Ask Tim Grey

Today’s Question: Is there a tried and true method of getting rid of the glare off someone’s glasses?

Tim’s Quick Answer: The new AI-based reflection removal in Camera Raw and Lightroom Classic can provide good results. Otherwise, you would need to use a more manual approach of toning down the glare.

More Detail: Adobe recently added a Reflections option for Distraction Removal with the Remove tool in Camera Raw and Lightroom Classic. While this can produce good results removing distracting glare, I’ve had very hit-or-miss results with reflections in eyeglasses in large part because those reflections tend to be in a rather small area of the photo. Still, it is worth turning on the Apply checkbox in the Reflections section of Distraction Removal to see if it will produce a good result.

If not, the next thing I recommend is using the Remove tool. Turn on the “Use generative AI” checkbox and carefully paint over only the area that has glare. In my experience Generative AI produces much better results in this type of situation compared to having it turned off.

When neither of the above works, in most cases you’ll need to resort to a more manual approach tailored to the specific appearance of glare in the image. For example, in some cases simply darkening and desaturating the glare area with a targeted adjustment will provide an improved look.

With sunglasses it is often possible to simply darken the entire lens so very little detail appears, helping to hide the glare of reflections. Targeted adjustments can be beneficial when the glare is strong and in only a portion of the lens. But when the glasses have clear lenses it can be much trickier to get a good result. Sometimes carefully targeted work will give you a good result, but I’ve also had situations where I concluded that it was best to just accept the glare because it would simply take too much work to get a good result trying to remove the glare.

Today’s Question: Concerning your presentations on “Perfecting Basic Tone and Color” and “Advanced Color Adjustments”, do you actually go through all the adjustments for every image from a specific photo shoot? Or do you perform this deep dive only for the best images from an outing?

Tim’s Quick Answer: No. I only apply the adjustments that I feel an image would benefit from, which means there are often plenty of adjustments that I skip. I also only apply adjustments to images that I intend to share, or where I want to get a better sense of the full potential of the image.

More Detail: When it comes to optimizing my photos, even in the specific context of tonal and color adjustments, I don’t feel the need to apply every available adjustment to every image. I’m selective about which images I spend time optimizing, and I only apply the adjustments that I feel will improve the impact of the photo.

For example, if I don’t mark a photo as a favorite, it will probably never get adjusted (unless I change my mind about a photo later, which does happen from time to time). I only spend time optimizing photos that I feel have some degree of potential, and even then I mostly only optimize photos that I’m going to share in some way. Of course, sometimes I optimize photos that I don’t necessarily intend to share, such as to explore the potential of an image based on improving it with adjustments.

There are certainly adjustments that I will use on pretty much every photo I ever work on. That includes adjustments like Whites, Blacks, Highlights, and Shadows, along with favorites such as Vibrance and Clarity. But there are also adjustments that I don’t use very often, such as Color Mixer or Color Grading. Don’t get me wrong, those are two incredibly powerful and helpful adjustments, but not every image needs that degree of refinement. Sometimes, for example, I’m happy with the overall color simply by adjusting White Balance, Tint, Vibrance, and Saturation, without needing to fine-tune the color in specific portions of the photo.

I think this can be one of the more challenging aspects of optimizing photos. It can be relatively easy to learn how the adjustments work, for example, but potentially more challenging to decide which adjustments to use for specific photos. I’ll be addressing this type of issue in an upcoming presentation in my Ultimate Live Learning series.

Today’s Question: With the addition of a “Clarity and Dehaze” adjustment layer in Photoshop, I’m wondering if you recommend applying these adjustments in Camera Raw [or Lightroom Classic] or using these adjustment layers?

Tim’s Quick Answer: In general, I recommend applying the Clarity and Dehaze adjustments when initially processing the original capture in Camera Raw or Lightroom Classic. However, I appreciate that the adjustment layers are available for situations where you want to add (or increase) the effect within Photoshop.

More Detail: A recent update to Photoshop added the “Clarity and Dehaze” adjustment layer, in addition to a Grain adjustment layer for adding a film grain effect. These are adjustments that had already been available in both Camera Raw and Lightroom Classic, so it might seem unnecessary to have them added to Photoshop. That’s particularly true when you consider that the same adjustments could be applied using the Camera Raw filter within Photoshop.

However, I’m still grateful that these new adjustment layers are available. For one thing, adding an adjustment layer offers a simpler approach than creating a duplicate image layer or converting a layer to a Smart Object to apply the filter nondestructively. Adjustment layers have minimal effect on file size and provide a convenient way to apply or refine adjustments.

In addition, adjustment layers enable you to leverage a layer mask so that the adjustment only affects a specific area of the image. For example, you may have a landscape photo where only the background area exhibits haze. Applying the Dehaze adjustment across the entire image may cause the foreground to have excessive contrast, for example. In this type of situation you can use a layer mask with the adjustment layer to only apply the adjustment where it is needed in the image.

To be sure, with the considerable updates to both Camera Raw and Lightroom Classic over the years, many photographers find that there is less work they need to do on the image once they bring it to Photoshop. However, I’m still glad that Adobe is continuing to put work into adding new and updated features to Photoshop for editing beyond Camera Raw and Lightroom Classic.

Today’s Question: Does the Remove tool in Photoshop use AI? If so, is there a way to turn that off? For photo contests I enter we aren’t allowed to use AI.

Tim’s Quick Answer: Yes, the Remove tool in Photoshop can use Generative AI, but you can turn it off with a setting on the Options bar.

More Detail: There are more than a few cleanup tools in Photoshop, with one of the newer ones being the Remove tool. This tool can use Generative AI, which in my experience does considerably improve the quality of the results most of the time. However, you can disable Generative AI for the Remove tool if you prefer.

After selecting the Remove tool from the toolbar, go to the Options bar at the top of the interface and look for the Generative AI popup to the left of the “Sample all layers” checkbox. Click that popup and you can choose between Auto (where Photoshop will determine whether to use Generative AI), Generative AI On (which will cause the Remove tool to use Generative AI for all cleanup you perform), or Generative AI Off (which will disable Generative AI).

Today’s Question: You once told us how to make all photos appear in the parent folder [in Lightroom Classic], even if only for a short time, to do a job. I want to run a filter for photos taken in 2025 with 4 stars on ALL my photos, but they are located in numerous folders below the parent folder, which shows a photo count of zero. Is there a way to do this?

Tim’s Quick Answer: Yes, in Lightroom Classic you can browse photos from a range of folders you can enable the “Show Photos in Subfolders” option, select a range of folders, or browse the “All Photographs” collection and set a filter that includes the year and star rating attributes for the criteria.

More Detail: There are several ways you can browse photos meeting specific criteria from multiple folders. Which makes the most sense depends on the folder structure representing the photos you want to browse.

In the context of today’s question, the photos are contained in folders within a parent folder. Therefore, one of the simplest approaches would be to turn on the “Show Photos in Subfolders” option found on the Library menu. This will cause the parent folder to reflect the total number of photos from all subfolders. You can then browse that parent folder, set a filter as desired (such as for a star rating in today’s example) and you’ll be viewing all photos with that star rating within all subfolders for the selected folder.

You could also leave the “Show Photos in Subfolders” option turned off and instead select all the subfolders within the parent folder. For example, you could click on the first of the subfolders and then hold the Shift key on the keyboard while clicking on the last subfolder. If needed, you could also hold the Ctrl key on Windows or the Command key on Macintosh while clicking on a folder to toggle its selection. You could then similarly set a filter such as by star rating to narrow the range of photos being displayed.

Another option would be to browse more broadly across the entire catalog, setting a filter based on the specific criteria you have in mind. To do so, start by selecting the “All Photographs” collection in the Catalog section of the left panel in the Library module. Then go to the Library Filter bar above the grid view and set the applicable criteria. In today’s example you could start on the Metadata tab, setting the left column to Date if it isn’t already, selecting the desired year so you’re only browsing photos captured in that calendar year. You could then go to the Attribute tab to add additional criteria, such as a specific star rating based on today’s question. This allows you to browse all photos that meet the criteria you’ve specified, regardless of which folder the photos are stored in.

The key is to consider which of the above is the best option based on, for example, whether you want to browse photos from specific folders versus all photos matching certain criteria across the entire Lightroom Classic catalog.

Today’s Question: I always hear that JPEG images deteriorate when opened multiple times, but I have never noticed any deterioration. Nobody ever says anything about how many times it has to be opened before it’s visibly starting to degrade. What are your thoughts?

Tim’s Quick Answer: Bottom line: You don’t have to worry about this issue. But it is true that JPEG images do degrade (very slightly) if you open them, apply adjustments, and save the updated image.

More Detail: The issue of JPEG image quality degradation from being opened multiple times is something I consider to be really a more theoretical discussion than an issue of practical importance. After all, if image quality is a major concern, you shouldn’t be using the JPEG format in the first place.

The JPEG format is convenient, ubiquitous, and efficient. It enables you to save images with a relatively small file size, which can then be shared easily with anyone regardless of which software they’re using. But the JPEG format also involves the use of compression that degrades image quality to achieve smaller file sizes. This degradation in image quality isn’t a significant concern if you’re simply sharing an image online or via email. But it can become a problem if you’re printing an image, for example.

When you save an image in the JPEG format, compression is applied to the image data. That generally means dividing the image into blocks of 16×16 pixels and simplifying the information within each of those blocks with a strength depending on the Quality setting you selected. Besides altering actual pixel values, this can also lead to an issue where the boundary of each block of pixels doesn’t align as well as it originally did because each block is compressed individually.

If you open and save the image without modification, the pixel values and the compression algorithms are the same, so you end up with the same results. But if you open an image, make changes to the pixel values, and then save the image, the compression is applied based on different pixel values and therefore additional degradation of image occurs.

Except at the very lowest Quality settings, the degradation of image quality is not generally a significant problem in the context of how JPEG images are normally shared. However, this can be a more significant concern for images that will be printed at a relatively large size, where any degradation of image quality gets amplified and is easier to see.

As noted above, if image quality is a paramount concern, I never recommend capturing JPEG images or saving images in the JPEG format. In addition to compression issues, there is also the matter of JPEG images only supporting 8-bit rather than 16-bit per channel bit depth. But if you’ve already decided that the JPEG format is worth the tradeoffs, saving a JPEG after applying adjustments to it isn’t an issue that should cause you any real concern.

Today’s Question: In earlier versions of Lightroom Classic it was possible to turn off an entire section in the Develop module to disable those adjustments, such as to turn off the Effects section to disable vignetting. Now there is only an eye icon that temporarily turns off the adjustment like a “before and after” view. Is there no longer a way to turn off a section like with earlier versions?

Tim’s Quick Answer: Yes, the switch to disable an adjustment section is still available, accessible by holding the Alt/Option key and then clicking the toggle that appears in place of the eye icon.

More Detail: In earlier versions of Lightroom Classic there was a toggle switch to the left of most of the section headings on the right panel in the Develop module. This enabled you to turn off (or on) the entire set of controls within a section with a single click. This was helpful both for getting a “before” and “after” view of the image, as well as disabling controls without having to commit to resetting the adjustments altogether.

More recently, those toggle switches were replaced by eye icons. You can click and hold the mouse point on one of those icons, and the entire adjustment section will be temporarily disabled. However, as soon as you release the mouse the adjustments are enabled again. In other words, this is only an option for reviewing “before” and “after”, not disabling the adjustments.

However, you can access the original toggle switches by holding the Alt key on Windows or the Option key on Macintosh. Continue holding Alt/Option while clicking on the toggle to disable (or enable) the entire section.

I for one never understand why Adobe and other software developers insist on hiding helpful features using a “secret” keyboard shortcut that is not particularly user discoverable. I appreciate a relatively clean interface, but not at the expense of having to test out various keyboard shortcuts in the hope of finding hidden features that should never have been hidden in the first place. But I digress.

Today’s Question: I have an image that I exported from Lightroom Classic telling it to make it 1200KB or smaller. In Windows Explorer shows as 1.28MB. I open it in Photoshop and in “Image Size” it shows 4.32MB. I save it from Photoshop at level 9 [for JPEG quality] getting an estimate of 433KB. I open the saved image in Photoshop, and it still says it is 4.32MB. I assume Photoshop is incorrect. Is it and why?

Tim’s Quick Answer: Photoshop is “wrong” only in the sense that it isn’t actually reporting file size in the Image Size dialog, but rather the amount of data represented by the image based on specific parameters.

More Detail: The most significant mismatch here is actually a mismatch in terms of what information is being conveyed, not an actual error in Photoshop. In the Image Size dialog (Image > Image Size from the menu) the Image Size indicated at the top of the dialog is a representation of the amount of data contained in the image. Think of this as an indication of how large the file would be if you saved it as a TIFF file with all layers flattened and without compression applied.

If you save the image with layers, it will be larger than indicated. If you save the image in a file format (such as JPEG) with compression applied, the file size will be smaller. Frankly, I don’t think the number is really very useful for most users, because we tend to think of image size as a measure of how large the image will appear on a display or in print, or based on how many megapixels it represents.

A JPEG image has significant (and lossy) compression applied to it, which varies based on the Quality setting used. But the image still contains a specific number of pixels that represents the equivalent of much more data relative to the file size on the hard drive. It is just that the image quality has been degraded in order to achieve a smaller file size for a relatively large amount of data compared to that file size.

The discrepancy between the requested file size of 1200KB and 1.28MB (nominally 1280KB) is mostly because Lightroom Classic doesn’t do a perfect job of meeting file size requests. In some cases this is a matter of not being able to get the file size small enough based on available JPEG compression, for example.

In addition, the relationship between kilobytes and megabytes isn’t as straightforward as many people assume. One megabyte is actually 1,024 kilobytes, not 1,000 kilobytes. Furthermore, the actual amount of hard drive space consumed will not perfectly match the file size because of the way hard drive clusters are structured in terms of “chunks” of data that represent files on a hard drive. But this final paragraph perhaps exposes my nerd qualities more than is necessary for today’s question.

Today’s Question: I have Lightroom Classic catalog backups dating back to June of 2024. To free up room, can I delete the backups from 2024 and most of 2025? If yes, how many backups should be kept?

Tim’s Quick Answer: Yes, older catalog backups for Lightroom Classic can be deleted. I generally recommend retaining recent backups, but only a handful of older backups, and deleting all backups older than about six months.

More Detail: The older a catalog backup is, the less valuable it tends to be. And the more catalog backups you have, the more likely you’ll be able to recover from a recent backup. It isn’t incredibly likely, for example, that if your catalog got corrupted the backups would also be corrupted going back multiple months.

I think it is fair to say that most photographers will only perform the work of deleting older catalog backups on a periodic basis, perhaps triggered by their hard drive starting to get full. So, for most of us this isn’t something you need to do on a particularly frequent basis.

The way I think about retaining catalog backups is that I would first delete any catalogs that are older than about six months. Among backups that date between about three and six months I would tend to retain only a few, perhaps one or two per month. For backups that are less than three months old, I would tend to keep all of them, but if you’re particularly low on storage space you could certainly modify this approach to just retain some of the backups that are relatively new. I generally prefer to retain all (or at least most) backups that are less than a month old.

This approach can also be modified based on how frequently you back up your catalog. For example, if you back up the catalog every day, personally I would tend to clear out those backups a bit more frequently.

Note, by the way, that it is now possible to delete catalog backups from the Backups tab of the Catalog Settings dialog. On the Backups list select the backups you want to discard and then click the Delete button at the bottom-right of the list.

Today’s Question: ACR files have recently started appearing on my hard drive next to original JPEG files. I edited the JPEGs in Lightroom Classic and I have not yet exported any of the edited files. Is there a reason for the appearance of the ACR files? Could I safely delete the ACR files on my hard drive without losing any of the edits made in Lightroom Classic?

Tim’s Quick Answer: The ACR files (with a filename extension of ACR) that you’re seeing are supplemental sidecar files that contain some of the more extensive edit metadata, such as masks and distraction removal. While they can be safely deleted, I don’t recommend doing so as they provide a backup to the information from the Lightroom Classic catalog.

More Detail: As of version 15, Lightroom Classic will store some metadata in ACR sidecar files in addition to XMP sidecar files, when metadata is saved to the source image files rather than only the catalog. This is in part to reduce the file size for XMP sidecar files.

When Lightroom Classic determines that there is a relatively heavy metadata load for an image, it will save some of the more significant edit-related metadata to an ACR sidecar file rather than the XMP sidecar file. This includes more substantial edits such as masks for targeted adjustments, AI features including distraction removal, Super Resolution, and Denoise.

XMP sidecar files are only created for proprietary raw captures, while standard metadata for other supported file types is saved directly into the source image. The metadata stored in ACR files is saved in an ACR file for all supported file types, which is why you might see ACR files for JPEG images, for example, in addition to proprietary raw captures.

Note that by default all updates are only saved to the Lightroom Classic catalog. The metadata referenced above will only be saved to the source files on the hard drive if you have turned on the “Automatically Write Changes into Sidecar Files” checkbox on the Metadata tab of the Catalog Settings dialog, or if you manually save metadata to files using the Metadata > Save Metadata to File command.

It is also worth noting that Camera Raw in Photoshop also uses the ACR sidecar files, so even photographers who don’t use Lightroom Classic may see these ACR files start to appear.