi1) and the 10,000 ppi Pacific Image Prime Film XAs (https://bhpho.to/3pEARx2). Note that I don’t generally recommend flatbed scanners for scanning film, as the quality is typically not as good as a dedicated film scanner.

Another option is to photograph the slides on a lightbox. This is similar in concept to using a copy stand to photograph old prints, as I’ve discussed in previous answers. The difference is that the film needs to be illuminated. There are various accessories that can be used for this purpose, but you can also use a lightbox to illuminate the slides while positioning the camera above the lightbox with a tripod. My preferred lightbox is the Kaiser Slimlite Plano (https://bhpho.to/3ci8FNt).

You could also let someone else do the scanning for you. One service I’ve found that provides great results is ScanMyPhotos (https://www.scanmyphotos.com). While these services can be a little expensive if you’re scanning a large number of images, it is very convenient to simply ship slides or negatives to them and receive digital images (and your originals) in return.

Today’s Question: As a follow-up to your recent posts about scanning vs. photographing photographs to preserve them digitally, you mentioned two lights at 45 degree angles and a copy stand. Do you have more specific information on the lights and stand or an article somewhere that illustrates the setup? I don’t know what a copy stand is or how to position the photo and lights (or what kind of lights to use). I have a lot of old family photos on my “mean to do” list, and this would help.

Tim’s Quick Answer: A copy stand has a platform to hold documents along with a rail for mounting a camera above that platform. Lights are sometimes included or can be purchased separately. You can find an example of a copy stand here: https://bhpho.to/3wnDNSA, and a light set for use with a copy stand here: https://bhpho.to/3pzSH4i.

More Detail: A copy stand makes it relatively easy to photograph old photographic prints or other documents. Two lights can be used to provide good illumination of the print being photographed and having those lights at a 45-degree angle helps avoid glare. Glare could otherwise be a problem if the print is glossy or if you are using a sheet of glass to hold the item flat.

You could certainly use a tripod to hold your camera above a flat surface to photograph prints or other documents. A copy stand simply provides a good solution if you don’t have a good setup for this purpose. I consider it important to use lights to illuminate the item being photographed, and I prefer lights that are always on rather than flash to make it easier to ensure you have the lights in a good position.

The 45-degree angle refers to the lights being above but a bit to the side relative to the item you’re photographing. Let’s assume, for example, that the lights will be about two feet above the platform where the print is sitting. You would also want the lights to be positioned about two feet left and right of center to avoid reflections.

In the photos included on the page for the light kit referenced above (https://bhpho.to/3pzSH4i) the lights aren’t out quite as far laterally as they normally would be to avoid reflections. Also, some of the images show the lights in the context of a copy stand, which is not included with the light kit in this case.

Today’s Question: Do you travel with multiple cameras and how do you deal with charging multiple batteries in non-US (need an adapter) countries? Most battery charges are dual-voltage but you still need adapters to plug-in to whatever the country’s plug standard uses.

Tim’s Quick Answer: Yes, I do often travel with multiple cameras, and when that travel includes international destinations, I use a combination power adapter kit (https://bhpho.to/3CgbAAY).

More Detail: In my experience battery chargers for cameras always support dual-voltage, but it is important to check all electric components to confirm they will work properly with the power configuration in the countries you’ll visit. The charger or other electronic device will generally be marked with an indication of the power input that is supported.

For example, a typical battery charger might indicate “AC100-240V”. This indicates the charger can be plugged into a standard AC (alternating current, such as household power) plugs the provide power between 100 volts and 240 volts. In the US the power is 110 volts and in Europe the standard is 220 volts. The charger in this example could therefore be used in either location. Devices that do not support the higher voltage in Europe, for example, would be damaged and possibly cause a fire if they were plugged into a European outlet.

For devices that don’t support the power in a destination you’ll visit, you either need a different device or a power transformer. For example, when taking a US device that only supports 110 volt power to Europe, you would need a transformer (such as this one: https://bhpho.to/3ps1dCe) to bring the 220-volt power down to 110 volts.

As long as your devices all support the power in the areas you’ll visit, all you need is an adapter so the plug will actually fit in the socket. You can buy individual adapters for specific locations, such as an adapter that enables a device with a US plug type to be plugged into a European outlet.

However, my recommendation is to get a more universal solution. For example, you can find a single kit that enables you to adapt in both directions for plugs in the US, Australia, United Kingdom, and Europe here:

https://bhpho.to/3CgbAAY

Again, be sure to confirm the power input support for any devices you intend to use in a country other than what it was designed for. Most electronic devices support international power without issue. However, it is best to be sure to avoid damaging a device. For example, it is quite common for hair dryers and devices with heating elements to only support US power, which could cause them to be ruined and possibly catch fire if plugged into an outlet with a voltage higher than that found in the US.