Fastrawviewer !

[Box Brownie]

Hi All

I am fairly sure others here at TP use FRV but this is the first time I have installed it......................

My main aim is to examine and critically determine whether an image is worth keeping and the first step is (stating the obvious ) Is it sharp where it needs to be sharp!

I have only but had a quick look at the two tools of Contrast Edges and Fine Details ~ to see such another program that rapidly 'illustrates' the needed sharpest elements of the raw file is a revelation.

Yes, it does much more functions but to date it is that first cull based on sharpness that can take the time. I have of late been using Faststone Image Viewer and have on the whole found it useful for the job compared to what I used to of importing into LR and cull from there.

But for me, just on this first impression with FRV I think I will be shelling out the 'fortune' of £15.74

 

[Bobsyeruncle]

I also use it, mainly for culling.

 

[gramps]

That's a cracking little bit of software, thanks for posting.

 

[toohuge]

I use faststone image viewer - very quick and perfect for culling images. Plus it’s free

 

[Bobsyeruncle]

I use faststone image viewer - very quick and perfect for culling images. Plus it’s free

Windows only though....

 

[Box Brownie]

I use faststone image viewer - very quick and perfect for culling images. Plus it’s free

As mentioned FIV is good but the FRV tools to me are, upon my initial use, impressive...............because they give a very clear indication (apparently) of the just how well an image will respond to sharpening. And the other feature that is annoyingly absent in Faststone is that though you can zoom in to an image......it does not hold the zoom as you step through file by file FRV on the other hand does

All software is horses for courses and FRV looks good for a low priced capable bit of software.

 

[jerry12953]

Thanks for that Box. It looks very useful and I shall investigate at length later.

 

[myotis]

Probably worth mentioning that as FRV shows a raw histogram, its also particularly useful for assessing exposure and whether, or where highlights are blown. And by implication learning where you could have added some exposure to improve the shadows without losing the highlights.

 

[Box Brownie]

Probably worth mentioning that as FRV shows a raw histogram, its also particularly useful for assessing exposure and whether, or where highlights are blown. And by implication learning where you could have added some exposure to improve the shadows without losing the highlights.

Yup, I saw that mentioned in the info videos on their website.......................I have yet to explore those tools but logically worthwhile as you say to check for blown highlights and crushed shadows. Having said that I wonder how knowing that will reconcile with the likes of DxO PL3 as being a very good raw convertor including pulling(?) details out of what in (some) other convertors is on the margins of blown and/or lost in the shadows i.e. just because FRV says "blown" is there actually something in there to be rescued??? None too sure but I wonder?

 

[myotis]

Having said that I wonder how knowing that will reconcile with the likes of DxO PL3 as being a very good raw convertor including pulling(?) details out of what in (some) other convertors is on the margins of blown and/or lost in the shadows i.e. just because FRV says "blown" is there actually something in there to be rescued??? None too sure but I wonder?

I think Optimal exposure is still optimal exposure, even if some software can artificially reconstruct blown highlights.

Detail in the raw file is often lost because your processing software adds a tone curve to make the processed file look brighter and contrastier than the original dull and flat raw file, which loses shadow or highlight detail that are in the raw file

Being able to see in FRV the actual data recorded in the raw file gives you a much better idea of what you should be able to recover at the processing stage. So part of the point of FRV is to help you identify what can be "rescued" at the processing stage (ignoring the possible capability of software to "make up" detail that wasn't recorded in the raw file). And as you are looking directly at the consequences of how you have exposed that raw image, how you might improve your exposure in the future.

 

[Box Brownie]

I think Optimal exposure is still optimal exposure, even if some software can artificially reconstruct blown highlights.

Detail in the raw file is often lost because your processing software adds a tone curve to make the processed file look brighter and contrastier than the original dull and flat raw file, which loses shadow or highlight detail that are in the raw file

Being able to see in FRV the actual data recorded in the raw file gives you a much better idea of what you should be able to recover at the processing stage. So part of the point of FRV is to help you identify what can be "rescued" at the processing stage (ignoring the possible capability of software to "make up" detail that wasn't recorded in the raw file). And as you are looking directly at the consequences of how you have exposed that raw image, how you might improve your exposure in the future.

Ah! I take your point re: 'get exposure right'

In regard to FRV ~ all to learn and in regard to what you say but I was not refering to anything AI type software.....or not that I was aware of. What I was thinking(?) was that an image (and this is where based on what you say FRV will be a better guide than the eye) may appear blown but there is actually some detail 'in there' that can be revealed???

 

[myotis]

In regard to FRV ~ all to learn

It's well worthwhile watching the FRV tutorial videos, if you haven't already done so and the Blog is well worth working though as there is a lot of information on exposure. I should really re-visit these as I tend to forget the detail :-(

 

[gramps]

Detail in the raw file is often lost because your processing software adds a tone curve to make the processed file look brighter and contrastier than the original dull and flat raw file, which loses shadow or highlight detail that are in the raw file

This is why I dislike DxO, even when using the 'no adjustment' (can't remember exact name now) setting it always adjusts the setting!
FRV seems to allow you to deal with the 'pure' RAW file so is much better and will now replace NX-D as my go-to bridge to CS6.

 

[myotis]

This is why I dislike DxO, even when using the 'no adjustment' (can't remember exact name now) setting it always adjusts the setting!
FRV seems to allow you to deal with the 'pure' RAW file so is much better and will now replace NX-D as my go-to bridge to CS6.

But, FRV doesn't "process" raw files, its just a viewer, you won't be able to send a file from FRV to CS6, unless you mean sending it to ACR, which will then apply its own tone curve, before opening in CS6. Or am I misunderstanding what you have said.

 

[Dave Canon]

Hi All

I am fairly sure others here at TP use FRV but this is the first time I have installed it......................

My main aim is to examine and critically determine whether an image is worth keeping and the first step is (stating the obvious ) Is it sharp where it needs to be sharp!

I have only but had a quick look at the two tools of Contrast Edges and Fine Details ~ to see such another program that rapidly 'illustrates' the needed sharpest elements of the raw file is a revelation.

Yes, it does much more functions but to date it is that first cull based on sharpness that can take the time. I have of late been using Faststone Image Viewer and have on the whole found it useful for the job compared to what I used to of importing into LR and cull from there.

But for me, just on this first impression with FRV I think I will be shelling out the 'fortune' of £15.74

I do not doubt that it does what you say and I have even read their advertising and I do all of these readily in Lightroom. Their advertising keeps on about not making comparisons with the JPEG thumbnail. It is true that you could set up LR to do this if you chose but I do not and use standard previews. The advertising stuff also mentions clogging up your disk with unwanted images. As I am going through the images I mark those not wanted for deletion (just a single key "X"). Then one instruction will delete all those so marked from the catalogue and disk. LR is design for comparing, grading and culling.

Dave

 

[gramps]

But, FRV doesn't "process" raw files, its just a viewer, you won't be able to send a file from FRV to CS6, unless you mean sending it to ACR, which will then apply its own tone curve, before opening in CS6. Or am I misunderstanding what you have said.

Yes you are right, I understand it sends it to ACR > CS6 but it is providing a much better result for me.

As for LR being able to do the same, FRV is then LR without the faff of LR!

 

[myotis]

I do not doubt that it does what you say and I have even read their advertising and I do all of these readily in Lightroom.

FRV and LR are approaching a similar problem from two different directions.

In LR you are assessing the quality of an image "after" its been processed by LR, so its difficult/impossible to fully assess the quality of the original raw file.

FRV is trying to give you information as close to the raw as possible to help you assess the quality of the original raw file so you can choose the very best starting point in your workflow before moving onto a raw processor.

It's faster to use than LR for culling (that is why many people use it) and useful in understanding how you might improve the quality of your raws, which is the other reason many people use it, including me.

But, its an extra stage in your workflow, which some find valuable and others don't. I don't use it routinely, as I cull using PhotoMechanic, but I will open it from PM to make technical assessments of an image (s) and as part of trying to improve my understanding of exposure.

 

[myotis]

Yes you are right, I understand it sends it to ACR > CS6 but it is providing a much better result for me.

Ah, OK so you prefer the ACR raw conversion to DXO raw conversion, that seems fair enough. If you have made any exposure adjustments etc in FRV they are transferred to ACR via XMP sidecar files, which can be useful once you realise it does it.

 

[gramps]

If you have made any exposure adjustments etc in FRV they are transferred to ACR via XMP sidecar files, which can be useful once you realise it does it.

Yes, I do like that.

 

[Box Brownie]

I do not doubt that it does what you say and I have even read their advertising and I do all of these readily in Lightroom. Their advertising keeps on about not making comparisons with the JPEG thumbnail. It is true that you could set up LR to do this if you chose but I do not and use standard previews. The advertising stuff also mentions clogging up your disk with unwanted images. As I am going through the images I mark those not wanted for deletion (just a single key "X"). Then one instruction will delete all those so marked from the catalogue and disk. LR is design for comparing, grading and culling.

Dave

In my case.

I always copy the memory card(s) to pre-named folders on my hard drive

In the past I would import into LR and then as you describe cull, keyword etc and process as needed.
However, the importing and cull took ages though may be due the fact I am using LR v6 and my PC with its i5 760 Quad Core CPU and 16GB of RAM with separate OS drive and data drives may not be the fastest of configurations.

So, when I got my Olympus E-M1 Mk2 and discovered that DxO Photolab was the ideal (for me) raw converter I then realised that LR was only being used as a DAM ~ and a very good DAM it is too.

Therefore, I sought out to use a raw viewer to aid the 'first step culling' and settled on Faststone Image Viewer..............but found its idiocycratic file handling was getting to me.

Right, I tried FRV and it is rapid:-
It will load(?) a folder of files compared to Faststone 'instantly' and with the aforementioned zoomed in viewing and aids to critical focus checking (and the H & S controls ) I anticipate I will save time and frustration in the knowledge that when I import to LR it is only the better & best files I am doing that with.

Now, if FRV can handle (it does have some DAM related function of ratings and IPTC entries, I have read that right?) keywording etc that goes into the .xmp files and then when the folder is accessed using DxO PL3 that will will be an aid to maybe even moving away from LR altogether?!

All I can suggest is, like I have done, start a trial and see what you think and how it might fit in to your workflow???

 

[Dave Canon]

All I can suggest is, like I have done, start a trial and see what you think and how it might fit in to your workflow???

Thanks for your comments, My PC is now 6 years old but was a good spec at the time and I do not have any speed issues. I find the import process excellent and sorting, rating etc. and find LR is a first class DAM. Also I find the Raw processing excellent and I use a calibrated bespoke profile for each camera which LR is set up for. The panorama and HDR included with LR is the best , in my view, as it stays in Raw. I have a smooth integrated workflow which can include PS or Topaz as needed. So I would not be trialing anything else as I do not have a need. Any third part s/w would be an interruption to my workflow. I am using the current versions of LR Classic and PS. I am nevertheless happy that there are alternatives to Adobe in that it make help to keep Adobe prices down,

Dave

 

[Dave Canon]

FRV and LR are approaching a similar problem from two different directions.

In LR you are assessing the quality of an image "after" its been processed by LR, so its difficult/impossible to fully assess the quality of the original raw file.

FRV is trying to give you information as close to the raw as possible to help you assess the quality of the original raw file so you can choose the very best starting point in your workflow before moving onto a raw processor.

It's faster to use than LR for culling (that is why many people use it) and useful in understanding how you might improve the quality of your raws, which is the other reason many people use it, including me.

But, its an extra stage in your workflow, which some find valuable and others don't. I don't use it routinely, as I cull using PhotoMechanic, but I will open it from PM to make technical assessments of an image (s) and as part of trying to improve my understanding of exposure.

This makes no sense at all. No software displays a Raw file as such. A Raw file is not an image file like TIF and JPEG but a complex set of numbers which can be processed by rendering into a bit mapped image. When you view a Raw file in LR (assuming you do not ask it to use the internal JPEG as he FRV advertising suggests) you see a rendered version which also has any editing steps applied. I use standard previews which are full screen size and generated and stored when I originally upload my images from my camera. So I am looking at best starting point. The only processing by LR would be any that I have set in any presets which I do not normally use just my bespoke calibration profile. A profile has to be used to convert the various numbers to colours and I know I am using the optimum but just what is FRV using? I agree that it is best to judge the original Raw files with as little processing as possible which is exactly what I do using LR.

Dave

 

[myotis]

This makes no sense at all. No software displays a Raw file as such.

I didn't say it displayed the raw file, and the points I made about the differences in the underlying approaches between FRV and LR remain.

The default previews in LR do not display the original files with as little processing as possible, they include (unless you have gone to the effort of doing something about it) a preview with rather a lot of processing aimed at giving you Adobe's idea of a best starting point. And nothing wrong with that once you are in the processing workflow (assuming you are happy with Adobe's starting point) but that isn't what FRV does, or tries to do.

FRV isn't interested in giving you the "best starting point" (after all , unlike LR, it isn't a raw processor) its interested in giving you the tools to very quickly assess the technical quality of your original raw files (even though you can also use it for general culling), so you move the very best raw files into your Raw Processor workflow.

It is for example much easier to assess whether highlights are really clipped, using FRV, because the histogram shows the actual numbers taken from the raw file, and not from the processed preview, which is what you get in the LR histogram.

It's a low cost niche product, which people use to speed up initial culling (for those who find LR/C1 etc too slow for culling, as I do) and/or want a better tool for technically assessing their raw files (though if you are really keen on this, RawDigger is a better choice, but that offers no general photo culling tools).

For clarity, I don't normally use FRV for initial culling, I use Photo Mechanic, which I feel is a better tool for this, and only run FRV, from PM, when I want to make a more detailed technical assessment. After the initial culling, selecting the images that warrant further processing is done in LR or C1.

For some FRV is a useful tool, and for others it isn't, but it's a one of these tools, like Photo Mechanic, that until you have used it, and spent the time learning how to use it, you can't assess its usefulness because on the surface they both seem to do things that LR or C1 already do for you. However, within their narrow range of capabilities they do them so much better than LR or C1.

Once you understand what they do and how they do it, some decide its worth adding the extra stages to their workflow and others don't.

 

[jerry12953]

I can see a real benefit for myself in culling images faster than it's possible to do in Lightroom. So once again thanks to Box Brownie for drawing my/our attention to fastrawviewer.

 

[Dave Canon]

The default previews in LR do not display the original files with as little processing as possible, they include (unless you have gone to the effort of doing something about it) a preview with rather a lot of processing aimed at giving you Adobe's idea of a best starting point. And nothing wrong with that once you are in the processing workflow (assuming you are happy with Adobe's starting point) but that isn't what FRV does, or tries to do.

Surely to produce a visible image the data in the Raw file has to use a demosaicing algorithm to produce a set of pixels. Presumably FRV does this. Also these pixels values need to be translated to a set of colours. By default LR would use similar values to a camera or in my case a bespoke set based on calibration. If FRV could not use my bespoke profiles I would not use it anyway. So bar these two basic processes what are the other processes that you believe that LR does and FRV does not?

Dave

 

[myotis]

Surely to produce a visible image the data in the Raw file has to use a demosaicing algorithm to produce a set of pixels. Presumably FRV does this. Also these pixels values need to be translated to a set of colours. By default LR would use similar values to a camera or in my case a bespoke set based on calibration. If FRV could not use my bespoke profiles I would not use it anyway. So bar these two basic processes what are the other processes that you believe that LR does and FRV does not?

Dave

You continue to miss the point, FRV is designed to give you a set of tools that allow you to assess as the quality of the raw image, LR and other raw processors are designed to give you a starting point for processing your raw image, which involves adding a relatively high contrast tone curve that that can mislead you on how much information is available in the original raw. Colour profiles are not an important part of FRV, as they only become important at the processing stages of your workflow.

Being able to emulate the camera profiles or use your custom profiles would rather defeat the purpose of using FRV in terms of image assessment, and assuming this might also slow it down as it applied the profiles to images, also defeat its purpose as a fast culling tool.

 

[Dave Canon]

You continue to miss the point, FRV is designed to give you a set of tools that allow you to assess as the quality of the raw image, LR and other raw processors are designed to give you a starting point for processing your raw image, which involves adding a relatively high contrast tone curve that that can mislead you on how much information is available in the original raw. Colour profiles are not an important part of FRV, as they only become important at the processing stages of your workflow.

Being able to emulate the camera profiles or use your custom profiles would rather defeat the purpose of using FRV in terms of image assessment, and assuming this might also slow it down as it applied the profiles to images, also defeat its purpose as a fast culling tool.

We will clearly continue to disagree. You are wrong to suggest that LR applies contrast tone curve (it could if you wished) though I am sure it will apply Gamma correction curve. I purposely ensure that LR does not apply any significant sharpening or noise reduction because I want tp assess the images without this. As you will know LR has a number of tools to aid assessment of the images such as (Grid, Loupe, Survey, Compare and slide show). I rarely delete in-camera because these facilities in LR make it so easy to properly compare images quickly. I am not criticising FRV as I have not tried it but I am lacking nothing in LR so see no reason to change. The rendering of previews are done when initially importing from my camera and while importing a one hundred 30 M pixel images will take a little time (backing up as well) the presentation is instantaneous when using the assessment tools as the preview is already stored in the catalogue. I would consider having the colour accurate vital for assessing some of my images though not all. If I have time during this lockdown, I will have a look at FRV sometime.

Dave

 

[myotis]

We will clearly continue to disagree.

I'm still not entirely sure on what we are disagreeing about, as its obvious from your ongoing comments that I still haven't managed to properly explain what FRV does. :-(

The things you describe as doing in LR, you would still do in LR. As I keep on saying, FRV just has some very specific tools that are primarily useful before you import files into LR, even if you might still use some of them on files after they have been imported. And I will stop there, as I am just going to start repeating myself.

Nothing to do with FRV, but everything to do with LR, you may, or may not, find this video interesting:

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gHPcpF5SBws

 

[Dave Canon]

The information in the above video is based on out-of-date information. He talks about Process V4 being the current version but that recently changed it is now V5 and is quite different. I have download the FRV trial and played with it and did not find it very useful. The only thing I spotted which might be useful was the exposure statistics. Using FRV would significantly lengthen my workflow as shown by their diagram. The FRV videos and descriptions of their own product seriously put me off as it keeps suggesting that other processors such as LR present you with JPEG image which is just not true. They repeat this lie many times. The other thing Andy Astbury overlooks is that you can make judgment on keeping an image without having to remove all pre-processing; I know because I have done this successfully for many years. In fact, those who remember the darkroom days will remember that we had to make judgements about a negative before deciding whether and how to print and what adjustments to make. I suggest we did this using observation and experience which is what I use now. I would not reject an image because the initial view in LR seemed a bit dark or light in some part as I am aware of what I can do when I later edit. Process V 5 allows much more control over pre-processing than previously and I have taken advantage of this. It also seemed curious that the FRV video suggest any exposure or WB adjustment you make will be promulgated to other images as you open them which seem to negate the whole idea of no pre-processing. He also seemed proud that as the changed the WB the histogram does not change. This is presumable because FRV is not continuously rendering to show the effect of the changes. This being the case I could find no use for this software and will certainly uninstall it.



Dave

 

[myotis]

The information in the above video is based on out-of-date information. He talks about Process V4 being the current version but that recently changed it is now V5 and is quite different. I have download the FRV trial and played with it and did not find it very useful.

Andy has several videos that refer to the tone curve in LR, I obviously picked an out of date one. The story is the same with V5 of LR, however, there seems little purpose in discussing the points raised in your post any further and if you are happy with your set up and find no value in using FRV that's fair enough.

 

[jerry12953]

Shades of Irv00, Graham???

 

[Dave Canon]

however, there seems little purpose in discussing the points raised in your post any further and if you are happy with your set up and find no value in using FRV that's fair enough.

Well, I think we agree on this last point. Nevertheless Graham, thank you for the polite exchange of views which does not always happen on this forum.

Dave

 

[jerry12953]

Just to let you know Box, I've just used FRV for the first time in earnest, and it speeded up my processing/culling no end! All those branch ends without kingfishers gone in a flash!

 

[Bebop]

Bringing this thread back to life after googling... it's brought me back to the forum which started this journey

Quick question - as far as I can tell there is no facility to add keywords in Fast Raw Viewer is there? It looks like it was a planned development but I can't find anything.

I've been trialling Photo Mechanic Plus and Fast Raw Viewer thanks to @myotis and @Box Brownie via other places on here. Today is the last day of my PM trial so I am having a last minute surge on gathering info - my last chance to compare the two.

 

[myotis]

Quick question - as far as I can tell there is no facility to add keywords in Fast Raw Viewer is there? It looks like it was a planned development but I can't find anything.

Fast Raw viewer is a far more limited tool than PM (especially PM6+). As far as I'm aware there is no keyword/captioning tools.

It's philosophy is centred around rapid technical assessment. Checking exposure with a proper raw histogram, checking sharpness tools and ratings (plus some exposure corrections) carrying over to Adobe products.

The author suggested a work flow of using FRV to look at the images on the SD card, rate them in FRV, copy "only" the rated photos into you computer, catalogue them in LR, and then format the SD card after the files on your computer have been backed up.

Its very fast for culling, and has useful technical tools for assessment (but note you can't do any side by side comparisons as its only possible to view one image at a time), but it doesn't have the captioning, keywording, file management tools that PM6 has.

I sometimes open it from inside PM6 to technically check an occasional file for blown highlights etc. And I know that others use it as described by the author to make rapid culls that give an insight into the technical quality of a file that nothing else really offers.

 

[Bebop]

Fast Raw viewer is a far more limited tool than PM (especially PM6+). As far as I'm aware there is no keyword/captioning tools.

It's philosophy is centred around rapid technical assessment. Checking exposure with a proper raw histogram, checking sharpness tools and ratings (plus some exposure corrections) carrying over to Adobe products.

The author suggested a work flow of using FRV to look at the images on the SD card, rate them in FRV, copy "only" the rated photos into you computer, catalogue them in LR, and then format the SD card after the files on your computer have been backed up.

Its very fast for culling, and has useful technical tools for assessment (but note you can't do any side by side comparisons as its only possible to view one image at a time), but it doesn't have the captioning, keywording, file management tools that PM6 has.

I sometimes open it from inside PM6 to technically check an occasional file for blown highlights etc. And I know that others use it as described by the author to make rapid culls that give an insight into the technical quality of a file that nothing else really offers.

Great, thank you for your speedy reply. That is what I thought.

There are one or two things I prefer about FRV, but I'm actually getting quite used to Photo Mechanic, and now that I've realised I can drag images into other editing software, that is a plus - for a while I thought I was limited to choosing one software. In fact, I'm wondering if I can manage without it!

 

[myotis]

In fact, I'm wondering if I can manage without it!

Yes, and the longer you use it, and the more time you take to learn what it can do the more difficult it is to give it up.

 

[roar]

I am having similar issues in choosing. I was able to test Photo Mechanic for 90 days and became very comfortable with it, but there were issues I wish were different. I have forgotten what they were by now except spending $139 for a program that is so limited in its scope just to get keywording seemed a bit foolish. I've other programs that I can use including Capture One and DxO PhotoLab, not to mention Bridge that is now free...

So for now, I think I will be using FRV + one of the three programs chosen for specific needs....

Happy Black Friday

-thom

 

[Bebop]

I have purchased Fast Raw Viewer in the sale. I was a bit disappointed Photo Mechanic wasn't in the sale. I am really missing it and may yet cave in and purchase it.

 

[ancient_mariner]

I've stopped using FRV. Images don't look the same as in lightroom - they would often appear unacceptably soft but were fine with LRs baseline sharpening. And as pointed out you can't do side by side comparison. In the end I got fed up culling twice in 2 packages, especially when I'd binned and recovered some images because of apparent softness that wasn't real.

If I have a LOT of images - 1000+ - then I use it, but otherwise not.