Capture to Print: One-Light Complete Portrait Workflow

For the past three months I've been touring with Wex Photo Video around the UK on their Summer Roadshow, showing how I take portraits with minimal kit in limited space. I came away with portraits I'm really happy with from every date, but there was one look in particular I was asked about more than any other, so I asked my friend Michael if he'd sit for me and we went outside with one small flash to make it again.

The video above goes through the whole thing, from the shoot, through every step of the edit in Lightroom and Photoshop, to a finished print. Here's an overview of what's in it.

One small flash, outdoors

The idea is simple. Before the flash comes into it at all, I set the camera so that it doesn't see any ambient light; take a picture and you get a black screen. That way the only light in the final shot is the light I put there.

Outdoors in bright sun that takes a bit more doing than it does in a store. I ended up at f/16, which was as far as the lens would go, around ISO 125 and 1/250th of a second, keeping within the flash sync speed rather than reaching for high speed sync or ND filters. I did wonder whether a 100 watt second light could cope with sun that bright, but it wasn't a problem.

The kit was:

• the Westcott FJ100 on power 9, so pretty much full power

• a 15 inch octa with the grid fitted

• a pistol grip handle to hold it steady

• the camera on a tripod

• a reflector just below chest level

The camera goes on a tripod so Michael has one fixed point to look at, rather than following me around as I move, and I trust the eye autofocus to nail the focus so I don't need to be right behind it.

How the light falls

I raise the light nice and high and get Michael to lean forward a little towards the camera. Because of the grid, the light doesn't go everywhere; it comes down and skips across the front of his face, and it doesn't spill onto the background, which I wanted to keep dark.

What I really like about it is that the light is so directional you get shadow either side of it, so it's almost like having a strip of light running down the front of the face. It's a look I definitely want to work more on.

The one thing that made the biggest difference was the reflector. Flat and horizontal, it did very little for the eyes. Lift the far end so it's angled up towards him and the light bounces back into his face, and suddenly there's plenty of detail in the eyes to work with.

The edit in Lightroom

Only one job happens in Lightroom, and that's the eyes. I use masking to select the iris and pupil, finesse the mask with the feather and edge sliders so it sits just inside the eyes, then lift the exposure slightly and add a little texture, clarity and a touch of dehaze. At 100% the difference with the mask on and off is night and day.

After that the image goes over to Photoshop, because that's where the heavy lifting gets done.

The heavy lifting in Photoshop

My rule of thumb here is to look at the image and fix whatever jumps out first. On this one it was the shine down the middle of Michael's nose, which I took out with the Remove Tool on a new layer, then lowered the opacity to around 50% to bring some of the natural shine back. After that I used the Spot Healing Brush on a blank layer to clean up the more obvious marks in the concrete wall behind him, which was sharper than I'd like because of shooting at f/16.

Most of the work is dodging and burning on a 50% grey layer set to Soft Light, with the Dodge Tool at 10% exposure and the Option key (Alt on Windows) held down to switch to the Burn Tool with the same settings. I brighten the highlights and darken the shadows either side of them, around the eyes, down the nose, the eyebrows and the mouth, and then the folds in his top. It sneaks up on you; you often don't see it until you turn the layer off. Working on a grey layer rather than the image itself also means that if you go too far, you can paint over it with 50% grey and it's gone.

From there it's a handful of smaller things:

• a loose lasso round the teeth and a Hue/Saturation adjustment on the yellows, lifting the lightness slightly so they're cleaner without looking like he's had them done

• my 2010 technique, two passes of Unsharp Mask on merged layers, amount and radius at 20 then 10 with the threshold at 0, each painted in through a black mask, the first over the middle of the face and the second over the eyes, nose and mouth

• a skin texture effect using Reduce Noise at full strength with everything else at zero

• a High Pass layer at a radius of 2, set to Hard Light and placed on top, to bring back the sharpness in the eyes, hair and skin detail that the texture effect softens

The 2010 technique is superb on close-up portraits; it makes the face look as if it's coming forward off the screen, and even more so in print.

Camera Raw and a finishing touch

In the Camera Raw filter I used Lens Blur to soften the concrete wall and give the picture a bit of fake depth of field, brushing blur in around the top of the head, the ears and the shoulders so it feels more like f/2.8 or f/4 than f/16. I still wanted to be able to just about see the wall, so it isn't blacked out completely.

A linear gradient with the exposure brought down takes the edge off the bright top he's wearing, which was pulling my eye, and a radial gradient in the middle of the face at +0.2 exposure adds a little light where it matters. I do that last one on pretty much every portrait.

The finishing touch is a warm colour grade from Optics by Boris FX, using the Titanic look in the Portrait colour section, brought down to 50% opacity.

Making the print

I print pretty much every image I'm happy with onto A4, and this one went onto Fotospeed Natural Soft Textured Bright White 315, a fine art matte paper and one I use most of the time, on the Canon PRO-300.

The steps are:

• duplicate and flatten the image

• resize to 10 inches on the long edge at 300ppi

• soft proof with the paper profile, comparing relative and perceptual rendering intents

• a slight brightening just for the print

• save as a TIFF in Adobe RGB

• print from Canon Professional Print & Layout, with Heavyweight Fine Art Paper as the media type, the paper's ICC profile, perceptual rendering intent and black point compensation on

For this picture perceptual was the clear choice. Relative blocked the blacks up quite a lot, whereas perceptual gave it more contrast, which suited it.

Straight out of the printer it was looking really good, and on a matte paper like this it only gets better once the ink has had time to dry and settle. You can just about see detail in the back wall, which is what I was after, and the 2010 technique does exactly what I hoped, bringing the face forward off the page.

Why I always print

Our screens are fantastic, but it's not until you have something physical in your hands that you can really study it and start noticing the things you missed while editing. I truly believe printing can help you get better as a photographer, and certainly better at retouching.

If you'd like to follow along with the video step by step, the raw file I used is free to download from the classroom in my Photography Community on Skool:

Adobe Now Owns Topaz: Is This GOOD News or BAD?

On the 23rd of September 2026, Adobe completed its purchase of Topaz Labs. If you use Photoshop, Lightroom or any of the standalone Topaz applications, the obvious question is: what does that mean for us?

Will we get better tools? Will more of the technology be included in what we already pay? And what happens if you prefer using Topaz on its own?

There are some answers, but there’s still plenty we don’t know. In the video above, I share my thoughts on the acquisition, where I can see some real benefits, and what I’d personally like Adobe to do next.

What Has Adobe Confirmed?

Adobe announced the proposed acquisition in June. The September announcement confirms that the deal has now gone through.

Adobe says the Topaz brand will remain, and its applications and models will continue to be available as standalone products. If you use Topaz separately, perhaps alongside a different editor, that’s encouraging.

It’s also worth clearing up the subscription question. Topaz introduced its newer subscription offering in September 2025, before this acquisition. Whatever your feelings about subscriptions, that change wasn’t introduced by Adobe buying the company.

Has My Opinion Changed?

Earlier this year, I made a video about the Topaz integration in Lightroom, and I was frustrated.

At the time, it felt as though Adobe could be taking the easier route by bringing in somebody else’s technology. Given Adobe’s experience and resources, I wanted to see what it could develop itself. I still would.

But I can also see the reasoning behind this purchase. Topaz has specialist knowledge and people who have spent years working on image and video enhancement. Bringing that experience into Adobe could be a sensible way to improve the tools we use.

That’s something I probably could have given more weight in my earlier video.

There is, however, one point I still stand by: when I’m working in Photoshop or Lightroom, I want the tools to feel like they belong there. I want them to work together, follow a consistent approach and give me enough control to get the result I’m after.

Changing who owns the technology doesn’t automatically achieve that. It takes development.

Where Could This Benefit Photographers?

The most obvious opportunity is a better editing experience.

Say you’ve cropped a photograph quite heavily and want to make a print. Having a suitable enlargement tool available inside the application you’re already using could be really useful—especially if you can judge the result properly and adjust the processing without a complicated round trip between applications.

That’s the kind of integration I’d welcome.

Adobe doesn’t have to invent every piece of technology from scratch for it to be valuable. What matters is whether bringing these teams together produces something better when we sit down to work on a photograph.

There’s also the possibility of more processing happening on our own computers. Adobe has highlighted Topaz’s NeuroStream technology, which helps demanding AI models run locally.

Depending on how Adobe uses it, that could reduce the need to upload files for processing. But it isn’t a promise that every feature will work offline, or that every computer will suddenly process everything quickly. We’ll have to see how it develops.

Give Us More Control

For me, one of the most useful places to start would be the controls.

The integrated Topaz tools haven’t offered the same experience as the standalone software. The controls have been limited, with what’s available differing between applications and models.

Having the technology available is useful, but I also want some say in the result.

We’ve all had that moment when an adjustment gets close, but isn’t quite right. Perhaps the effect is a little too strong, or some of the detail doesn’t look as natural as we’d like. That’s where being able to refine the processing makes a difference.

It doesn’t have to mean putting every possible slider on screen. A simple option is useful when it gives you what you need. When it doesn’t, I’d like the option to go further.

Adobe hasn’t announced that the acquisition will bring the extra controls I’m asking for. It’s something I’d like to see.

How Does It Fit Into the Lightroom Workflow?

In Lightroom, Generative Upscale creates a separate DNG file, leaving your original photograph intact. Adobe recommends applying it at the end of your editing workflow.

Understanding that you’re creating a new file matters when deciding how to fit the tool into your editing process. Over time, I’d like that process to become as flexible and clear as possible.

There’s also an important distinction between Lightroom and Lightroom Classic. A feature being available in one doesn’t automatically mean it’s available in the other.

At the time of writing, Adobe’s published FAQ says there are no plans to bring this particular Gigapixel integration to Lightroom Classic. That refers to the built-in integration; it doesn’t mean you can’t use the separate Topaz application with Classic.

What About Generative Credits?

This is where the practical questions become particularly important.

At the time of writing, Adobe’s published charges for the integrated tools are:

ToolFinished output sizeCredits per generationTopaz Gigapixel in Photoshop or LightroomUp to 25 megapixels10Topaz Gigapixel in Photoshop or LightroomAbove 25, up to 56 megapixels20Topaz Bloom in Photoshop1–9 megapixels35

These are Adobe generative credits for the integrated features. You can check the current rates in Adobe’s credit table.

If you have several thousand credits each month and use these tools occasionally, that might be perfectly manageable.

But imagine you have 200 credits remaining. At 20 credits a go, that gives you ten generations, assuming you don’t spend any elsewhere.

That’s ten attempts, rather than necessarily ten finished photographs you’re happy with. Generate another version and you use more of your allowance.

The 200-credit figure is just an example. Your allowance and access depend on your plan, so check your own account.

For me, this connects directly with the question of control. When each new generation uses part of your allowance, being able to get a result you’re happy with becomes particularly important.

Could Ownership Mean Better Value?

When one software company uses another company’s technology, there’s usually a commercial agreement behind it. That might involve licensing fees or usage charges.

We don’t know the details of Adobe’s previous agreement with Topaz, so I can’t say how much of the credit charge reflected that arrangement.

But now Adobe owns Topaz, it’s reasonable to ask whether that changes the calculation. Could fewer credits be required each time? Could more usage be included in our existing plans?

There are still costs involved in developing and running the technology. Ownership doesn’t make those disappear.

The acquisition announcement doesn’t promise lower credit charges, either. Better value is something I’d like Adobe to address, rather than something we’ve been told to expect.

Clear pricing, a practical allowance and more control over the result would make this integration more useful.

What I’d Like to See Next

I can see why Adobe has bought Topaz, and I can see opportunities for photographers to benefit.

Closer development between the teams could improve the tools. Local processing is interesting. Better integration could make editing easier. And continuing to offer standalone Topaz products preserves a choice that matters to plenty of photographers.

For me, the test will be what Adobe does next.

I want to see useful improvements, more flexibility and tools that feel like a complete part of Photoshop and Lightroom. If Adobe’s resources and Topaz’s expertise produce that, I’ll be very happy to give them credit.

What do you think? Would you like more of the standalone Topaz controls inside Photoshop and Lightroom, or does the simpler approach already give you what you need? And if you use Topaz separately, what would you most like Adobe to preserve or improve?

Let me know in the comments.

Details reflect the published information checked on 24 September 2026. Features, credit charges and plan allowances may change.

I Was Wrong About Wanting the iPhone Duo

Well, that didn’t take long.

Less than 24 hours after thinking the iPhone Duo could be exactly what I needed, I’ve changed my mind.

On paper, I loved the idea. One device potentially doing the job of two: my phone and my iPad.

The biggest attraction was taking less kit on a shoot. If I could use the Duo for tethering, I could leave the iPad at home. Less to think about, less to charge and less to carry.

It appealed to me for travelling, too. A larger screen that folds up and fits in my pocket would be much more convenient than carrying my 13-inch iPad Pro.

I could already see how it might fit into what I do.

But then I read the comments in the Photography Community.

Some folks raised points that got me questioning my decision, so I did more digging. That included watching videos from Marques Brownlee and Proper Honest Tech. I subscribe to both channels, but I’d initially missed their videos.

They highlighted the benefits, but also got me thinking properly about what I’d be giving up.

For me, the biggest sticking points are the camera and Face ID.

Looking at Apple’s specifications, here are some of the differences between the Duo and the iPhone 18 Pro models:

• No dedicated telephoto camera. The Duo has main and ultra-wide cameras, with a 2x option using the main sensor. The 18 Pro models also have a dedicated 4x telephoto, with an 8x “optical-quality” option.

• No Apple ProRAW. The Duo lists HEIF and JPEG capture, while the Pro models also offer ProRAW.

• No variable aperture on the main camera. The 18 Pro models have this, while the Duo has a fixed aperture.

• Touch ID instead of Face ID. The Duo uses a fingerprint sensor in its side button.

• No Action button. Another difference from the Pro models.

The Duo’s main camera is still 48MP, but that doesn’t mean it’s the same camera as the Pro Max. For me, the bigger issue is losing the dedicated telephoto and Apple ProRAW. Those are options I want available, both for my own photography and when I’m teaching.

You can see the full details in Apple’s specifications for the iPhone Duo and iPhone 18 Pro models.

Those comparisons are with the new 18 Pro models, and I’m currently using a 17 Pro Max. So there are two decisions here: whether the Duo would suit me, and whether I need to upgrade my phone at all.

The camera is what really made me reconsider.

I now have the Fujifilm X100VI (thank you, Steve), and I intend to use that more for photography instead of automatically reaching for my iPhone, but that doesn’t mean I’ll stop taking photographs with my phone.

I’ve taken photographs with my iPhone that I’m really proud of.

There’ll also be times when I don’t have the Fuji with me, so my phone will be the camera I use, and when that happens, I want the best results I can get, with the flexibility that matters to me as a photographer.

Giving up camera features to gain a folding screen feels like a step backwards for how I work.

There’s the teaching side to consider, too.

I’m starting one-to-one and three-to-one workshops, with half-day and full-day options covering photography, lighting and retouching, as well as iPhone photography.

I want to be able to demonstrate the features and approaches I’m teaching. Moving to a phone without some of those options would limit what I could show, particularly when it comes to the Pro camera features.

Then there’s Face ID.

It works so well that I barely think about it. Unlocking my phone, opening banking apps... it’s something I use throughout the day without giving it a second thought.

I hadn’t realised how much I take it for granted until I considered going back to Touch ID.

For the number of times I open my phone each day, I think I’d find that tedious. It might sound like a small thing, but it’s a small thing I’d notice over and over again.

So, where does that leave me?

Do I need to upgrade from the 17 Pro Max to the 18 Pro Max?

Hmmm... honestly, I don’t know.

But I’m starting to wonder whether changing my iPad would solve more of the problem.

What if I traded in my 13-inch iPad Pro and went for an iPad mini instead?

Something smaller, lighter and easier to carry on shoots and when travelling.

It’s certainly an option I want to explore.

Yes, it’s still two devices; it’s still an iPhone and an iPad to charge and carry, but maybe that’s just how it’s got to be for me.

Do you have an iPad mini? Have you used it for tethering on shoots?

I’d love to hear how you get on with it. Is the screen big enough in practice? If you’ve moved from a larger iPad, do you miss it?

Let me know in the comments.

Your thoughts have already helped me reconsider one decision... they might help me get the next one right.

An Unexpected Gift ... the Fuji X100 VI

So the other day I met up with one of my closest friends, Steve Healy, for one of our regular catch ups / photo walks / breakfasts.

We try to do this near enough each week (commitments depending) and for both us it's a great opportunity to relax, unwind and just hangout. I love it.

The other day though, completely out of the blue, before we took a step, Steve gave me a wrapped present ... a Fuji X100 VI 😲

To say I was (and still am) blown away is understatement.

Even now, days later, I just don't know what to write that would come close to how I feel.

All I can say is that I love it, I'm overwhelmed, I'm ... I'm ... yeah lost for words.

It's no secret that I'm changing brands for my work camera but for everyday, always with me photography, this camera is such a dream, and now I have one, now and in the future it'll make me think of a dear friend ... and that's really special.

I'm very much someone that loves to give gifts than receive them, and Steve's the same, so he, more than anyone, knows how much this means to me!

Steve ... love you Buddy!

Oh ... of course, I then went on to buy some extras for it ... as you do 😃

Is Apple Photos REALLY Better Than Adobe Photoshop?

I honestly didn’t expect to be asking that question.

Photoshop has long been my first choice for removing unwanted people and objects from photographs. However, after testing the updated Clean Up tool in Apple Photos, I got results that weren’t simply comparable to Photoshop—they were noticeably better.

To find out whether this was a one-off, I put Apple Photos and Photoshop through three increasingly difficult tests.

Apple Photos Clean Up vs Photoshop Remove Tool

For the Photoshop edits, I used the Remove Tool with its mode set to Auto. This allows Photoshop to decide whether to use generative AI, Content-Aware technology or another method to fill the selected area.

For Apple Photos, I used the Clean Up tool on my iPhone, selecting the High Quality option. The same technology is also available in the desktop version of Apple Photos.

In both applications, I made quick, rough selections around the people I wanted to remove. I wasn’t attempting to produce perfect selections or spend time manually tidying the results. The aim was to see what each application could produce on its own.

Test One: Removing People From a Railway Station

The first photograph was taken at Cardiff Central railway station during a World War II-themed portrait shoot.

Original

I wanted to remove a group of people on the left-hand side of the frame. This meant the software needed to rebuild part of the station interior behind them.

Photoshop took almost a minute to process the removal. From a distance, the result looked acceptable. It had reconstructed much of the background and hadn’t caused too much damage to the surrounding areas. However, closer inspection revealed several areas that would need tidying.

Apple Photos completed the same task in around five seconds.

Clean Up using Apple Photos

The result was much cleaner. It reconstructed the background convincingly, removed distracting marks and shadows from the floor and created a space that genuinely looked as though you could walk through it.

It was an impressive start for Apple Photos—but the next test was considerably harder.

Test Two: Rebuilding a Complex Event Backdrop

The second photograph showed me standing with Carly from BenQ at the Wex Summer Roadshow.

Original

Removing both of us meant rebuilding a large section of the image, including a branded backdrop, a table, several logos and objects in the background.

Photoshop initially produced a result that looked quite impressive. It managed to recreate several BenQ logos and parts of the display. However, the longer I looked at the image, the more problems appeared.

Some of the logos were distorted, the table didn’t make complete sense and Photoshop had created several strange objects in the background. It had filled the empty space, but the result would require a fair amount of additional work.

Apple Photos took approximately 15 seconds to complete the same removal.

The difference was remarkable.

Clean Up using Apple Photos

The backdrop was clean, the logos were correctly positioned and the table had been rebuilt without an obvious join. It also reconstructed the wall and background pictures convincingly without duplicating random objects.

In this example, Apple Photos was the clear winner.

Test Three: An Almost Impossible Removal

The final photograph was the toughest test.

It showed me with Harry, a potter I photographed for my I Am Lyme project. Between us, we covered a large part of the frame, leaving the software with very little visible background to use as a reference.

Original

Photoshop filled the space, but the result looked confused. It repeated objects, created strange shapes and produced an area that became less convincing the longer you examined it.

Apple Photos produced something completely different.

Clean Up using Apple Photos

It reconstructed the trolley behind us, including one of its legs and a wheel. It also created a believable continuation of the workshop wall, complete with pots, tools and other details that matched the surrounding environment.

Was every generated detail an accurate reconstruction of what was really there? Of course not. Neither application can see through people to reveal the original background.

What mattered was whether the generated result looked believable—and the Apple Photos version did.

Looking at the Results Side by Side

After completing all three tests, I transferred the Apple Photos versions to my computer and compared them directly with the Photoshop edits.

The first Photoshop result was acceptable, but the Apple version was cleaner.

The second comparison wasn’t particularly close. Apple Photos handled the branded backdrop, table and background objects far more convincingly.

The third result was the most surprising of all. Photoshop appeared to fill the space with repeated textures and objects, whereas Apple Photos created a much more coherent scene.

Across these three photographs, Apple Photos consistently produced the better result.

Does This Mean Apple Photos Is Better Than Photoshop?

Not as an overall photo editor.

Photoshop remains an incredibly powerful application with an enormous range of professional editing, retouching, compositing and creative tools. Apple Photos isn’t going to replace it in my workflow.

However, when it comes to these specific removal tasks, Apple Photos’ Clean Up tool was better than Photoshop’s Remove Tool—and in some cases, it was considerably better.

It was also incredibly easy to use. I simply traced around the subjects with my finger, tapped Clean Up and waited a few seconds.

Questions About Resolution and Cost

There are still a couple of areas I want to investigate further.

The first is resolution. An image can look convincing on a phone or computer screen, but printing it is a much more demanding test. I’d like to see how much genuine detail the Clean Up tool generates and how well those reconstructed areas hold up in a physical print.

The other consideration is cost. Apple has indicated that some server-based AI features may have usage limits, with expanded access potentially becoming available for a fee. How that develops—and what it might eventually cost—remains to be seen.

Final Thoughts

Three photographs can’t tell us how these tools will perform in every possible situation. Different images, backgrounds and lighting conditions will inevitably produce different results.

But in these tests, particularly the two most challenging removals, Apple Photos was clearly ahead.

The results were clean, convincing and produced in seconds with nothing more than a rough selection made using my finger.

I never expected to say this, but Adobe genuinely needs to step things up.

Watch the video to see the full editing process and all three comparisons, then let me know what you think. Were you as impressed by the Apple Photos results as I was?

How to Fix Photoshop Scratch Disk Full (once and for all)

This warning has popped up a few times recently when I’ve been using Photoshop, and if you’ve seen it too, you might be wondering what a scratch disk actually is… and what you’re supposed to clear.

So, to accompany the video, I thought I’d put the steps here so you’ve got something to refer back to. There’s also a way to change your scratch disk if Photoshop won’t even open.

First, check which drive Photoshop is using

Before doing anything else, save your work if Photoshop will let you.

Then head to:

• Mac: Photoshop > Settings > Scratch Disks

• Windows: Edit > Preferences > Scratch Disks

Look at which drive is selected and how much space is available. That’s the drive we need to check.

You might have another drive connected with loads of room, but unless Photoshop is configured to use it, that space isn’t helping.

What exactly is a scratch disk?

Think of it as extra working room.

Imagine working on a print at a table. The print itself might be quite small, but you still need space around it for everything you’re using.

Photoshop needs that working room too. It uses space on a drive to store temporary information whilst you edit, so the size of your saved photograph doesn’t tell you how much space Photoshop might need to work on it.

There’s also a difference between a warning that space is getting low and an error that stops you opening Photoshop, editing or saving. A warning doesn’t necessarily mean the drive is completely full, but dismissing it doesn’t give Photoshop any more room.

Free up some space

Adobe recommends having at least 100 GB free on your primary scratch drive when troubleshooting this error. That’s guidance rather than a guarantee that every job will fit. Larger projects may need more.

Start with files you recognise: old video exports, downloads or projects you’ve already finished.

If you move them to another drive, check that the copies are there and open properly before removing the originals. And remember, putting files in the Trash or Recycle Bin doesn’t immediately free up the space. Review what’s in there before emptying it.

Once you’ve made room, save your work if you can, quit Photoshop completely and reopen it. Then try whatever you were doing when the warning appeared.

Give Photoshop another drive to use

If storage on your computer is always tight, another option is to give Photoshop a suitable drive with plenty of available space.

I use an SSD as a dedicated scratch disk.

Go back into Scratch Disks, select the drive and, if you’ve selected more than one, use the arrows to set their order. Adobe recommends putting the fastest drive first.

Click OK, then restart Photoshop.

Oh, and changing this setting doesn’t move your photographs. You’re choosing where Photoshop can put its temporary working data. If you’re using an external SSD, keep it connected whilst Photoshop is using it.

What if Photoshop won’t open?

You can’t get into Settings if Photoshop refuses to launch, but there’s a shortcut for that.

Hold these keys whilst launching Photoshop:

• Mac: Command + Option

• Windows: Ctrl + Alt

This lets you choose a scratch disk during startup. Select a suitable drive with space available, then continue opening Photoshop.

Don’t add the Shift key. That’s the shortcut for resetting preferences, which we’ll come to shortly.

Of course, if your only drive is full, the shortcut won’t create any extra space. You’ll need to make room outside Photoshop first.

Still getting the warning?

First, double-check that the free space you’re looking at belongs to the drive selected in Photoshop.

Then try quitting Photoshop completely and reopening it. Its temporary working data can build up during a session, and closing your photographs doesn’t necessarily release everything.

A restart can help, but it won’t solve a drive that’s consistently running out of room.

It’s also worth checking History States, under Settings / Preferences > Performance > History & Cache.

This controls how many previous editing steps Photoshop keeps available for you to return to. Keeping more can require more scratch space.

Adobe’s documented default is 50. If you’ve increased yours to several hundred, consider whether you really need that many. Reducing the number may help, but you’ll have fewer steps you can go back to.

Be careful with Purge

You might have seen advice to choose Edit > Purge > All.

This can release memory and scratch space, but understand what it does before clicking it: purging clears temporary editing information, including your history.

It doesn’t return your photograph to its original appearance, but you lose the ability to go back through the history you’ve cleared. You can’t undo the purge.

Save your work first if possible, and treat this as an optional troubleshooting step.

Resetting preferences

If you’ve checked the correct drive, made room and restarted, but the error keeps returning, resetting Photoshop’s preferences is another troubleshooting option.

This can help if damaged preference files are contributing to the problem. It doesn’t create storage, and it can remove your custom settings, so back those up first.

With Photoshop open, go to Settings / Preferences > General > Reset Preferences on Quit. Confirm, quit and reopen Photoshop, then check your scratch disk selection again.

If Photoshop won’t open, hold these keys whilst launching:

• Mac: Command + Option + Shift

• Windows: Ctrl + Alt + Shift

That’s the shortcut with the extra Shift key. You’ll be asked whether you want to delete the Photoshop settings file.

Start with the Scratch Disks panel

The main thing is to check which drive Photoshop is actually using and how much room it has. Then free up space or give it another suitable drive to work with.

Make one change at a time and repeat whatever caused the warning. That way, you’ll know what helped.

The video above takes you through where to find everything.

Right, I hope that’s useful.

Glyn

Has Apple Made Us Question Every “Real” Photo?

When Apple announced the new iPhone 18 Pro and Pro Max, they also introduced something that, as a photographer, I'm definitely interested in. It's called Apple Reference Image, and the idea is to give us stronger evidence about where a photograph came from, as in whether it's real or not.

I can see some real benefits to that, particularly when somebody looks at a photograph and immediately dismisses it as AI, but there's one detail that raises a few questions; it's optional. You have to choose to use it.

So what happens when somebody doesn't? Have they got something to hide, did they forget to switch it on, or were they simply using a camera that doesn't offer it? That's the part I think we need to talk about alongside the technology itself, because how we interpret this could be just as important as what it does.

What Apple has actually announced

Apple says the iPhone 18 Pro's main camera captures signed sensor data in reference mode, and its Private Cloud Compute system then develops that into an unaltered reference image. You can view that reference alongside the main photograph in Photos and compare the two, and Apple has also announced support for developers to enable reference viewing in other apps.

There are launch restrictions too. Reference capture won't initially be available in the EU, and it won't be available at all in China.

The useful idea here is having something to go back to when you want to examine a finished picture, but a comparison isn't necessarily a complete record of every editing step. I wouldn't assume we'll get a list telling us which tool was used, in which application and in what order.

Where it could help

Imagine you've made a photograph of something unusual. Perhaps the light was extraordinary, or you happened to catch a moment that looks almost too good to be true. You share it and somebody says straight away that it's AI, and at that point "no it isn't, I was there" might not get you very far.

A trustworthy reference could give you something more useful to put in front of them, but it won't make everybody believe you. Some people have already made their minds up, whatever evidence you show them; for somebody who actually wants to examine the picture, though, additional evidence could help.

I can also see a potential benefit for picture editors and clients. If the question is whether something significant has been added or removed, being able to compare the finished picture with a trusted reference could make that conversation a lot clearer.

Editing isn't the same as dishonesty

This is the part that interests me most, because I spend a lot of my time teaching Photoshop and Lightroom. Editing a photograph doesn't, by itself, tell you whether somebody is being dishonest.

Take a portrait. I might adjust the white balance, lift the shadows, remove a temporary blemish, or go quite a bit further than that. Those are changes, of course they are, but what matters is what the photograph is for and what the changes actually do and what I'm telling you about it.

If I remove a person from a news photograph, that could change your understanding of what happened entirely. If I make a composite and tell you it's a composite, you're being given the information you need to understand the work. That distinction matters.

So I'd like to see tools like this encourage more useful conversations about editing. What changed, did it alter the meaning, and was the picture presented honestly? Those questions tell us far more than simply asking whether Photoshop was involved.

The trouble with voluntary

My first concern is that the people who want to show how their pictures were made have a reason to take part, whilst somebody who wants to conceal what they've done can simply choose not to. That doesn't make the feature pointless, but it does limit what we can conclude from it. We could end up with some pictures that have supporting evidence and many more where we still don't know, and the danger is how quickly "we don't know" turns into "it must be fake".

Imagine somebody captures a really important moment but hasn't enabled the feature. Perhaps they didn't know it existed, or didn't expect to photograph anything important that day; they saw something happening, picked up their phone and took a picture, which is hardly unusual behaviour. Should we trust their photograph less because they didn't think about authentication beforehand? I'd be very uncomfortable with that.

Then there are people using older phones, different cameras or equipment that simply doesn't support this system. Their photographs don't become less honest because somebody else bought a newer phone, and I wouldn't want us drifting towards a situation where you're expected to own certain kit just to have your work taken seriously.

The obvious response is to have it switched on for everybody, and that's a fair point, but I also understand wanting a choice. People use their cameras for all sorts of things, family pictures and visual notes and creative experiments and work in progress, and they may not want an extra reference workflow attached to everything they shoot.

Before deciding whether it ought to be on by default, I'd want to understand the practical experience. What happens when you've got no connection, how much extra storage is involved, and how long does the process take? Those are questions worth testing, and I'm not suggesting they're established problems. If something is easy to use and clearly useful, people have a reason to adopt it; if it adds confusion or friction, a lot of people won't bother.

What happens after you press the shutter

There's also the journey a photograph takes after it's been made. You might edit it, export it, send it in a message, upload it somewhere, or have somebody else download it and pass it on. What happens to the supporting evidence along the way? Can the person at the end find it, can they view it with the software they already have, and will they understand what they're looking at?

A feature can work perfectly for the photographer and still be of limited value to the viewer if the evidence is hard to get at. That's something I'd want to test properly, taking a photograph through a normal editing and sharing workflow and then seeing what the recipient can actually check.

I'd also want to see how clearly the interface separates missing evidence, a failed check and a successful check, because those are completely different situations. If they all get read as a simple real or fake verdict, we're going to create a lot of confusion.

A true photograph can still mislead

There's one final limitation that no amount of enthusiasm about authentication should make us forget; a camera can faithfully photograph a misleading situation. I can stage a scene, choose a viewpoint that leaves out something important, or put an inaccurate caption underneath.

Imagine I photograph a small group of people waiting outside a building. One caption says they're waiting for it to open, another says they're protesting against its closure. Same picture, completely different stories, and checking where the image came from doesn't by itself tell you which caption is accurate.

That's a recognised limitation of photo provenance more broadly; evidence about an image's history can't, on its own, establish whether the content is factual. We still need context, which means asking who published the picture, what they're claiming, and what other evidence supports it.

Where that leaves me

I'm definitely interested, and I can't wait to see how it works in practice. Giving photographers a stronger way to support their pictures could be really valuable, and so could making it easier to examine meaningful changes, but I think we need to be careful about what we conclude.

If a reference image is available, use it as evidence and understand what it does and doesn't establish. If it isn't, ask questions rather than jumping straight to an accusation.

For me, that's the biggest concern with the voluntary approach. The people who opt in may gain a useful way to support their work, whilst everybody else could find themselves under suspicion for no good reason.

Why your Prints are Too Dark (and How to Fix It)

Of everything I get asked about with printing, why do my prints come out dark is the one that comes up more than anything else, and if it's happening to you then you haven't done anything daft. You've more than likely just taken the same advice that I did before I figured this out.

Why it happens

Your screen is backlit. It's basically a light source, the same as a lamp is, and a print isn't. All a print can do is bounce back whatever light is already in the room, so you've got one thing making light and one thing borrowing it, and those two are never going to look exactly the same.

However, here's the bit that catches everybody out. If your screen is throwing out more light than a sheet of paper could ever hand back to you, something happens while you're editing that you won't notice at the time. The picture looks bright because everything on the screen looks bright, so you bring it down a little, and what you've actually done is make that adjustment based on the screen rather than the picture. Then you send it to the printer and the paper has got no way of lifting it back up again, so you get the version you darkened on a surface that can't do anything about it.

The number

What you'll normally hear is to set the brightness in your calibration software to somewhere between 80 and 120 candela, and more often than not you'll hear 120. Sure, 120 looks great. It's bright and everything on it has a bit of life to it, but that is exactly what's wrong with it. It looks great because it's throwing out far more light than a sheet of paper is ever going to give back to you, and all the time it's sat there looking great you're quietly pulling down pictures that were never too bright to begin with.

I'm not saying everybody else has got it wrong. I'm saying I took that recommendation and my prints were always too dark.

The histogram is the only thing telling the truth

When your screen is calibrated too bright it's kind of lying to you, and the histogram is the only thing you can really trust. Change your screen brightness and to your eye the picture completely changes, but the histogram doesn't move, not one bit, because nothing has changed in the actual file. It's the one thing in this whole process that doesn't care how bright your monitor is.

The settings I use

After a lot of trial and error, and I do mean a lot, along with a fair bit of wasted paper, ink and money, I settled at 60 candela for my screen in my workspace, and I've not had a print come out too dark since. The software you calibrate with may well look different to mine, but the numbers transfer straight across:

• luminance 60 cd/m2

• white point D65

• gamut Adobe RGB

• gamma 2.2

• black point 0.5 cd/m2

Most calibration software will offer you presets, and the photography one will typically drop the luminance in at 120, which is the whole problem, so I ignore the presets and put the numbers into the custom target instead. The black point is worth a word too. By default it'll be sat at absolute zero, and I lift mine just a touch to 0.5, because even in the darkest parts of a picture I still want a bit of detail; at absolute zero it's just completely black.

I'm not saying 60 is the right number for everybody either, because the room you're working in comes into it.

The room your screen is sat in

Your eyes don't judge a screen on its own, they judge it against everything else around it, so a bright screen in a dark room appears brighter than it actually is, you darken more, and it's the same problem again only now the room is making it worse.

Two things matter. Enough light in the room, and light that's fairly neutral rather than a warm domestic bulb, because a warm bulb will have you making decisions about colour and that's a whole different problem. In my office the main light stays off and I use a Screen Bar Halo 2 from BenQ instead, which throws light down onto the desk without any of it hitting the screen and puts a glow on the wall behind the monitor. That glow on the wall is the bit that does the work, because it cuts out the extreme contrast of sitting in a dark room with just a screen on.

If you haven't got a calibrator

You can still get most of the way there for nothing. Take a print you've already made, hold it up next to your screen, and bring the screen's brightness down until the two of them look pretty much the same. That's it. It won't fix your colour and it isn't calibration, but it's a down and dirty way to stop your prints coming out too dark.

Whichever way you go at it, going from 100 down to 60 or thereabouts will look far too dark at first, and it is quite a jump, but just let your eyes adjust and they will after a few minutes, and very quickly it'll seem normal.

Your Next Camera just got MORE EXPENSIVE

If you've been saving up for a new camera here in the UK, it's worth going back and checking the price you've got in your head, because it might not be the price any more. Three Fujifilm bodies cost noticeably more today than they did a couple of weeks ago, and nobody said a word about it.

What actually went up

I'd heard a rumour that price rises were coming in on the 1st September, so on the 31st August I wrote down the prices of 13 camera bodies across Wex and the manufacturers' own stores, then went back a few days later to see what had changed.

Comparing one shop against another never tells you anything useful, because there's always a promotion running somewhere, or a different margin sitting behind the counter. The only thing that means anything is the same camera at the same shop on two different days.

At Wex the changes were clear:

• Fujifilm X100VI, £1,599 to £1,749

• Fujifilm X-T50, £1,299 to £1,399

• Fujifilm GFX 100 II, £6,999 to £7,499

That's £150 on the X100VI, which is a shade over 9%, £100 on the X-T50, and £500 on the GFX.

This isn't a case of a retailer quietly moving their margins about either, because Fujifilm's own UK web store shows exactly the same prices, and when a manufacturer changes the price on their own shop, that's the new baseline.

Two bodies that turned up on a leaked European retail list earlier in the summer, the X-S20 and the X-E4/X-E5 line, have stayed where they were for now.

Why it's happening

The interesting bit is that Fujifilm did explain all of this, just not to us. They explained it to their investors.

In their August quarterly financial presentation they set out a big jump in production costs tied directly to memory chips, which is the DRAM and flash memory that sits inside a digital camera. Demand from AI data centres has pushed the price of those components up, and cameras are competing for the same parts.

Fujifilm had originally forecast that memory costs would hit their imaging division by around 6 billion yen this year, but in that August report they more than doubled that to 14 billion yen, naming digital cameras and instant photo systems specifically. Their stated plan for handling it is "pricing measures and the procurement of alternative materials", which in plain English means passing some of the bill along to us.

Loud in Japan, silent over here

What makes it frustrating is that none of this is being said out loud in this country, because in Japan the manufacturers have been completely open about it all year.

Canon published formal notices about price adjustments across dozens of products back in May, Nikon issued official notices covering bodies like the Z50 II, and Sony posted updates for their cinema line in August. Over here we just woke up to bigger numbers on the product pages.

If you shoot Canon, Sony or Nikon and you reckon you're in the clear because UK prices haven't moved yet, I wouldn't get too comfortable. Shops tend to sell the stock they've already got at the price they paid for it, so once the warehouse clears and the next batch lands at the new wholesale cost, the shelf price usually follows.

OM System are doing the complete opposite at the minute, running their own discounts on their site through to late September on bodies like the OM-1 Mark II and the OM-5.

What I'd check before buying

However, there's a simple way to work out where you actually stand, and it takes a couple of minutes.

Start on the manufacturer's own store, because that gives you the true current RRP and it'll tell you straight away whether a quiet rise has already gone through. Then go and look at the independents you normally buy from, because if they're still sitting on earlier stock they may well still be selling at the old price, and that difference stays in your pocket. Depending on the body, that could be anywhere from £100 to £500.

None of this is a reason to rush out and buy something you weren't going to buy anyway, but if a camera has been on your list for a while, it's worth knowing that the number you wrote down a month ago might not be the number you pay. If you've spotted a quiet rise, or a sudden discount, on something you've been saving for, do say so in the comments; it all helps everyone work out where things are really heading.

Your Mac is Changing your Prints

You set the file up, soft proof it in Photoshop, load your favourite paper, hit print, and what comes out looks nothing like what you were looking at on screen. The colours are off, the skin tones have picked up a heavy magenta cast, and you're stood there wondering what on earth just happened.

Same printer, same paper, same profile, two completely different results.

Nine times out of ten it isn't your editing and it isn't your paper profile. It's your Mac, quietly making a decision on your behalf without ever telling you about it.

When you plug a printer into macOS, the system will very often set it up using AirPrint rather than the manufacturer's full driver. It does it silently, there's no warning, and it takes away your control over the settings that actually matter for a fine art print.

Why AirPrint gets in the way

AirPrint is fine for knocking out a boarding pass or an email, but for printing work you care about it causes real problems.

The big one is colour management. The option to turn off the printer's own colour handling disappears, so Photoshop and macOS both end up trying to manage the colour at the same time, and they don't agree.

Then there's the media types. Instead of picking the fine art paper you've actually loaded, you're left with basic options like plain paper or photo paper, which means the printer can't set the right head height or the correct ink limits for what's going through it.

Put those two together and you get the colour shifts, and it's the skin tones where you'll notice it first.

Checking and fixing it

However, there's a good reason it happens, and there's a simple way round it. This takes about a minute, and it'll save you a fair bit of ink and paper.

Start by going to your printer manufacturer's website, Canon, Epson or whoever it might be, and download the full driver software for your model, then install it.

Next, on your Mac, head to System Settings, then Printers and Scanners, click the info icon next to your printer and have a look at the driver details. If it mentions AirPrint anywhere, remove the printer.

Then add it back properly. Click Add Printer, select your device from the list, and this is the bit people miss, look at the Use dropdown at the bottom. Don't leave it on the default AirPrint option. Choose Select Software, pick your manufacturer's driver from the list, and click Add.

That's it.

Once the full driver is in place, all your print settings come back, the custom media types are there, and the colour management options are exactly where they should be, which is the bit that makes the whole difference.

There's a full walkthrough in the video above with the side by side print comparison, so you can see the setup on screen as you go.