![]() ![]() Editing: These photo management programs are ideal for users who require extensive image editing functionality.Many of them can replace the need for storage space like a hard drive, DVD, CD, or flash card. Structure and Organization: These are programs that are uniquely designed to manage complex sorting and organizational tasks for image storage.Two main types of photo management software systems cater to different needs. If you need to organize and maintain huge repositories of image files, read the rest of this review to find the right photo management program with unique features that are specific to you. So this post isn't really for the OP who wants an alternative but for those that might want to take another look at LR.With the right photo management program, you can easily find the photos you’re searching for from thousands of digital images, avoid duplicate files, and easily share images – all in one central location. ![]() Using LR means learning one less piece of software. Also I liked the face detection for tagging and the easy of adding tags. For example if I want to review my ISO images for consideration of special processing that is very easy as well. (These aren't covered in the video) For example, it can split a face into parts (eyes, nose, etc) with a click. I also discovered how absolutely powerful the new LR, ACR, PS masking tools are. Steve shows how using stacks is particularly helpful with high frame rate. But what really convinced me was Steve's process and how easy it would be cull and then use LR to handle 90% of my needs. I had considered PhotoMechanic as Karen uses. That really changed my view of the process. Like many here I resisted the idea of paying 9.99 a month. But after watching Steve's Lightroom Library Module video course on Lightroom I switched to using that with two monitors for the culling. ![]() However if you are looking for a change or possible improvement FastRawViewer may be worth a look.Ĭlick to expand.I understand the OP is asking for LR alternatives and I sent him a PM but after Karen's comment, I wanted to share a similar thought here. A lot comes down to what you are accustomed to using and why change something that works for you. I am sure all the other methods mentioned are equally as good to those using them. However for a larger print selecting the image with the best exposure, focus and along that shows the best focus and detail is more important to me. At 20 fps I still may have more than one image and that is where I use items 4 and 5 to pick the pest one to print by helping me select the best infocus image that shows the best detail.įor just posting small jpg's on the web this is more work than is needed. I sometimes find a few almost "identical" images that look the same that is where items 2 and 3 let me select the one with the best exposure. For posting small jpgs on the web #1 is usually all I need. I find these five features allow me to look at burst image sequences and pick those I like the best for posting small jpgs and also making larger prints.įastRawViewer is very fast and works with RAW files. Has a fast visual way directly on the image itself to show areas of detail.Has a fast visual way directly on the image itself to show what's in focus.Has a fast visual way directly on the image itself to illustrate highlight exposure.Has a fast visual way directly on the image itself to illustrate shadow exposure.Allows comparison of 2 or 4 contiguous images.I like it because it quickly works with raw files and helps me select an image for posting and also for printing among several similar images: Make of it what you will, as I use all of the above and have not had the time to do any meaningful comparisons.Ĭlearly several personal favorites are mentioned. And I believe that Fast Raw Viewer uses their own program called LibRaw. I cannot recall what converter that FSIV uses, but believe it may be DCRaw. Nonetheless, I wanted to call it out if it matters to some folks, or to see if anybody has any additional information they want to share. I suspect this is the case, but I have not done any testing to see if the differences are worth noting. I had mentioned that FSIV did use allow the use of the raw file for viewing, and a member had suggested that it was preferable to review the raw files in the program that you were going to eventually edit the files because there are a number of raw engines used to convert, and they can render differently. Olympus, and especially Ricoh, had embedded jpegs that were sometimes challenging due to a lack of resolution (Ricoh) or lower quality (occasional posterization from Olympus files). We talked about the some of the challenges of using embedded jpegs for culling and the desire to review the raw file. As a side note, there was a discussion on another photo forum where we talked about this subject. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |