cyclespeed Loc: Calgary, Alberta Canada

I'm currently enjoying, for the most part, learning how to use Luminar 2018. The problem as many know is you tend to rely on the Finder to view the jpeg edition of the raw file you are about to process because it is so much faster than waiting for one at a time to open in Luminar. Recently a fellow Hog mentioned he uses these two programs. They are now on sale and are not terribly expensive but why load up a drive with an app you will never use is my thinking.
Thank you for your time in responding.

a6k Loc: Detroit & Sanibel

I use FRV on a Mac. Sorry, no experience with Digger. It runs reasonably quickly even on my 2012 I5 1.7 GHZ 4GB MacBookAir which is my travel computer (using it now). It is a nice computer but it's underpowered for raw files and FRV solves the problem.

I set up my "culling" backwards on my installation(s) of FRV. In other words, instead of moving some images to "rejected", I move them to "workonit". My keeper percentage makes that the better option but it's a personal tweak.

I am glad I bought it and would do it again since there is really no other way to view raw files (Sony in my case) either as quickly or, more importantly perhaps, as accurately (accuracy defined as the real raw rather than the jpg). However, I am convinced that although the picture that I am seeing is the raw and not the jpg, the picture is NOT the flat, gray version that pure raw files present. I suspect it is "honoring" the embedded settings in the file so that I have a reasonable starting point. I don't mind this at all but I thought I'd point it out. The Mac-only RPP program can show you the real raw file but it's ugly and not in a nice way. It's more educational than aesthetic.

Another aside: before I left on my current trip that is about to end I was experimenting with DNG and TIF/TIFF output from Adobe, RawTherapee, Darktable, RPP and Luminar. In that experiment I was trying to find the least-altered version of the raw file. I have not finished that project and so will save my results for a later post. I am just mentioning it to validate my observations about raw vs jpg-setting-raw. More on that later. For me, it's about finding the best way to store photos long term (the whole DNG argument).

I am, however, a little frustrated with Luminar (which I use and like but not exclusively) because it does not appear to be able use the XMP side files that FRV can generate. This is not a big deal but it would be nice. The earlier version of Luminar did not do it. I asked via email if the new one could (if so, I can't find how). They are swamped so it took weeks for and answer and then they answered the reverse question. They then put my "try again" response to the back of the queue. I would not tell anyone not to buy Luminar based on that. In fact, I have helped one friend decide to buy it. He is a LR refugee.

FRV can easily pass a file to another editor including among others, Luminar. Some (LR for instance) can begin where FRV left off. Luminar just opens the file and starts from the beginning. Annoying, not a deal breaker.

I tried to keep this from being TMI. Feel free to either follow up here or via PM.

Larrymc Loc: Mississippi

I use FRV and its not a program that I never use, I use it extensively. It displays the true RAW image and also the RAW histogram which can be quite different from the JPEG histogram. The RAW histogram shows that there is a lot of information in most RAW files that is left out of JPEG files. I didn't get RawDigger when I got FRV so I have no comment on it but Don Gallagher uses both a bunch on his Mac. You can cull in FRV and either delete the photos or leave the files in a "rejected" folder then recover them if needed.

Larry

mcveed Loc: Kelowna, British Columbia (between trips)

I use FRV to review my raw files. It is very fast and has excellent tools for evaluating the technical quality of an image. It is also easy to reject images and then recall them if you need to. Very valuable software for my workflow.

Apaflo Loc: Anchorage, Alaska

There is no such thing as the "real raw" image. Any and all images produced from any given raw file are just as real as the next. You cannot view raw sensor data until it is converted to a bitmap image format. That can be a TIFF or other non JPEG format, but when viewed on a monitor it is for all practical purposes no different than a JPEG.

So you cannot see the raw but do see a JPEG. It is not flat and grey by nature either. It may be by default but YOU select the default! Pick the right defaults and all of your images will be too vivid!

BTW Rawdigger does show a raw histogram and can be extremely useful.

picsman Loc: Scotland

I have RFV and have used it to cull images from the SD card onto the hard disc. I find it fast and easy to use but it doesn't export any rating I may set, or my other software can't utilise the rating for whatever reason. That isn't that important to me.

However I find the way of enlarging an image to view details requires two keys and again to resize as does selecting images to save to the hard disc. So it is not the most efficient way of working.

I no longer use this method and now download all images and select keepers on the same piece of software, which I find quicker because of the batch processing I do.

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

You can enlarge with just the "+" key and reduce with the "-" key.

There are lots of other features that are easy to use but FastRawViewer is not really a full featured editor, it's just a fast way to preview the potential images that can be obtained from the raw file without having to load the raw data into regular editor.

RawDigger is a great tool for learning about how your camera deals with exposure. The time you spend with it will tell you a lot about how your meter measures light. It should alleviate any concerns you might have about the need for ETTR or UniWB because the histogram is for the raw file's content, not the camera's JPEG which can be misleading.

Both programs should work the same on a Mac as on a PC.

picsman Loc: Scotland

Thanks for the info on enlarging and resizing the pics, wish I had known that before!

Libraw

Dear Sir:

There shouldn't be any problems with rating / labels and other XMP data export, as well as with utilizing ratings / labels by any software accepting XMP side-car files.

If you have any issues or questions regarding FastRawViewer functionality and/or features, please contact us at support@fastrawviewer.com. We will be more than happy to assist you.

Edit: If you rated your photos directly on an SD card, Adobe raw converter won't recognize those ratings / labels, since they don't expect any XMP files to be present on a card.

When working with a (SD) card, we use a 2-step approach: first, we copy the keepers from a card to a hard drive, and after that we set the conversion parameters for those keepers now residing on the hard drive.

--
Irina,
LibRaw Team