Impressive... (are multiple image views likely?)

Submitted by Peter Gallagher on Thu, 10/23/2014 - 19:44
Forums: 
General discussion

I've been looking around for fast RAW viewers (e.g. PhotoMechanic) but others seem overpriced (... PhotoMechanic) or have an ugly, cramped, Java-decorated interface (... PhotoMechanic). So I'm encouraged by FRV. It seems well thought out: I like the interface choices, speedy operation and interaction with editors.
After a few minutes play I have one suggestion and one question.
Suggestion: the White Balance dialog has a number of useful pre-sets. But I'd like to be able to set my own. When I shoot landscape, urban etc in sunset on my Nikon D610 the camera's auto setting is usually fine. But (for my latitude) I sometimes like to set it at about 42-4500k with a 'tint' angle of about 12. I can see that, helpfully, FRV allows me to choose a per-image setting. But I'd like to be able to save that to a 'sticky' custom setting.
Question: in the past I shot using compacts where the raws were about 12-16Mp. Now I'm shooting at 24Mp so I appreciate the speed of FRV. Even on my MacBook Air I can flip back and foward between raws with only a second's delay. But I think I'd like to be able to make a quick comparison between (usually) about 2-4 shots that are either 'bracketed' or just different takes of the same subject and dump those that don't work... BEFORE even rating that shot against others in the folder. Is this part of your idea about how FRV should work? Or is a split screen (I imagine just "strips" of the images separated, say, vertically, by narrow borders within the frame of the main FRV window) not part of the design brief? I can see both sides of the question :-).
 
Peter
 

Iliah

Thu, 10/23/2014 - 20:00

Dear Sir,

Custom presets are on our ToDo list. Right now you may use some image as a reference - set the right balance for it, and check that in Preferences - White Balance section you have "White Balance for the next file (same camera)" dropdown set to "Same as previous". It may be a tad faster than using entry fields and sliders.

Comparing shots is an important thing, and we are trying to figure out the method with good usability for photographers. When I work with a real light table, selecting slides, I just put them side to side; and sometimes one above the other. With FRV I just start 2 instances of the program if I need to compare, but that is rather cludgy. We want to come up with a good solution, not something temporary.

John Malik

Wed, 10/29/2014 - 13:52

I do want to support the request for a image comparison option.
Currently the best implementation of this that I know of is done in FastStone Image Viewer (but that only works for non-RAW), pressing the key "p" after having selected 2-4 pictures for up to 4 pictures side by side which also scroll and zoom in parallel. I suggest to have a look at this. It allows to compare 2,3 or 4 pictures nicely.
Basically my scenario is that I have a series of shots from which I ultimately want to keep a single one (the best). Usually these pictures are in a sequence, so the are consecutive filenames. Key to usuability is the possibility to quickly zoom and scroll all compared pictures so I can check different parts in detail and quickly.
Then one should be able to delete pictures quickly by either mouseclicking ont hem or pressing certain keys.

Jeff Lepore (not verified)

Fri, 12/05/2014 - 13:52

In addition to faststone, breezebrowser also allows you to select 2, 3 or 4 images and then selecting compare.  You can then magnify and scroll around.
This is the single most important feature for me.   It is the only reason I put up with the other issues that plague faststone and breezebrowser.  Those issues being the rendering of the images, and the histogram that is not particularly useful. 
 

Jeff Lepore (not verified)

Sat, 12/06/2014 - 14:39

After spending the morning with this program I really like it.  But without an image comparision implementation similar to BreezeBrowser  or Faststone it becomes yet another addition to my workflow rather than eliminating a step or making things more efficient.   I shoot a lot of macro with long exposures.  It is very common for me to shoot 30 15-30 frames of the same thing because I detect subtle subject movement or wind and in many cases the difference between shots can only be determined efficiently through multiple image comparison on the same screen.   Also I shoot a lot of macro and landscapes where I am pushing the envelope of DOF.  So I take a series of shots with slightly varying focus and apertures.  Again, the ability to select 2, 3 or 4 images and scroll and magnify them on the same screen is just an incredible editing tool.  I am running a trial of FastRaw. As seductive as the program is I am not sure I want yet another program on my computer unless it becomes an inclusive solution eliminating a work step instead of adding one. 

lexa

Sat, 12/06/2014 - 15:02

Dear Jeff,

thank you for kind words.

We have some kind of 'bookmarks' for quick selected image(s) display on top of our TODO list. So you'll be able to compare several images by switching it fast.

2/4 images compare requires serious changes in program internals, so do not expect it fast. Added to TODO, but not on top.

--

Alex Tutubalin/FastRawViewer team

Jeff Lepore (not verified)

Sat, 12/06/2014 - 18:50

Make sure you take a look at FastStone and Breezebrowser to see their implementation.  What you are describing might be OK for a few but you can't make a critical comparison unless you have all the images on the screen at the same time and can magnify and scroll.  What you are describing would work to a limited extent but would be very laborious to the way the general, critical, macro and landscape shooter works. Switching fast between images would simply not work for me.   I know a LOT of photographers and independent of my influence they all pretty much use faststone or breezebrowswer for this critical feature. 
Surely you talked to photographers when putting together this program.  I am a bit surprised that this specific feature was not brought up and suggest multiple times.   
 
Keep up the good work!
 

Add new comment