Author: Tim Grey

Today’s Question: With Lightroom Classic, what is the benefit of syncing some or all of my images?

Tim’s Quick Answer: The primary reason to synchronize photos to the cloud with Lightroom Classic is to make those images available throughout the Lightroom ecosystem, such as through the Lightroom mobile app or via Lightroom in a web browser. Synchronization can also provide an additional backup for important images.

More Detail: When you enable synchronization for a collection in Lightroom Classic, the images in that collection are synchronized (and backed up) via the Adobe Creative Cloud service. In other words, copies of those images are stored on Adobe’s servers.

The key advantage to synchronizing photos to the cloud is that you can then access those photos from virtually anywhere with an internet connection. For example, collections you synchronize to the cloud from Lightroom Classic will appear as albums on the Lightroom mobile app for smartphones and tablets. You can also access those albums and photos using Lightroom in a web browser (http://lightroom.adobe.com).

These options provide a great way of sharing photos on the go with others, for example. It also provides a little bit of extra peace of mind, since the cloud-based copies of your images provide an additional backup of the photos, which you could download from cloud storage later should the need arise.

For example, I synchronize some of my favorite photos via various collections from Lightroom Classic, so I can easily share those images with others. This enables me to showcase the beauty of the Palouse region of eastern Washington State, where I have led numerous workshops over the years, for example. I can also easily share some of my favorite photos from around the world, such as by showing images from an album via the Lightroom app on my smartphone, which is pretty much with me constantly.

Beyond sharing your images with others, synchronization can help expand the flexibility of your workflow. For example, before returning home from a trip you could synchronize all photos captured during that trip, so they are available on your smartphone or tablet. You can then use that smartphone or tablet to review photos, assign star ratings, and even apply adjustments (among other tasks) without needing to access Lightroom Classic on your computer to do so.

Today’s Question: I recently got my first HDR-capable monitor (Windows computer). When editing in Lightroom Classic, I have the option of using standard view or HDR in the develop module. Since my printer can’t show the full range of the monitor, in which mode should I edit?

Tim’s Quick Answer: With an HDR display, assuming you might leverage HDR output at some point, I recommend first optimizing the image in HDR mode, and then switching to SDR mode to finalize the image for output. Otherwise, there isn’t any real advantage to working in the HDR mode.

More Detail: The HDR editing mode in the Develop module in Lightroom Classic enables you to view an expanded tonal range for images, both single-capture raw images and true high dynamic range (HDR) images. With an HDR-compatible monitor this enables you to see and edit based on a wider output range.

The HDR view is only applicable if you are using a display that supports HDR, as well as if you’ll be sharing the image via HDR output at some point. If you have no intention of generating HDR output (such as sharing via an HDR display), there’s no real benefit to working in HDR mode.

So, if you’re limited to only being able to print or otherwise share images in standard dynamic range (SDR), you can simply continue to work in SDR mode rather than leveraging HDR mode. For images that you might share via HDR output, such as a digital slideshow on an HDR display, I recommend first working in HDR mode to optimize the image. You can then switch to SDR mode to finalize the image for printing or other SDR output, such as for sharing online where most users are likely not viewing your images with an HDR display.

Today’s Question: I just read your answer to question about creating thin ovals with the radial gradient tool. Somewhere in the last few Lightroom Classic updates I lost the guide handles and lines for both linear and radial gradients. How do I get them back?

Tim’s Quick Answer: You can get the controls back for the gradient options for masking in Lightroom Classic by choosing “Auto” or “Always” from the “Show Edit Pins” popup on the toolbar below the image preview area.

More Detail: There are several options for the visibility of controls for the Linear Gradient and Radial Gradient options for masking in Lightroom Classic. These are available from the “Show Edit Pins” popup on the toolbar below the image preview area. Note that you can also toggle the display on or off by pressing the “H” key on the keyboard, so you may have unintentionally pressed that keyboard shortcut at some point, causing the controls to be hidden.

If the toolbar is not visible below the image preview area in the Develop module, you can press the letter “T” on the keyboard to toggle the display. You can also choose View > Show Toolbar (or View > Hide Toolbar) from the menu to toggle the toolbar display.

At the far left of the toolbar you’ll find the “Show Edit Pins” popup. I prefer to set this popup to “Auto”, so the controls will appear when my mouse pointer is over the image, and they will disappear when I move the mouse pointer out of the image area.

You can also choose “Always” from the popup if you want the controls to always be visible, regardless of where your mouse pointer is positioned. The “Selected” option will cause only the controls for an active edit pin to be displayed, while “None” will obviously hide the controls.

Once you’ve changed the setting, it is “sticky”, meaning your choice will remain until you change it again. Just keep in mind that accidentally pressing “H” on the keyboard will hide the controls, in which case you could also simply press “H” again to make the controls visible again.

Today’s Question: Could you provide some details about how the color RGB data is factored to arrive at the areas shown in the gray for the histogram in Lightroom Classic?

Tim’s Quick Answer: The area of the histogram in Lightroom Classic that appears gray is simply the area where the individual histograms for all three color channels (red, green, and blue) overlap each other.

More Detail: As noted in an Ask Tim Grey post last week, the histogram for an image reflects the relative distribution of tonal values in the image. However, when the histogram is presented as an RGB histogram, meaning that the individual color channels for red, green, and blue are represented, the shape of the overall histogram becomes a bit more complicated.

Specifically, instead of simply displaying a single histogram chart based on the luminance (brightness) values for pixels in the image, individual histograms are calculated for each of the color channels (red, green, and blue). Those three histogram charts are then overlaid together to provide a visual representation of the distribution of tonal values for each color channel that is used to create the overall image.

In Lightroom Classic, the area where all three color channels overlap completely is shown in light gray. Taken by itself, this gray area would be completely meaningless, because it only reflects the areas where all three color channel histograms overlap. However, it is helpful to have that gray area displayed as a way to provide context for the relative shapes of the individual histogram displays for the red, green, and blue channels.

For example, by having this gray area shown, it is easier to see which colors are more dominant in the shadows versus the highlights. Those colors would still stand out reasonably well without the gray indication of channel overlap, but having the gray color representing the overlap makes the color channels that stand out a bit in terms of pixel value distribution also stand out a bit better in terms of visibility on the histogram display.

Today’s Question: I was looking at 32-inch monitors, mostly because my vision isn’t as good as it used to be and I’m hoping I can make everything in Lightroom Classic easier to see without leaning forward. On the web there are comments saying there is an issue with Lightroom Classic and a larger monitor, with significant slowing. I’m wondering if you know of any issues with Lightroom Classic not being able to work well with a 32-inch monitor.

Tim’s Quick Answer: In terms of performance, the issue would be the resolution that the display is set to, not the physical size of the display. So as long as you were not using a very high setting for resolution, the larger display would not cause any performance issues.

More Detail: Setting a display to a very high resolution can negatively impact performance in Lightroom Classic, because there are more pixels that need to be processed to update that display. However, this issue relates to the resolution setting for the display, not the physical size of the display. Furthermore, a system with high performance specifications can make up for the potential performance degradation caused by a high-resolution display.

If you’re getting a larger display to improve visibility, there’s a good chance you’re going to be setting that display to a lower-than-maximum resolution. After all, if you’re trying to make the display easier to read, using a high resolution setting would work against that goal.

For example, if the 32-inch display supports 4K resolution, but you set that display to a resolution setting closer to around 3,000 pixels on the long side, you could expect the same performance as though you were using a 27-inch display set to around 3,000 pixels on the long side.

Furthermore, if your computer has robust specifications, the display resolution won’t be too significant of an issue. That includes, for example, having a relatively large amount of video memory, leveraging the GPU to maximize performance, building 1:1 previews for all images, and other factors that can improve performance overall.

In terms of the display, the key factor affecting performance is how many pixels need to be processed, not the physical size of the display.

Today’s Question: Why would you buy a 4K monitor if you’re not going to set it to a 4K resolution? Wouldn’t be better to buy a less expensive monitor with a lower resolution?

Tim’s Quick Answer: Put simply: Improved display quality. With more pixels for a given display size compared to a lower-resolution display, a 4K monitor provides enhanced detail. That holds true even if you set the display to a lower resolution than the maximum setting.

More Detail: A monitor display can be set to a variety of different resolutions, but changing the display resolution through the operating system doesn’t change the actual resolution of the display. In other words, a monitor has a fixed number of pixels, you can just scale the display to leverage those pixels in different ways.

A monitor with a 4K resolution has approximately 4,000 pixels horizontally. In most cases that number is closer to 3,800, but the display still gets identified as “4K”.

While a 4K monitor enables you to set the display to its native resolution, with around 4,000 pixels across, you may not want to make use of that setting. At that high resolution, especially for a display that isn’t particularly large, the text and other interface elements on the screen may be too small to see effectively.

For example, I typically prefer displays of around 27 inches in part because I like to have the display relatively close to me. I feel that a 32-inch display is a bit too large for my preferences, for example. With a display of this size, I personally find that using 4K resolution is just not comfortable, with many display elements being too small.

As a result, I tend to favor a display resolution that is closer to 3,000 pixels across, give or take, in terms of how interface elements are displayed. However, I still find there is a considerable advantage to opting for a 4K display, even though I’ll generally set the display to a resolution lower than 4K.

If you compare a 4K display versus a monitor with a resolution of around 3,000 pixels across, with both set to the same resolution of around 3,000 pixels across, you’ll find that the 4K display provides a noticeably sharper and cleaner looking display. To me the difference is significant enough that once I’ve seen a 4K display running at around 3,000 pixels across, I don’t want to return to a display with a lower resolution.

Therefore, I consider it an excellent idea to choose a display that has a 4K (or even 5K) resolution, even if like me you prefer to run that display at a lower resolution setting. The elements on the screen will be scaled to the resolution setting you’ve established, but the higher resolution of the 4K display will result in smoother lines with a sharper overall appearance.

Today’s Question: Will the new duplicate detection feature in Lightroom Classic help me find the numerous derivative copies of photos I’ve created and sometimes kept when I didn’t need to?

Tim’s Quick Answer: Probably not. The new duplicate detection feature in Lightroom Classic identifies duplicates that are essentially exact copies of the same file. If you created multiple derivatives individually from the same source image, none of those derivative images would be treated as duplicates.

More Detail: The duplicate detection feature included with the update to version 15.4 for Lightroom Classic can be incredibly helpful at locating duplicate copies of photos in your Lightroom Classic catalog. However, it is focused exclusively (at least for now) on identifying duplicate copies of the same image file, rather than near-duplicates such as derivative copies created from the original capture.

So, for example, if you send a raw image to Photoshop, creating a TIFF or PSD file in the process, those two images (the raw and the derivative image) would not be considered duplicates. If you had, on the other hand, managed to import the same raw captures more than once, those would count as duplicates.

Similarly, if you sent the same raw image multiple times to Photoshop and saved each result as a TIFF image with no actual changes applied in Photoshop, those images would not be treated as duplicates. If, however, you duplicated the same TIFF image multiple times on your hard drive and imported all those into Lightroom Classic, they would be treated as duplicates.

So again, in the context of the duplicate detection feature in Lightroom Classic, images are only treated as duplicates if they are truly copies of the same image file, even if they have different filenames. Derivative images that are different file types, different pixel dimensions, for example, would not be treated as duplicates.

I presented the duplicate detection feature in Lightroom Classic during my recent “Office Hours” session as part of my Lightroom Classic Ultimate Live Learning series. If you’re a GreyLearning Ultimate Bundle subscriber you can sign in to your account on the GreyLearning website (https://www.greylearning.com/users/sign_in) and then follow this link to view the recording of the presentation:

https://www.greylearning.com/courses/take/lightroom-classic-ultimate-live-learning/lessons/76571711-office-hours-new-features-july-9-2026

Today’s Question: Now that Adobe is buying Topaz is there any advantage in keeping a Topaz subscription?

Tim’s Quick Answer: In the short term, if you’re a fan of the software tools from Topaz, it probably makes sense to maintain your subscription. Assuming Adobe further incorporates technology from Topaz Labs into Adobe software, it would likely make sense to discontinue the Topaz Labs subscription assuming you maintain an Adobe Creative Cloud subscription.

More Detail: While Adobe has announced an agreement to acquire Topaz Labs, they have not provided specific details on how this will affect Adobe’s software applications. However, it is clear that the technologies from Topaz Labs will be further integrated into Adobe applications. I suspect, therefore, that most if not all key features available in software such as Topaz Studio, will be incorporated into Adobe software.

The deal is expected to close in the second half of 2026, subject to regulatory approval. After that, we will have to wait and see how quickly and significantly Adobe adds Topaz Labs features and technologies to Adobe software.

Once the Topaz Labs technologies are incorporated into Adobe’s software tools, I suspect that a subscription to Topaz Studio, for example, would become superfluous. However, indications are that Topaz Labs will continue to offer their software independently, so you could still make use of their tools even if you don’t subscribe to an Adobe Creative Cloud plan, for example.

You can read the statement from Adobe about this acquisition on their website here:

https://news.adobe.com/news/2026/06/adobe-to-acquire-topaz-labs

Today’s Question: Is there a way in Camera Raw or Develop in Lightroom Classic to make an elliptical mask that extends far beyond the image or the monitor edge? I want a super skinny mask that fades quickly on either side of the long axis.

Tim’s Quick Answer: Yes, you can create a Radial Gradient (elliptical) mask in Camera Raw or Lightroom Classic by zooming out so the image is small, enabling you to stretch the mask far beyond the edge of the image. It can also be helpful to set your monitor display to a higher resolution, even if only temporarily.

More Detail: The bounds of an elliptical mask created with the Radial Gradient masking feature with Camera Raw or Lightroom Classic enables you to extend the bounds of the mask edge outside the image area. This enables you to exercise greater control over the specific position and gradation of the mask, which in turn affects which specific portions of the image are affected by the targeted adjustment.

For example, you could use this technique to create an elliptical mask shape that causes only the left and right edges of the image, without affecting the top and bottom edges.

The key is to zoom out far enough that you can make the mask shape large enough to meet your needs. The first step would be to zoom out on the image, such as by using the Navigator control at the top of the left panel. The minimum zoom setting is 6%. If that’s not quite enough room to enlarge the mask as much as you’d like, increasing display resolution would help if that is possible with your configuration.

For example, I use a monitor display with a 4K resolution, but I generally set the display to closer to a 3K resolution. So, I could temporarily increase the resolution setting to 4K to have more room for enlarging the mask shape. The resolution could be reduced again after the mask is complete.

Of course, it is worth noting that if you want a very thin mask affecting only one dimension of the image, it might be easier to combine to linear shapes with the Linear Gradient option for masking. For example, you could create a Linear Gradient mask that applies an adjustment to only the left edge of the image and then add to that another Linear Gradient mask that adds the right edge of the image to the overall mask.

Today’s Question: Regarding HDR images, what’s the point? Good monitors now already exceed the dynamic range of printer paper. HDR practitioners claim that HDR images look so much better with more detail in the highlights even when they are displayed on my regular monitor in my web browser. How is this any different than boosting highlight tones with an S-curve?

Tim’s Quick Answer: In the context of how most photographers work with HDR images, the benefit is not about an improved monitor display or print of the image, per se, but to retain information in the image itself that would have otherwise been impossible.

More Detail: Once an HDR image has been fully processed, you can think of it as a normal photograph in the context of displaying it on a monitor or printing the image. The benefit of HDR isn’t about the final output exactly, but more about retaining far greater detail than would have otherwise been possible in the original capture.

In other words, HDR is really about the limitations of our cameras, not about the capabilities of our monitors or printers.

So, when you are photographing a scene that contains too great a difference between the brightest and darkest areas for your camera to capture full detail, you can create an HDR image to maximize the level of detail in the final image. To do so you would bracket exposures, separating each by two stops, with enough exposures to cover the full range from the darkest to the brightest areas of the scene.

Those bracketed exposures can then be assembled into an HDR image. When we talk of a “true” HDR image, where an HDR display would provide a benefit, we’re referring to a 32-bit per channel image. For most photographers their HDR workflow includes processing the HDR with tone-mapping, which converts the 32-bit per channel image to a 16-bit per channel image.

In the process of tone-mapping the image, you’re effectively taking the high dynamic range data from the bracketed exposures and compressing it to fit the range of tonal value for a normal non-HDR photo.

In other words, once you’ve assembled and tone-mapped your HDR image, it is no longer HDR in the mathematical sense. Rather, it is a normal image that through a little bit of photographic and software magic represents a great tonal range than would have otherwise been possible. But the greater tonal range only existed in the scene you were photographing, and the result has now been translated to a normal tonal range.