Ask Tim Grey

Today’s Question: Do you worry about losing your files or having your data compromised when traveling if your laptop gets lost or stolen? It’s not so much that I am afraid of losing my files entirely since they are backed up, but rather someone else gaining access to them via my laptop.

Tim’s Quick Answer: I’m certainly concerned about the risk of having my data compromised or potentially lost when traveling with a laptop, but not enough to give up the benefits of traveling with that laptop.

More Detail: As I’ve noted previously, I use a laptop as my exclusive computer, meaning I don’t have a desktop at home to use when I’m not traveling. This is in large part because I have generally traveled so extensively that it didn’t make sense to have a desktop computer at home that I might only be able to make use of a couple of months or so out of the year.

Having a laptop as my exclusive computer means that I’m able to have most of my important data, such as my Lightroom Classic catalog, with me anytime I have my laptop with me (which is most of the time). It also means there is a degree of risk that my laptop will be lost, stolen, or damaged while traveling with it. Fortunately, this isn’t something I have experienced so far.

I don’t personally feel that my data is especially valuable to someone else or is of a nature that would put me at risk if it were to fall into the wrong hands. So the bigger concern for me personally would be losing that data altogether.

I take a few steps to help mitigate these risks. Before departing on a trip I update two backup copies of my laptop and all external hard drives that I will be traveling with, and I leave those updated backups behind so I can recover from them if needed.

I maintain an online backup using Backblaze (https://timgrey.me/onlinebackup) that may not remain completely updated during my travels based on sometimes limited internet access, but that generally remains relatively well updated when I’m traveling. I also travel with backup drives, including a Time Machine drive for backing up the internal hard drive on my laptop while traveling. Obviously this backup drive could be lost along with my laptop, but it provides some degree of confidence that I have options to recover my data if that should become necessary.

No backup solution provides an absolutely perfect degree of data protection for all potential circumstances. However, I feel reasonably confident that my backup workflow helps to minimize the risks of data loss. I also do my best to keep careful track of my laptop and external hard drives when traveling. So far my approach is working, and hopefully that record will be maintained moving forward.

Today’s Question: I’ve been interested in display calibration and have a question. Does the monitor have to have a way to change the settings? Does it have to be a special monitor? I have an LG monitor and it has no knobs to adjust.

Tim’s Quick Answer: In general, you can calibrate any monitor display using a device such as the Calibrite ColorChecker Display (https://timgrey.me/calibrite), even if the display doesn’t have any direct adjustments. However, note that sometimes those adjustments are somewhat “hidden” on a more general menu for the display.

More Detail: You can generally calibrate and profile any monitor display, including displays without physical adjustment controls and displays that have their own built-in calibration hardware. The ability to adjust brightness and contrast directly on the display can be helpful for the initial calibration process, but it isn’t required with current display calibration tools.

For example, part of the calibration process involves adjusting the overall brightness levels for the display to ensure it falls within a target range of values. However, if your display doesn’t include options for making adjustments to brightness levels this adjustment can still be applied through software as part of the profiling process.

It is worth noting, however, that even when a display doesn’t appear to have any buttons or knobs related to a brightness or contrast adjustment, those adjustments are often found on a menu system for the display. For example, a number of monitors only have basic menu function buttons that will bring up an on-screen menu you can navigate through. That type of menu often includes adjustments for the overall brightness and contrast, as well as for the color temperature control.

So, I would check to be sure whether there are adjustment controls for your display, but regardless you can calibrate the display using tools such as the Calibrite ColorChecker Display (https://timgrey.me/calibrite) that I recommend.

Today’s Question: I’ve heard people reference Lightroom Classic for years but genuinely don’t know why one would use it if only editing one photo at a time. It would be a lot of work to learn Lightroom Classic and I don’t know what it would give me the Photoshop doesn’t already. Can you explain what Lightroom Classic offers by comparison and if there’s really any reason for me to learn it?

Tim’s Quick Answer: In my mind the key advantages of Lightroom Classic are a streamlined workflow for organizing, optimizing, and sharing photos, as well as the benefit of being able to quickly search among a potentially very large catalog of photos. If you simply need to optimize a relatively low volume of images, then Lightroom Classic likely doesn’t provide any significant benefit for you beyond Photoshop.

More Detail: While I find Lightroom Classic tremendously helpful for organizing, optimizing, and sharing my catalog of around 400,000 photos, I certainly don’t think every Photoshop user should add Lightroom Classic to their workflow.

To me the biggest benefit of Lightroom Classic is that it employs a central catalog for managing a large library of photos. Among other things the catalog makes it possible to quickly search for photos across the entire catalog based on a wide variety of metadata and image attributes. I can instantly, for example, view only the 5-star rated photos out of my entire catalog, or filter based on a single keyword or just about any other metadata values.

Another benefit of Lightroom Classic that I appreciate is that it provides a streamlined workflow for managing photos. I can organize my photos using the Library and Map modules, optimize in the Develop module, and share photos in a variety of ways including by exporting photos, producing print layouts, and more.

For those who are managing a relatively small number of photos or who have somewhat simple organizational needs, the image-management benefits of Lightroom Classic may not be especially helpful. The Develop module in Lightroom Classic provides the exact same editing features as Camera Raw does in Photoshop. And of course, with Photoshop you can most certainly prepare photos for sharing in a variety of ways, though perhaps not as efficiently as is possible in Lightroom Classic.

There’s no question that learning Lightroom Classic requires an investment of time, and that not learning to use Lightroom Classic properly can lead to significant problems in your workflow. After all, my video course “Cleaning Up Your Mess in Lightroom Classic” (https://timgrey.me/mess) remains my most popular offering. So, if you don’t feel the advantages of Lightroom Classic suit your needs and you’re not interested in taking the time to truly learn Lightroom Classic, I think it is best to stick with a Photoshop-based workflow.

Today’s Question: Are you comfortable applying sharpening to layered Photoshop PSD files for output using Lightroom Classic? Or would you rather keep sharpened layered files?

Tim’s Quick Answer: Yes, I am perfectly comfortable applying sharpening to a layer-based Photoshop PSD (or TIFF) image using Lightroom Classic when printing or otherwise sharing a photo.

More Detail: The sharpening algorithm in Lightroom Classic is actually quite good, producing excellent results. In addition, even if the image you’re applying sharpening to is a layered Photoshop PSD file, the sharpening will be applied to what is effectively a flattened version of the image. So, whether you’re exporting, printing, or otherwise sharing an image from Lightroom Classic, I’m perfectly comfortable applying sharpening as part of this workflow.

The only problem I have with sharpening for output in Lightroom Classic is that there isn’t a preview of the actual effect. Rather, you first select the output type between “Screen” for digital sharing, or “Matte Paper” or “Glossy Paper” when printing an image. You then select “Low”, “Standard”, or “High” for the sharpening amount option.

These sharpening options work perfectly well for what they are, and with a little experience you can get a sense of which settings work best based on your preferences and output type. However, for a situation where optimal sharpening is a critical concern I do prefer using Photoshop to apply the final sharpening to an image.

So, most of the time I will simply use Lightroom Classic to apply sharpening to a photo for sharing. If I’m especially concerned about the sharpening settings, however, I’ll use Photoshop for that final image preparation so I can take advantage of the preview available with sharpening filters such as Smart Sharpen.

Today’s Question: Would it be worthwhile to upload the scans and derivative files to Lightroom (cloud) to be able to take advantage of its AI search capabilities based on subject to weed out duplicates? Or would this end up creating confusion between the two Lightroom versions?

Tim’s Quick Answer: While the AI (artificial intelligence) search feature in the cloud-based version of Lightroom is impressive, it isn’t perfect for tracking down duplicate photos. In addition, a workflow that involves both Lightroom Classic and the cloud-based version of Lightroom can be somewhat problematic.

More Detail: The cloud-based version of Lightroom includes an AI-based search feature that makes it possible to locate images based on the subject matter of photos even if you had never added keywords or otherwise identified the subjects that appear in your images. While this can be a helpful feature when attempting to locate an image, I don’t consider it a great feature when trying to locate duplicate images.

To begin with, in my experience the AI search results are never all-inclusive when searching for a given subject. Based on variations in camera angle, lighting conditions, and more, many images that contain a subject you’re searching for will be excluded from search results.

In addition, I’ve found that there are a very large number of false positive results in search results. Sometimes the search results are at least related, such as when images of helicopters are included in results when you search for “airplane”. However, other times the results are completely off, such as when a rock formation is somehow interpreted as being a person in the photo.

Because this AI search is cloud-based and is being updated based on an ever-growing library of photos being evaluated, the results will certainly improve over time. However, in my experience the results are not so good as to be very helpful for locating duplicate images.

Using the cloud-based version of Lightroom to identify duplicates from a Lightroom Classic catalog would also be problematic, since the approach to image storage for these two versions of Lightroom are so different. If you located duplicate images using Lightroom it would be somewhat cumbersome to then delete the original images from a Lightroom Classic catalog. Adding to the challenge, before you could use the AI search in the cloud-based version of Lightroom you would need to synchronize the source photos from Lightroom Classic, which could require considerable time depending on how many images are in your catalog and how fast your internet connection is.

I generally find it more effective to track down duplicate images in Lightroom Classic based on capture time or other metadata values, rather than trying to use the AI image search for this purpose.

Today’s Question: You mentioned the option to keep the “Delete Cropped Pixels” checkbox turned off when cropping a photo so that the cropped pixels aren’t removed from the image, but rather just hidden. But how do you later reveal those hidden pixels if needed?

Tim’s Quick Answer: If you need to recover the pixels that get hidden by non-destructive cropping in Photoshop you can choose Image > Reveal All from the menu.

More Detail: When using the Crop tool in Photoshop you can apply the crop non-destructively by making sure the “Delete Cropped Pixels” checkbox on the Options bar is turned off before applying the crop. This will cause the cropped pixels to be hidden from view rather than actually deleted, by virtue of reducing the canvas size to reflect the crop you’ve applied.

If you later decide the crop was a bit too much you have some options, even if you had since saved and closed the image and therefore no longer have a history you can step backward through with the Undo command.

You can effectively undo the crop of the image by choosing Image > Reveal All from the menu. This will expand the canvas size to reveal all the pixels that had been hidden by the non-destructive cropping.

You could also return to the Crop tool and change the crop after the fact. When you initially select the Crop tool for an image that had been cropped with the “Delete Cropped Pixels” checkbox turned off, you’ll see the image as it is currently cropped with the crop box along the outer boundary of the current image area. However, you can also drag any of the edges or corners of that crop box outward to reveal areas of the image that had been hidden by the crop.

In addition, you can use the Move tool to move the cropped image around within the current canvas size, which can be helpful for situations where you’re happy with the overall dimensions of the crop but not the specific position of the image within the crop. You can select the Move tool and then drag the image with the mouse or nudge the image using the arrow keys on the keyboard to fine-tune the positioning of the image within the crop.

Today’s Question: Would you recommend keeping the original scans of slides or negatives that were used as the basis of the layered Photoshop workflow? These would mostly be TIFF files in my situation. Or would you be satisfied that the original (minus cropping) would be preserved as the background layer in the resulting Photoshop document?

Tim’s Quick Answer: Provided the layered master image was not resized and any cropping was done non-destructively, I would be perfectly comfortable retaining only the layered Photoshop image and discarding the original scan.

More Detail: From my perspective as long as the Background image layer is preserved without alteration based on a scan of a slide or negative, there is no need to also retain a separate copy of the image from the original scan. In effect, within this context I consider the layered Photoshop document to be the equivalent of the original scan.

When scanning a slide or negative I only feel the need to create a single file based on that scan. In other words, I don’t save a flattened version of the original scan in addition to a layered version with my various adjustments applied. That helps avoid unnecessary duplication of image files, which in the context of a layered image created with a non-destructive workflow would also not involve any compromises.

For a layer-based image in Photoshop created from a scanned original, the key here is to ensure that no changes are applied to the Background image layer. That means I don’t resize or sharpen this layer-based master image. If cropping is applied it means making sure the “Delete Cropped Pixels” checkbox on the Options bar for the Crop tool is turned off, so that rather than deleting pixels when cropping you are just hiding them from view by reducing the canvas size for the image.

So, provided a proper non-destructive workflow is used for the layer-based master image, in my mind there is no benefit to also preserving an additional file based on the original scan.

Today’s Question: In your answer about the “Maximize Compatibility” feature for Photoshop PSD files you also mentioned “PSB” files. I’m familiar, of course, with the PSD format that is a standard part of Photoshop, but what are PSB files?

Tim’s Quick Answer: The Photoshop PSB file format supports larger file sizes than the Photoshop PSD format. PSD files are limited to a maximum of 30,000 pixels on a side, while PSB files can be up to 300,000 pixels on a side.

More Detail: For most photographers with most images, the Photoshop PSD (or Photoshop Document) file format will be perfectly suitable for their needs. A PSD file is obviously capable of preserving all the various features of Photoshop, such as layers, layer masks, saved selections and more. However, a PSD file is limited to 30,000 pixels on the long side, so in some cases it may not support an image you want to save.

Of course, 30,000 pixels on the long side is still a rather large image. At a typical print resolution of 300 pixels per inch an image that is 30,000 across can be printed 100-inches wide. That’s a print that is more than eight feet wide, so it is certainly what most photographers would call a large image.

However, there are situations where you may need to produce a larger image, such as to print a very large composite panorama. If an image exceeds 30,000 pixels in either dimension, you’ll need to save it in the Photoshop PSB (as in “big”) file format. Note that Photoshop only supports image dimensions of up to 300,000 pixels, which in turn represents the maximum pixel dimensions for PSB files. Of course, this really is a quite large image size, with 300,000 pixels across representing a print size of about 1,000 inches or more than 83 feet based on a typical print resolution of 300 pixels per inch.

For photographers using Lightroom Classic to manage their photos it is important to keep in mind that with Lightroom Classic the maximum pixel dimensions are 65,000 pixels on a side. In other words, while you can save a PSB file in Photoshop with up to 300,000 pixels on a side, images above 65,000 pixels on a side can’t be imported into Lightroom Classic.

Today’s Question: About half the time when I go to save an image in Photoshop, I see a dialog asking if I want to enable “Maximize Compatibility” for the image. Should I just choose “Don’t Show Again”? Do I want “Maximize Compatibility” at all?

Tim’s Quick Answer: If you are ever likely to want to import these Photoshop PSD files into Lightroom Classic, you must enable the “Maximize Compatibility” option. If you will never need to import the images into Lightroom Classic it isn’t really necessary to enable this option, which enables you to avoid the significant increase in file size that results when the option is enabled.

More Detail: When you save an image with layers or other features that are specific to Photoshop, you have the option of enabling the “Maximize Compatibility” option for that file. This will cause an additional flattened copy of the overall image to be embedded within the file, which among other things enables software such as Lightroom Classic to generate a preview of the image without actually interpreting the Photoshop-based layers.

In general, the only scenario where I consider enabling “Maximize Compatibility” to be mandatory is if you will ever import those PSD files into Lightroom Classic. It is not possible to import PSD files into Lightroom Classic unless “Maximize Compatibility” had been enabled. So, if there’s any chance you’ll want to import the images into Lightroom Classic later, I recommend enabling “Maximize Compatibility”.

Otherwise, I think it is perfectly fine to leave “Maximize Compatibility” turned off. This will help reduce file size, since with the “Maximize Compatibility” option turned on you are increasing the file size by an amount equal to the equivalent of a flattened copy of the image. This can be quite significant when saving a large number of PSD files.

The dialog about the “Maximize Compatibility” feature will only appear if the “Ask” option is selected for the “Maximize PSD and PSB File Compatibility” popup in the File Compatibility section of the File Handling tab in the Preferences dialog in Photoshop. You can select “Always” from this popup if you want the “Maximize Compatibility” enabled for all PSD files, or choose “Never” if you don’t want the feature enabled for any PSD files.

Today’s Question: Like you I began my photography career by shooting film of all kinds. In the early days of digital we were scanning our images and working with them in Photoshop. Part of that workflow involved saving copies that had been flattened, sized, and sharpened at either smaller or larger dimensions than the originals. And there was also the master copy with layers of adjustments. Do you have any suggestions for dealing with duplicate files from an old Photoshop workflow?

Tim’s Quick Answer: In general, in the context of images from an older Photoshop-based workflow I recommend only retaining the master layered image, discarding derivative copies unless you have a specific reason to retain some of them. In large part this can be accomplished by filtering based on file type and perhaps considering overall file size.

More Detail: In the context of a workflow that now revolves around Lightroom Classic, a master photo would often be the original raw capture or a derivative Photoshop PSD or TIFF file that was created by sending the raw capture to Lightroom Classic. Beyond that, additional derivative images might be created by exporting additional copies of photos to share in various ways.

In this context, I recommend only retaining the original raw capture and the primary version of a PSD or TIFF file created as part of a workflow for optimizing the photo using Photoshop. Additional derivative copies can generally be discarded.

It can be a little bit labor-intensive to sort through these duplicate images to ensure you’re only deleting copies of photos that you don’t really need. Some of this depends on your overall workflow approach.

For example, in the earlier days of Photoshop it wasn’t possible to save TIFF images with layers and other Photoshop-specific features included. For this reason I was in the habit of only saving my layered master image as a Photoshop PSD file. Derivative photos that had been flattened and resized for sharing would be saved as a TIFF image. Therefore, I knew that TIFF images were derivative copies and the master image was the Photoshop PSD file.

Of course, more recently it became possible to save TIFF images with layers intact, so you may have a mix of both PSD and TIFF files that could very well represent a master image you want to keep. I do think, however, that it makes sense to spend some time sorting through these photos to clear out the clutter of multiple derivative copies of photos. In addition, these PSD and TIFF images are going to be among the largest file sizes in your catalog, and so clearing out unnecessary copies can help free up considerable hard drive space.