Author: Tim Grey

Today’s Question: I have been using Photoshop for over 20 years and early on decided to avoid using the denoise functionality because of potential loss of detail. However, recently I have been experimenting with this function and have been pleased with the results in many challenging situations, so I assume this functionality has been upgraded over time. However, I still am concerned about what the process does to the source file, as it seems to apply destructive edits. Am I correct?

Tim’s Quick Answer: No, none of the adjustments (including Denoise) in Camera Raw, Lightroom Classic, and Lightroom, will alter the original raw capture. And it is true that Denoise has gotten significantly better with recent updates.

More Detail: I suspect any concern about Denoise altering the original raw capture is the result that a recent change from Adobe enables Denoise to be applied without having to create a DNG file as part of the process. In effect, Denoise is now simply another of the many adjustments available in Camera Raw, Lightroom Classic, and Lightroom.

One of the key features of raw processing software is that it does not alter the original raw capture. Rather, the raw data is processed with the adjustment settings you’ve specified, to generate new pixels that would typically then result in a new image file. The raw capture remains unaltered. The adjustment settings are preserved in an XMP “sidecar” file. This can contribute to making it appear that the raw capture was modified, because if you open the raw capture again, you’ll see that all prior adjustments (including Denoise) are already in effect.

Rest assured that your raw capture remains unmodified. You could, for example, simply reset all adjustments to revert to the original image, or make a second copy of the raw capture (without the XMP file) and open that to start from the default settings.

Today’s Question: The size of the original raw photo (CR3 from a Canon R5) was approximately 45 megabytes. When I sent the image to Photoshop from Lightroom Classic to use Generative Fill for image cleanup, the resulting TIF file is now nearly 650 megabytes in size. Is this normal and, even if it is, do you have any suggestions that would keep resulting edits (when they become TIF’s via Photoshop) to a more “reasonable” size?

Tim’s Quick Answer: This significant increase in file size is mostly due to the use of Generative Fill in Photoshop without flattening the layers. In the absence of the use of Generative Fill in this case the resulting file would not have been anywhere near as large.

More Detail: A TIFF file will always have a considerably larger file size that a raw capture, though there are a number of factors that can dramatically increase the file size for a TIFF image.

To begin with, in most cases a raw capture only contains only one of the three RGB (red, green, blue) for each of the pixels in the final image. It is not until the raw capture is processed to create another image that the full pixel data is generated. At that time, the file will generally be at least three times larger than the raw capture based on 8-bit per channel mode. If the TIFF image was saved in the 16-bit per channel mode, that base file size increases to six times the original file size.

So, in the case of a 45MB raw capture, a TIFF saved in 8-bit per channel mode would be about 135MB in size. At 16-bits per channel that file size would increase to about 270MB.

However, the Generative Fill feature adds an additional layer with considerable data. This can lead to an image that is almost ten times larger than the original raw capture.

There are two basic strategies that can be used to reduce the file size of a TIFF or PSD image. One is to flatten layers once you’re completely confident that the image is completely finished and you don’t need to modify any of the existing layers. Of course, you always have the raw capture to go back to if you need to make changes, but this could still involve considerable work depending on what you had done in Photoshop.

The other thing you could do is convert the image to 8-bit per channel mode rather than 16-bit per channel mode. I only recommend considering this option if you are completely finished with adjustments and you have flattened all layers, because otherwise converting to 8-bit per channel can cause posterization (a loss of smooth gradations in the image).

Note that there is also compression available for TIFF files, which can help reduce the file size to some extent. This won’t make as much of a difference as the above options, but it is helpful. In Lightroom Classic you can go to the External Editing tab of the Preferences dialog and choose ZIP from the Compression popup. This will help reduce file size without any impact on image quality.

Today’s Question: When I import images into Lightroom Classic I use a user preset that includes Lightroom’s “auto” processing. I find that’s a good place to start my adjustments. I also often take bracketed exposures to create HDR [high dynamic range] images through Lightroom’s “Photo Merge” feature. Does the “auto” import processing affect the HDR creation?

Tim’s Quick Answer: Adjustments applied to bracketed exposures before merging to a high dynamic range (HDR) image won’t affect the creation of the underlying HDR image, but can affect the initial appearance of that image.

More Detail: It is not a problem to apply adjustments to the bracketed images before merging them into an HDR image in Lightroom Classic. Applying adjustments before merging will not affect the underlying HDR image that is assembled. However, many of the adjustments will carry through to the HDR image. But if you’re not happy with the results, you can always refine the adjustments after merging.

As a somewhat extreme example, let’s assume you converted a bracketed set of exposures to black and white (using the B&W treatment option in the Basic section) before merging them to HDR. The resulting HDR image will appear in black and white rather than color. However, you could then simply turn off the B&W treatment option and the HDR will magically appear in color again.

The issue is a little different with the tonal adjustments applied when you use the Auto adjustment, in that the basic tonal adjustments will not carry through to the HDR image. For example, if you shifted the exposure value for all the bracketed images, that would not cause any change in the HDR image when you merge the image. The HDR would be the same with or without the Exposure adjustment for the bracketed exposures.

Also keep in mind that you can enable the “Auto Settings” option in the HDR Merge Preview dialog, which is similar in concept to applying the Auto adjustment in the Develop module or on import via a preset. This will alter the settings based on an evaluation of the HDR image, but you can always refine the adjustment settings later with no impact on image quality.

Today’s Question: Can one make a collection set in Lightroom Classic after the fact? I have a large number of collections, and if I had been thinking ahead, I would have organized them into sets. Can I do that now?

Tim’s Quick Answer: Yes, you can create a new collection set after you created collections and then move existing collections into a collection set.

More Detail: Collections in Lightroom Classic can be organized into collection sets, similar to how a group of related folders can be placed into a common parent folder. While it is possible to add a collection to a collection set when the collection is created, you can also add collection sets after the fact.

To create a new collection set, click the plus (+) icon to the right of the Collections heading on the left panel in the Library module and choose “Create Collection Set” from the popup menu. In the dialog that appears, enter a meaningful name for the collection set in the Name field and click the Create button. The new collection set will then appear in the Collections section.

When you want to add an existing collection to a collection set, simply drag the collection onto the collection set. This will place the collection inside the collection set, and you can then collapse the collection set to hide the contents and streamline the display in the Collections section.

Note that you can also have multiple layers of nested collection sets. For example, you could create a collection set called “Projects” that contains collection sets for “Calendars”, “Books”, and “Presentations”. You could then put collections into their respective category of collection set, which in turn is inside another collection set. This can be especially helpful for photographers who create a particularly large number of collections for organizing their photos.

Today’s Question: What do they [Adobe] mean by “Export Negative Files” [with the Export as Catalog command in Lightroom Classic]?

Tim’s Quick Answer: The “Export Negative Files” checkbox in the “Export as Catalog” dialog really means “export copies of source photos”.

More Detail: In an earlier Ask Tim Grey post I addressed how the “Export as Catalog” command could be used to back up the Lightroom Classic catalog along with the photos it contains. This command can also be helpful when, for example, you have been working with a traveling catalog on a laptop and want to migrate that catalog to your desktop computer to merge with the primary catalog.

The general process involves creating a new catalog that contains all the information about the photos you’re exporting, which could include all photos in the source catalog or just a subset, depending on the purpose. In addition, you would generally want to make copies of the photos to go along with the new catalog, so that you had everything you needed to continue managing the photos reflected in the new catalog all in one place.

If you want to include copies of the photos along with the new catalog, you need to turn on the “Export Negative Files” checkbox. This name, I think it is fair to say, is wildly confusing.

My assumption—which I’ve never verified—has always been that someone at Adobe thought they were being clever. The name “Lightroom” is obviously a variation on the darkroom that was a key aspect of film photography. So, I have always assumed that the term “negative” in “Export Negative Files” referred to the negatives that are the source of prints made in the wet darkroom. Ignoring the fact that “negative” is a term that essentially excludes slide film, it is also confusing to use this term in the context of managing digital photos.

Regardless of the etymology or intent, I think the use of “negative” in the context of the Export as Catalog command is confusing. I’m frankly a bit surprised that with Lightroom having been around for more than 18 years Adobe hasn’t updated the checkbox to have a more meaningful name.

If you’re interested in the original post about using the Export as Catalog command to back up the catalog and photos, you can find it on the Ask Tim Grey blog here:

https://asktimgrey.com/2025/09/10/full-backup-of-catalog-and-photos/

Today’s Question: I was intrigued by your statement that Lightroom Classic sends a “fully rendered image is sent rather than a raw capture” when you edit in Photoshop. Can you explain what the difference is? Isn’t a raw capture a complete image?

Tim’s Quick Answer: A raw capture generally only includes about one-third of the total pixel information for an image, whereas a rendered image contains all the pixel data.

More Detail: Most digital camera sensors only record one of the three colors for each pixel. The “missing” information must be rendered through interpolation, which is handled with post-processing for raw captures and in-camera for JPEG captures, for example.

While most digital cameras are based on the RGB (red, green, blue) color model, all three colors are not captured for each pixel with most image sensors. The most common arrangement is the Bayer pattern, where for every four photosites on the sensor two will capture only green information, one will capture red information, and one will capture blue information.

The fact that the image data is not processed to produce full-color pixel values is the reason these file types are referred to as “raw” captures.

The process of interpolating the image data so that all pixels have full RGB color values associated with them is referred to as “demosaicing”. This is done in the camera for JPEG captures but must be handled by software for raw captures.

If you open a raw capture directly in Photoshop, Camera Raw will be invoked so the image can be demosaiced. If you send a raw capture from Lightroom Classic to Photoshop, the demosaicing is handled by Lightroom Classic based on the adjustmetns in the Develop module, so that a rendered image with complete color information is sent to Photoshop. If you wanted to use Camera Raw to further process the image in the context of sending an image to Photoshop from Lightroom Classic, you would need to use the Camera Raw filter, accessible in Photoshop by choosing Filter > Camera Raw Filter from the menu.

Keep in mind that most of the time the Develop module in Lightroom Classic and Camera Raw in Photoshop include the same features. So, in most cases it isn’t necessary to use Camera Raw if you’re using Lightroom Classic. However, at the moment the Dust feature for Distraction Removal is only available in Camera Raw in the public beta version of Photoshop, which is what caused the original issue to arise in the question I addressed yesterday.

Today’s Question: In trying to test the new dust removal feature in Adobe Camera Raw, I discovered that if I use “Edit in Photoshop” from Lightroom Classic, the files open directly into Photoshop. If I go to Explorer [or Finder] and double-click on the same file, it opens in Camera Raw. Can you explain this?

Tim’s Quick Answer: When you send a raw capture to Photoshop from Lightroom Classic the image is rendered by Lightroom Classic including the adjustments from the Develop module. In other words, what is sent to Photoshop isn’t a raw capture, which is why Camera Raw is not invoked. However, you can still use Camera Raw as a filter in Photoshop.

More Detail: If you open a raw capture directly in Photoshop (including by opening the image from Bridge or through the operating system) the image will automatically be opened in Camera Raw. The same is true for JPEG, HEIC, and TIFF images if you have enabled support for those file types in Camera Raw Preferences. The same is not true for images sent to Photoshop from Camera Raw.

The reason is that when you send a raw capture to Photoshop from Lightroom Classic it is in effect processed by Lightroom Classic so that a fully rendered image is sent rather than a raw capture. Therefore, the image is simply opened in Photoshop without the use of Camera Raw.

However, there’s no need to resort to opening the raw capture directly in Photoshop to get to Camera Raw. You can simply use the Camera Raw filter, which in the current public beta version of Photoshop includes a Dust option for Distraction Removal, along with options to remove Reflections and People.

To use the Camera Raw filter in Photoshop, simply open an image, select the applicable image layer (making a copy or Smart Object if you want to work non-destructively) and then choose Filter > Camera Raw Filter from the menu. You can then choose the Remove tool from the toolbar at the top-right and select the Dust option in the Distraction Removal section.

Today’s Question: I seem to have lost my star ratings in a collection of photos I was working on in the Grid view in Lightroom Classic. I have them in the loop so how do I get them back in the Grid view?

Tim’s Quick Answer: There are a few possible settings that can cause the star ratings to not be shown in the grid view in Lightroom Classic, but the solution can be found in the Library View Options dialog.

More Detail: There are a variety of options for configuring the way images are displayed in the grid view in Lightroom Classic, primarily revolving around which metadata is displayed along with the image thumbnails. This includes the option to choose whether star ratings (among other attributes) are shown.

To get started, while in the Library module go to the menu bar and choose View > View Options. If you weren’t already in the grid view, click the Grid View tab at the top of the dialog. Then review the display settings to determine why the star ratings aren’t shown.

If you’re not seeing any metadata details in the grid view, you may have the “Show Grid Extras” checkbox at the top of the dialog turned off. If so, turn on the checkbox so metadata will be displayed for each image thumbnail.

If the Show Grid Extras popup is set to “Compact Cells” then you’ll want to make sure that “Rating” or “Rating and Label” is selected from either the Top Label or Bottom Label popup in the Compact Cell Extras section, and that the checkbox for “Top Label” or “Bottom Label” (or both) is turned on. If the Show Grid Extras popup is set to “Expanded Cells” then there are two other options. You’ll either want to make sure that the “Show Header with Labels” checkbox is turned on and that “Rating” is selected from one of the four popups, or you’ll want to make sure the “Show Rating Footer” checkbox is turned on.

The point is that if star ratings or other metadata attributes aren’t displayed in the grid view, you can get them back by selecting the applicable option on the Grid View tab of the Library View Options dialog.

Today’s Question: I recently purchased a new computer and had a computer tech install the latest versions of Photoshop and Lightroom Classic. When I checked my Keyword List, the alphabetical list only went from “A” to “O”. Keywords starting with “P” through “Z” are missing. How can I find those other keywords (hopefully they’re not lost)?

Tim’s Quick Answer: This is a long-standing known issue with Lightroom Classic on the Windows platform. You can access keywords further down the alphabetical list using the search field, or you can organize the keywords into a hierarchy to enable access to the full list.

More Detail: The issue of not being able to see your full list of keywords in the Keyword List of the right panel in Lightroom Classic only affects Windows users (not Macintosh). From everything I’ve been able to gather, it doesn’t appear that this limitation will be fixed anytime soon, if ever.

There are two workarounds that Windows users can employ to access their full list of keywords. The first is to enter text into the Filter Keywords field at the top of the Keyword List section. For example, if you type “sta” into the field the Keyword List will only show keywords that include that string of letters, such as “starburst” and “statue”. You can click the “X” at the right side of the Filter Keywords field to clear the filter.

You could also create keyword hierarchies to work around this issue, although I don’t really recommend this approach due to the additional complexity involved. It is far too easy, for example, to accidentally drag a keyword into the wrong hierarchy. Plus, existing metadata standards don’t actually support keyword hierarchies.

If you wanted to use hierarchies to work around the Keyword List limitation, you could start by creating parent keywords. These could be categories such as “Landscapes”, “Travel”, and “People”, for example. You might also consider creating a parent keyword for each letter of the alphabet and put the actual keywords into these hierarchies based on the letter they start with.

Assuming the latter approach, you could create a keyword called “A” and then drag all keywords that start with “A” into that parent keyword. If you repeat this for every letter of the alphabet, you would be able to collapse all but one of the parent keywords, so that all keywords for a given letter can be displayed in the Keyword List. The only other requirement, of course, is that the parent keyword you’re browsing not contain more than about 1,500 keywords.

I suppose I should also add that Windows users facing this issue could also switch to using a computer running the Macintosh operating system, where the limitation does not exist. But for most I would expect that to be less desirable than using one of the above workarounds.

Today’s Question: I’ve heard you talk about your approach to using star ratings, but I’m wondering why you don’t use pick and reject flags as well, as they provide a simpler way of identifying favorites versus outtakes.

Tim’s Quick Answer: While I appreciate the binary approach to identifying favorites versus outtakes using pick and reject flags, I prefer star ratings to take advantage of the ability to rank images into tiers based on relative quality.

More Detail: To be sure, there is no workflow for organizing photos that will work well for all photographers. This is why I try to make a point of explaining my own rationale for the workflow I use, while outlining other alternatives that some photographers may prefer.

The pick and reject flags provide a binary option for identifying favorites versus outtakes, where an image is either a favorite or an outtake. In this context I generally regard an image that doesn’t have a pick or reject flag as being an image that hasn’t yet been evaluated. In effect, with pick and reject flags you’re making a simple “yes” or “no” decision about whether an image is a favorite or whether it should probably be deleted.

With star ratings you can identify favorites in tiers. While you might think of a one-star rating as representing a bad image, I don’t recommend this approach. Instead, I use an approach where a one-star rating identifies a “keeper”, or an image I like and that I think I might use in some way. Two stars represents a photo that is among the best from a photo shoot or trip. Three stars represents what I think of as a “best of the year” photo, and four stars represents “best of the decade”. I use a five-star rating to identify an all-time favorite, or an image that belongs in my “best of” portfolio.

I supplement the star ratings with a reject flag for photos that I think should be deleted. After a review pass, I’ll take another look at the rejected photos to make sure I’m comfortable deleting them, and then I’ll delete all rejected photos.