FastRawViewer does all of that except the jpeg output but will allow you to move the selects into a separate folder which could then be processed by a droplet or a hot folder. Apple has some built-in RAW correction in the OS which be leveraged by a macro program.
There’s early basic correction available in FastRawViewer (white balance, exposure) but I believe only Adobe picks up the corrections. I thought there might be a contact sheet option or a jpeg export option but couldn’t find such functionality, neither in v2.0.1 or in the FastRawViewer manual.
I have had several working photographers recommend FastRawViewer (FRV). I have been in communication with FRV technical support (TS), and with PhotoMechanic (PM) TS. I am copying below my most recent email to FRV TS; once the Z9 is supported by PL, I am interested in the feasibility of the workflow pipeline I have outlined. Note that FRV currently supports Z9 NEF (with HE and HE* soon to be supported).
Correspondence:
Thank you for your prompt response.
To be clear, because of limited capabilities of each permanently licensed application (not the rental “subscription” of Adobe, with eviction once the rent is not paid – a permanent “silent partner”), I need to use a three stage pipeline workflow, and to verify this will work.
Copy camera memory card to an external removable USB drive.
Use FRV to view the NEF files on the external USB drive and keep the NEF and body JPEG files – sending each such kept file to PM.
PM will catalog the selected files with my catalog naming to a second external removable USB drive in a directory tree named by my choice.
Using the catalog, PM will send selected NEF images to PL. PL will process the NEF to whatever output format the client wants (typically, a JPEG, but much better than from the body). The PL output file plus the PL image processing settings file will then be put by PM into the catalog and directory on the removable USB drive.
This is cumbersome because PM does not have raw viewer and neither FRV nor PL has the PM catalog, storing, and retrieving facilities of PM. If FRV were as capable as PM, then I could eliminate PM, and if PL were as capable as FRV and PM combined, then I could use one “integrated” application, similar to Adobe LR plus PS (with DxO plugins, etc).
End correspondence to FRV. (Marie, are you reading the above?)
You are overthinking it wildlife. Just using FastRawViewer is more than enough at the front end. FRV communicates quite well with PhotoLab. PhotoMechanic is more useful at the back end when adding all the metadata to a finished set.
Of course one can do it all in PhotoMechanic but I prefer the culling process in FastRawViewer as the preview tools are better. Now that PhotoLab does have basic metadata editing, FRV and PhotoLab are often enough for me. PhotoMechanic Plus serves for catalogue functions once I have finished sets.
Uncoy, I assume at one time you used film. Did you keep all of your strip or only the “keepers”? Are you suggesting only to keep the “keepers” and not an “inventory” of everything? For me, the issue with digital, and increasingly so (e.g., with the Z9), is the much larger volume of material to process. Given the environmental impact of wet chemistry film processing, I did not waste film – despite the fact that the most common view of other working photographers was “film is cheap”. But, I would re-review strip when a particular image in the strip was repeatedly wanted by several clients – and have salvaged other images. (Obviously, there was considerable waste when using continuous shooting for a subject – catching the predator with the prey, etc.) I take it you do not archive most of the images you take, and thus use PM at the back-end, not the front, of workflow. (Computers and applications such as PL have replaced darkroom, light table and loupe or projector, etc.) Note that I would not archive digital images that had fundamental technical flaws (focus being a typical problem); the Z9 AF system with modern internal motor focus engineered lenses of good MTF (“professional lenses”) I have found produces a higher fraction of technically correct images even under “difficult” situations than any previous Nikon body I have used (from the F5 to the D850).
Nikon Z9 support should be added mid-March but at first we won’t support RAW with High efficiency compression even if a workaround will exist till we fix it. Other RAW format will be supported.
A number of (reliable) sources indicate that Nikon High Efficiency (NHE) compression is a licensed application of intoPIX TICO. May this be reverse engineered without an intoPIX license? Most IP laws allow reverse engineering if the information is stored on owned media (not merely licensed, but actually owned, such as a CFexpress card). Or would it be less costly for DxO to license the technology from intoPIX? I now have well over 1k images using the Z9 (these are wildlife/nature/landscape – not promos, weddings, etc., or I probably would have many more images) and am using Fast Raw Viewer (FRV) for image evaluation at this point – but no PL5E backend. (FRV cannot handle NHE at this time.)
So still another four weeks minimum… still a little disappointing, I hope it’s great when it’s finally released! Curiously, is that both HE formats or is HE* going to be supported?
Gigapixel AI, far better than what Adobe offers. I have used this mostly with 12 Mpix raw images; the enhanced detail is in some sense “not real”, but is pleasing to the client – note that I do not do what Art Wolfe does and simply add subjects (e.g., animals) to an image, nor do I add stock sunset, etc., sky images to make an extraordinary scenic. I use Sharpen AI and Denoise AI for situations in which PL5E does not support the body/lens or produce what I need. For example, the Nikon D850, Sigma TC-1401, Sigma 60-600 Sport is not fully supported, nor – at present – is there any Z9 support.
Based on another Z9 Raw file thread, I applied a workaround today - which is ok for a few photos or with a possibly with macro - see same thread - which I have not tried yet.
I used HxD and the replace function to replace the string “NIKON Z9” with “NIKON Z7”. There are two instances in each Z9 raw file which I changed. This allowed me to launch the raw file in Photolab 5 which treats it as a Z7 file. All good - editing works as normal and quality seems good. Photolab even prompted me to download profiles for Z7 and my lens combination.
I have only shot my Z9 with Full Lossless Compressed so far (in anticipation that this would be the easiest format for software providers to sort first). Indeed LR and C1 already have this ready. I have C1 on 30-day trial, but so far prefer the Photolab 5 outcomes and that is the workflow I am used to. Hopefully DXO get full support for Z9 soon! At least for Lossless Compressed as a first step as it seems to work fine based on the Z7 profile.
Mid of March. If I would be a professional photographer I would be going out of my mind, so I am just very sad. And not a word of why, does this really take that long, always, for each camera, for each new sensor?
1 Like
m-photo
( Marc (macOS Sonoma on MBP16" Intel))
27
Hi,
I can understand your frustration but if you search a bit on the forum I am sure you will find some answers to this question.
In a nutshell: quality needs time. And before all: DxO need a camera to start the job.
March is around the corner… and not all the pro has taken delivery of that one of a kind new camera yet.
I understand quality, but as a professional company that charges for its services, you should be able to get your hand on a Z9 before normal users. If you are not able to do so you are not professional in my opinon, Sorry that is a lame excuse.
Maybe because Z9 are released slowly. In US it begins to be sold (Even there are still guys who preoredered it and are still waiting). In France they are still not avalaible (where I buy anyway - but I think this place have early delivery, because I took there my D850 before any Paris stores have it). Didn’t look at other places anyway.
NPS have priority I think. nikon wants its camera to be seen in events.
m-photo
( Marc (macOS Sonoma on MBP16" Intel))
30
You are free to have your opinion.
I do not see how all the negativity and attacks toward DxO in this thread is helping all of us to go forward in mutual respect and understanding.
Luminar Neo was just released last week with support for the Z9. It’s not clear whether ON1:Photo Raw 2022 supports the Z9 yet. It didn’t as of a few weeks ago. There are several other raw processors that either don’t currently support the z9 or have only implemented support very recently. Yes, I’m aware that both Adobe Camera Raw and Lightroom implemented support in December, as did Capture One.
One of the things that DxO is renowned for is the quality of its camera/lens support modules. While it may be a little frustrating to wait longer for DxO to implement those modules than some of its competition, I believe that it’s worth the wait. Support will be available in the next few weeks as indicated by @Marie .
Perhaps now is a good time to drop this topic as it no longer serves any useful purpose other than allowing posters to vent their frustration. But, of course, feel free to continue posting about support "delays"if you wish.
I am actually glad they they do not get their hands on a lens before normal users. DXO should test just a normal production lens which everyone can buy in a store and not a “special” lens supplied by the manufacturer where no one knows if it has the same specs as the mass produced lenses
Although the specifics of the Z9 support release can be dropped for now, several comments should be noted. For full support with full corrections, one needs to use a sample of production bodies and lenses, not just one sample due to manufacturing tolerances. However, once the raw (NEF) format/s are known (e.g., samples from a pre-production body), reverse engineering a raw intake converter becomes possible. Due to firmware changes, even the testing of a production model may yield different results (digital bodies are computers that take images, not traditional mechanical cameras). I assume that some of the correspondents on the DxO fora are working photographers, and thus in NPS, CPS, SPS, etc., depending upon system/s being used. I received my Z9 through NPS the day after Christmas 2021, and I am NOT an event photographer (wildlife and nature) and thus my equipment may not always be recognized. I have a backlog of images for which I am using the Nikon native application (very primitive by comparison to PL5E) and now Fast Raw Viewer – restricting my NEF format to one supported by the latter. What I had hoped for with the Z9 was that DxO would have raw conversion without all of the Elite features fully working for the Z9 soon after the production body was delivered (NPS) and later update Z9 support – but at least basic raw DxO workflow would be available as with several DxO competitors (including Adobe).
This is just another way of ignorance, my posts waits for 11h or more to be approved, while other posts seems to be approved straight away.
The alternative is not preproduction or normal production, the alternative is, to sit back and relax, ignoring your costumers or making sure to get it as soon as possible, and that means taking up the responsibility for your customer. Is this a global company, with users all over the world, then start to act like one. It can not be, that I as a normal user get the camera over a month before DXO. Sorry, again, this is a lame excuse.
