Ask Tim Grey

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.

Today’s Question: When I send a raw file to Photoshop from Lightroom Classic with the Photo > Edit In > Edit in Adobe Photoshop command, it goes straight to Photoshop and not Camera Raw. The file name in the Photoshop window ends in .CR3 [a Canon raw capture format]. When I use the Photoshop command File > Open Recent, it opens in ACR as expected. What gives here? I thought Photoshop could not work directly on raw files!

Tim’s Quick Answer: This is what I’d refer to as an illusion in Photoshop. When you send a raw capture to Photoshop, it isn’t really opened as a raw capture but rather is rendered based on the raw image and adjustments from Lightroom Classic. When you save that image, it will automatically update to a TIFF or PSD file depending on your settings for External Editing in Preferences in Lightroom Classic.

More Detail: When you send a raw capture to Photoshop from Lightroom Classic, it appears as though you’ve opened a raw file directly in Photoshop, bypassing Camera Raw. What actually happened is that you sent image data from Lightroom Classic, rendered based on any adjustments applied in the Develop module.

When the image opens in Photoshop, it isn’t actually a file at all. It is just pixel data in memory. If you quit Photoshop without saving at that point, you would not have a new derivative file on your hard drive. You would only have the original raw capture.

However, if you send the raw capture to Photoshop and then use the File > Save command, the file will be saved as a TIFF or PSD based on the settings established in Preferences in Lightroom Classic. You can review or update those settings in the “Edit in Adobe Photoshop” section of the External Editing tab of the Preferences dialog in Lightroom Classic.

If you later use the File > Open Recent command in Photoshop to re-open a raw capture that had previously been sent to Photoshop, you’re actually opening a raw file and not sending rendered pixel data from Lightroom Classic. As a result, the Camera Raw dialog will appear for that image. However, in the context of Lightroom Classic you should not open a raw capture directly in Photoshop but should rather use the Photo > Edit In command to create a derivative image based on the raw capture and Develop adjustments from Lightroom Classic.

Today’s Question: What does the histogram vertical axis indicate? Is it number of pixels in a certain range or “bucket” of luminance values? What is the peak value; what number of what?

Tim’s Quick Answer: The vertical axis of the histogram shows the relative (not absolute) number of pixels in an image for each tonal value represented by the horizontal axis.

More Detail: While the general concept of the histogram is relatively straightforward, there are a couple of factors that can cause it to be a little confusing.

First off, the horizontal axis represents tonal values in the image, with black at the far left and white at the far right. However, not all tonal values are actually represented. In most cases, the horizontal axis for the histogram is calculated based on only 256 tonal values from black to white. This represents 8-bits per channel for a single channel, effectively meaning that the histogram is calculated as though the image was in black and white and 8-bits per channel even if it is a full-color 16-bit per channel image.

Once the image data is simplified in this way to calculate the shape of the histogram, the pixels are tallied to determine how many pixels in the image represent each tonal value. That number determines the height of the histogram chart on the vertical axis for each tonal value of the horizontal axis. You can think of the histogram in this context as being a bar chart where there are 256 vertical bars along the horizontal axis, with the height of each of those bars representing the number of pixels at each tonal value.

However, the data is manipulated a bit further to improve the overall display of the histogram chart. The chart is generally scaled so that whatever the highest point on the histogram chart is will go to the top of the vertical scale. In other words, the top of the vertical axis can represent a significantly different number of pixels in the image depending on the overall distribution of tonal values in the image.

For example, if you view the histogram for an image that is mostly comprised of very bright pixels, the right end of the histogram will be very tall, and the rest of the histogram will be very low. For an image with a relatively even distribution of tonal values throughout the full range, the entire histogram will be relatively tall. In both cases, the tallest portion of the histogram will extend to the top of the vertical axis.

Of course, different software will use different methods for calculating the histogram display, but the basic concepts outlined above are relatively universal. And of course, if you’re displaying a full-color histogram, the same concepts apply with the difference being that three individual histogram charts are generated for each of the three color channels and then overlaid on top of each other.

Today’s Question: Does the “Merge to HDR” feature in Lightroom Classic provide the same results as Camera Raw?

Tim’s Quick Answer: Yes, the built-in HDR merge feature in Lightroom Classic is equivalent to the same feature in Camera Raw. I therefore recommend using this feature rather than sending bracketed exposures to Photoshop for merging to an HDR image.

More Detail: Photoshop includes the HDR Pro feature for merging bracketed exposures into a high dynamic range (HDR) image. However, in my view this feature is inferior to the Photo Merge feature available in Lightroom Classic and Camera Raw. I therefore recommend using Photo Merge to create HDR images rather than HDR Pro.

For Lightroom Classic users that means assembling HDR images by selecting the bracketed exposures and choosing Photo > Photo Merge > HDR from the menu. That also means avoiding the Photo > Edit In > Merge to HDR Pro in Photoshop command from the menu.

Today’s question was a follow-up to a question about using Camera Raw versus Photoshop for creating HDR images. So, the question is to some extent about whether Camera Raw and the Develop module in Lightroom Classic are equivalent. The answer is that the two are indeed equivalent in terms of processing quality and for the most part in terms of feature parity.

There are times when Adobe releases features in Camera Raw before they are available in Lightroom. However, in general when that happens, we don’t have to wait too long before the feature is available in Lightroom as well.

Today’s Question: During one of your recent presentations you relaunched Lightroom Classic and a screen came up while it was loading that included your logo. Is that a feature available to anyone? If so, how do you make use of it?

Tim’s Quick Answer: Yes, anyone can create a custom splash screen for Lightroom Classic by simply saving an image of up to 900 by 600 pixels in the “Splash Screen” folder.

More Detail: A splash screen is an image that appears while an application is loading, which is relatively common, including with Adobe applications. While it is possible to disable the splash screen with Lightroom Classic (via the “Show splash screen during startup” checkbox on the General tab of the Preferences dialog), it is also possible to create your own custom splash screen.

Besides adding a bit of personalization to Lightroom Classic, a custom splash screen can also provide a bit of branding and promotion such as in situations where your customers might see that splash screen when you’re presenting to them.

To get started, create an image for your splash screen (such as with Photoshop) with pixel dimensions of up to 900 pixels wide by 600 pixels high. Save the image as a JPEG or PNG image. You can then place that splash screen image into the “Splash Screen” folder, the location of which depends on your operating system. Also, note that if you’ve never created a Splash Screen folder, you can create it in the applicable location.

For Macintosh users hold the Option key on the keyboard while choosing Go > Library from the menu (the Library option won’t appear if you’re not holding the Option key). In the Library folder navigate to Application Support > Adobe > Lightroom > Splash Screen.

For Windows users go to the Users folder on your system hard drive (drive C: by default). Then continue navigating to AppData > Roaming > Adobe > Lightroom > Splash Screen.

Again, if the “Splash Screen” folder doesn’t exist you can simply create it. Once your image is in the folder, as long as you’ve not disabled the splash screen in Preferences, you’ll see the splash screen image whenever you launch Lightroom Classic.

Today’s Question: I understand (I think) the logic of the somewhat new “Save a Copy” command, and I’ve gotten used to using it. However, I don’t like that it adds “copy” to the end of my filename, and sometimes I forget to remove it. Is there a way to prevent that text from being added in the first place?

Tim’s Quick Answer: Yes, you can stop Photoshop from appending “copy” to the end of a filename when you use the “Save a Copy” command by turning off the “Do not append ‘copy’ to filename when saving a copy” checkbox in Preferences.

More Detail: The “Save a Copy” command in Photoshop is relatively new and aimed at helping ensure (among other things) that photographers don’t inadvertently save their layered image files in a format that doesn’t support layers, losing all those layers in the process. The “Save As” command will therefore only allow you to select file types (such as TIFF or PSD) that support all the features you’ve used for an image. If you want to save in a file format (such as JPEG) that doesn’t support things like layers, you need to use the “Save a Copy” command.

As noted in today’s question, by default when you use the “Save a Copy” command, the filename will be updated to include “copy” at the end. You can certainly remove that text manually in the “Save a Copy” dialog, but there’s also an option to disable this behavior altogether.

To get started go to the Edit menu on Windows or the Photoshop menu on Macintosh and choose Preferences or Settings followed by “File Handling”. In the “File Saving Options” section turn on the “Do not append ‘copy’ to filename when saving a copy” checkbox. Close the Preferences dialog, and from that point forward the “copy” text will no longer be appended to the filename when using the “Save a Copy” command.

Note that in most scenarios when using the “Save a Copy” command there isn’t any real need to append “copy” to the filename. That’s because when using the “Save a Copy” command you’ll generally be creating a file in a different file format, which means the filename extension will be different from the primary image file. That will generally ensure unique filenames, though you can always modify the default filename if needed or preferred.