Ask Tim Grey

Today’s Question: How would you go about removing photos from cloud storage once you’ve downloaded them from Creative Cloud and imported them into Lightroom Classic?

Tim’s Quick Answer: Photos can be removed from Adobe Creative Cloud storage using the All Synced Photographs collection in Lightroom Classic, or by accessing Lightroom through a web browser.

More Detail: Today’s question is a follow-up to yesterday’s question about recovering photos from cloud storage when they don’t appear in Lightroom Classic. The same basic concept, however, would apply to any situation where you don’t want specific photos to remain in cloud storage via Adobe Creative Cloud.

If the photos appear in Lightroom Classic but you don’t want them to be stored in the cloud at all you can remove them from the “All Synced Photographs” collection in the Catalog section of the left panel in the Library module.

First, I recommend confirming which photos you want to remove from cloud storage. Note, for example, that if you turn off synchronization for a collection in Lightroom Classic, the images in that collection won’t actually be removed from cloud storage. In the example from yesterday’s question, images from the cloud were to be downloaded and imported into Lightroom Classic, and those images could be removed from cloud storage after that.

You can, for example, use a color label that isn’t assigned to any other images to mark the photos you want to remove from cloud storage. Then set a filter for that criteria and select all the applicable images in the All Synced Photographs collection. Right-click on any of the selected photos and choose “Remove from All Synced Photographs”. This will cause the photos to be removed from cloud-based storage.

Another option is to use Lightroom in a web browser by navigating to https://lightroom.adobe.com and signing in with your Creative Cloud account. You can then turn on the checkbox to select one or more photos and click the trash can icon on the toolbar at the bottom of the page to delete the photos from cloud storage. Just keep in mind that this will cause the image to also be removed from any synchronized collections in Lightroom Classic, but will not delete source image files from your local hard drive.

Today’s Question: I synchronize photos from my iPhone to Lightroom Classic by importing the into Lightroom Mobile. I discovered that some photos have been imported into Lightroom Mobile but do to show up anywhere in Lightroom Classic. What can I do to repeat the process to force the missing photos to sync?

Tim’s Quick Answer: In this type of scenario, the best approach is probably to download all photos from Adobe Creative Cloud and import the applicable photos into Lightroom Classic manually.

More Detail: There are several ways that photos can appear in cloud storage with Adobe Creative Cloud, but not in Lightroom Classic. In my view the most likely explanation in this case is that you may have switched which catalog was being synchronized with the cloud, leaving some photos “stranded” in cloud storage. It is also possible that an error occurred, causing certain photos to not synchronize properly.

One way you can resolve this issue is to download all photos from your Adobe Creative Cloud account and import only those that are not duplicates (or only those you specifically want to import). You could then remove the photos from cloud storage if you don’t want them there.

Fortunately, Adobe provides a software tool that makes it easy to download all your photos stored in the cloud. To get started, point your web browser here and sign in with your Adobe Creative Cloud account:

https://lightroom.adobe.com/lightroom-library-download

Click the “Export my photos” button, and you’ll see a message to let you know that an email will be sent to you with a download link once the files are ready for download. The downloads will be a series of ZIP files, which you can extract to access the downloaded photos.

You can then import those photos into your Lightroom Classic catalog. You can turn on the “Don’t Import Suspected Duplicates” checkbox in the File Handling section of the right panel in the Import dialog if you want to import all photos that aren’t already in your catalog. You can also filter the photos if you only want to import some of them, such as to only import photos from a specific date range.

Once you’ve imported the photos, you may want to remove them from cloud storage, as they would not otherwise be represented in the context of cloud storage in Lightroom Classic.

Today’s Question: Is there an easy way to determine which adjustments in Lightroom Classic have been changed from their default values?

Tim’s Quick Answer: There are indicators for which adjustment categories have been changed from their default settings, and which specific adjustments have been modified.

More Detail: The first thing to look at is the eye icon that appears to the left of each section heading on the right panel in the Develop module. That eye icon will appear more bright for sections that have adjustments that have been changed from their defaults, and more dim for sections where all adjustments are at their default values.

Another indicator can be found in conjunction with the buttons for the categories of adjustments on the small toolbar below the histogram. These include the Edit tab, the Crop tool, the Remove tool, and others. A small dot appears below the icon for the buttons that have adjustments applied beyond the default settings.

For individual adjustments you can determine if the value has been changed from the default by looking at the numeric value for the adjustment to the right of the slider. If the value differs from the default, the numbers will appear brighter, and if the adjustment is at the default value the numbers will appear more dim.

You can, of course, also refer to the History section of the left panel to see which adjustments have been applied, including an indication of how much the adjustment was changed by and the new value for the adjustment.

Today’s Question: Is it possible to see which specific adjustments are included in a Develop preset in Lightroom Classic?

Tim’s Quick Answer: Sort of. If you want to review a preset you created yourself, you can view the contents of the XMP file that is created when you save a preset. Otherwise, the only option would be to apply the preset to an image that doesn’t have any adjustments applied and review the adjustment settings to find those that changed from the default value.

More Detail: There isn’t a built-in feature in Lightroom Classic that will summarize the adjustments included in a Develop preset. But there are a couple of ways you could determine what the preset includes.

If you created the preset in Lightroom Classic you can right-click on that preset and choose Show in Finder (Macintosh) or Show in Explorer (Windows) from the popup menu. Then open the highlighted file with a text editor, such as TextEdit on Macintosh or Notepad on Windows. The saved preset is an XMP file that isn’t structured in a way that is particularly easy to read. However, if you scroll through you’ll find the names of the various adjustment settings with numeric values showing what the saved adjustment was set to. This can be a little tedious, but it does enable you to review the adjustments included in the saved preset.

The other option would be to select an image that doesn’t have any adjustments applied to it, or click the Reset button at the bottom of the right panel in the Develop module to reset to the default settings. Then apply the applicable preset and review all adjustments to see which had been changed from the default value.

Today’s Question: Can you please explain how to create a catalog for use when traveling with Lightroom Classic? I understand you can then merge that catalog with the main catalog at home?

Tim’s Quick Answer: You can create a new catalog for traveling with Lightroom Classic using the “New Catalog” command on the computer you’ll be traveling with. You can then merge that catalog with your primary catalog when you return home using the “Import from Another Catalog” command.

More Detail: Creating a new catalog for a photography trip is a great way to make full use of Lightroom Classic while traveling. You can then merge that catalog with your primary catalog when you return home, retaining all metadata updates and other information about the photos you imported and worked with during your travels.

I recommend creating the new catalog on an external hard drive you’ll be traveling with, which will make it much easier to migrate to the primary catalog when you return home. So, on the laptop you’ll be traveling with you can open Lightroom Classic and choose File > New Catalog from the menu. Navigate to the external hard drive, enter a meaningful name in the “Save As” field, and click the Create button.

Be sure to use that catalog exclusively while traveling. You can import photos into the catalog, preferably onto the same external hard drive where the traveling catalog is stored. You can make use of all features in Lightroom Classic during your travels, as all your work will be retained with this process.

When you return home, connect the traveling external hard drive to the computer with your primary catalog. Open Lightroom Classic with your primary catalog and then from the menu choose File > Import from Another Catalog. Navigate to the location on the external hard drive where you created the traveling catalog, select the catalog file (the file with the .lrcat filename extension), and click the Choose button.

In the dialog that appears, make sure all folders are selected for import and choose “Add new photos to catalog without moving” from the File Handling popup. Click the Import button, and the traveling catalog will be merged with your primary catalog. You can then move the folder containing the photos from your trip to your normal storage location for all photos. Just be sure to move that folder within Lightroom Classic, not through the operating system.

At that point you’ll have all the photos and metadata updates from your traveling catalog in your primary catalog. You should not use the traveling catalog from that point forward, and can discard all the related files once you’re sure the primary catalog is in good order and the catalog and all photos have been backed up.

Today’s Question: You commented that when you send photos to others you rename them. I do that also. But I’m wondering how you then keep track of which photo a shared copy relates to.

Tim’s Quick Answer: I recommend either including the original filename as part of the renamed derivative image, or using a keyword to tag the images based on how they were shared so you can locate them later if needed.

More Detail: Today’s question is another follow-up to an earlier question about renaming, and in one of my previous answers I mentioned that I don’t generally rename my photos in my normal workflow. I also mentioned that when I send a derivative image to someone else, I do rename that copy so it has a more meaningful name.

In some cases, I don’t really need to keep track of the source file for a derivative copy being shared with someone else. For example, when I speak at events the organizers often want to have a handful of sample photos that illustrate my work as a photographer. In this type of situation, I don’t generally need to keep track of which photos I shared for a particular event. It is a just a showcase of images I consider to be favorites at that time, or that relate to the theme of the event.

When I do want to be able to keep track of which photos were used for sharing through a particular outlet, there are two approaches I might use.

The first, and most convenient and dependable, is to retain the original filename as part of the filename for the derivative copy that is shared with someone else. For example, if an original image has the filename of IMG_1234.cr3 I might rename the derivative copy to something like “Tim Grey – Lightroom Virtual Summit 2026 – IMG_1234.jpg”. With this approach I can use the original filename in the name of the derivative image to track down the original.

Another technique I use is something I refer to as “fake keywords”. There’s not actually anything fake about these keywords, they’re just used in a way that is a little different from the typical approach. With the example above, I might add “Lightroom Virtual Summit 2026” as a keyword for the image, so that I can use that keyword to track down the original image as needed.

In Lightroom Classic you could also use a collection to group together the images you’re sharing for a particular purpose. However, this approach could quickly get a bit unwieldly if you share a large number of photos through a variety of different outlets. A hybrid approach could be to assign a meaningful keyword as noted above, and then create a smart collection based on that keyword for situations where you want quick access to specific photos via a collection that automatically populates based on specific metadata criteria.

Today’s Question: What are the differences (and advantages/disadvantages) of using masking [for targeted adjustments] in Camera Raw [or Lightroom] versus Photoshop? And how do you maintain a non-destructive workflow if using masking in Camera Raw?

Tim’s Quick Answer: In my view the core difference between applying targeted adjustments using Camera Raw or Lightroom compared to Photoshop is that the former provides improved usability while the latter provides more powerful capabilities. And a non-destructive workflow is possible with all these software options.

More Detail: Photoshop provides a much wider range of tools for creating and refining selections and layer masks for applying targeted adjustments. This makes Photoshop much more powerful in terms of being able to exercise tremendous control over the adjustments you’re applying. However, that can also cause Photoshop to be quite a bit more difficult to use with good effect due to the complexity and abstract nature of some of the options.

The masking features found in Camera Raw and Lightroom (both Classic and cloud-focused) are more focused on being user-friendly, with relatively straightforward tools that are aimed at hiding some of the complexity. That isn’t to say that these software applications aren’t without their challenges, but they are easier to use in general compared to the more advanced options in Photoshop.

The way I look at this issue is that it is generally easier to apply targeted adjustments using Camera Raw or Lightroom compared to Photoshop. However, when you really need to exercise fine control for detailed or complicated masks, Photoshop provides the additional power that can help you achieve better results. It just may be more difficult to achieve great results depending on your level of confidence using these features in Photoshop.

Applying targeted adjustments in Camera Raw or Lightroom is always non-destructive, and you can always return to a raw capture to refine the adjustments you had previously applied. Photoshop isn’t automatically non-destructive. However, if you apply all targeted adjustments in Photoshop using adjustment layers (and possibly layer groups) in conjunction with layer masks (and possibly saved selections) and then save with layers intact, you can ensure you’ll always be able to open the image and refine your earlier work.

Note that all the above topics are covered (or will be covered soon) in my ongoing GreyLearning Ultimate Live Learning series. The presentations in this series are available exclusively to GreyLearning Ultimate Bundle subscribers, and you can learn more about the bundle here:

https://www.greylearning.com/bundles/greylearning-bundle?coupon=golive

Today’s Question: Given that I roll over the odometer on my camera three or four times a year, I would normally end up with three or four identically named “IMG_0001″, “IMG_0002″, “IMG_0003″ flies every year. Wouldn’t this be a good reason to always rename photos?

Tim’s Quick Answer: Yes, it would be reasonable to rename photos to avoid filename repetition. However, this isn’t generally a significant issue unless you would potentially have repetitive filenames within a single folder.

More Detail: Today’s question is a follow-up to my answer in Friday’s edition of the Ask Tim Grey eNewsletter. In my answer I explained that it is indeed good to rename photos to have more meaningful filenames than those generated by the camera, but that I don’t find it necessary to rename photos in my own workflow.

Admittedly, there is the potential for repeated filenames in your photo library to create confusion. However, that isn’t necessarily a significant issue for all photographers. For example, my Lightroom Classic catalog contains almost 400,000 images, and I’ve never had any issues arise due to duplicate filenames.

The only time duplicate filenames would be a real problem is in the context of a single folder, since you can’t have two files with the exact same filename within the same folder. Lightroom Classic deals with this issue by appending a number (such as “-2” to the end of the base filename if you import photos with the same name into a folder.

I would never argue against the practice of renaming photos. I simply wanted to provide some context for photographers such as myself who don’t find it all that important in their workflow. In other words, if you rename your photos, I encourage you to do so. But if you don’t rename your photos, there might not be a particularly important reason for you to start doing so.

For those who do want to rename their photos, I do recommend making sure you’re using an approach that will ensure unique and hopefully meaningful filenames. For example, using a format like “Tim Grey Photo 12345678.cr3” would provide something more meaningful than the filenames generated by the camera, but isn’t necessarily all that useful.

Instead, I would suggest including numbers representing the date of capture and perhaps custom text providing context for the photos, such as “Tim Grey – Palouse -2026-06 – 001234.cr3”. The key is to create a filename structure that not only looks more random than the filenames generated by the camera, but that also provides other helpful information or context.

Today’s Question: In your recent presentation I noticed you seem to use the default file names for your photos from the camera. What are your thoughts on keeping those names instead of something more meaningful? If the original file name is required, it can be appended to the end.

Tim’s Quick Answer: I think renaming your photos to something more meaningful than what comes out of the camera can be very helpful. I just don’t tend to rename my own photos in large part because I don’t have the need to send copies of images to others very often, and I don’t find renaming to be all that helpful in my normal workflow.

More Detail: To be clear, the filenames that are generated by most cameras aren’t exactly helpful. The filenames generally consist of a base filename that is only eight characters long, often with additional characters that further reduce the value of the filename. For example, a common structure uses a filename along the lines of IMG_1234.CR3, meaning there are only four characters used for the sequence number. This, in turn, means that after 9,999 photos the filename rolls back to something like IMG_0001.CR3.

So, I certainly think it is a good idea for photographers to rename their photos upon download or import, so that they can use a filename structure that is more meaningful and helpful. That might include, for example, the photographer’s name or initials, the year, month, and day of capture, as well as a sequence number to ensure unique filenames for all images.

However, while I consider renaming to more meaningful filenames, I simply don’t find the improved filenames to be particularly helpful in my own workflow. I almost always sort photos by capture time, so having a better filename structure won’t help with sorting my images in a meaningful way. I don’t send photos to others very often where I need to be able to reference the original filename, so I can simply rename the derivative copy of photos when sending them to others.

Ultimately, what this all boils down to is that I do think renaming photos to have more meaningful filenames is a good thing. It is just something I’ve fallen out of the habit of doing. In other words, I have myself in a situation of, “Do as I say not as I do”!