It offers nothing that can’t be done much, much better with mainstream raw converters.
Yes, I admit to not wasting my time with utter crap, useless crap like FastRawViewer. That’s why nobody uses this crap you are pushing. Lightroom, like all other raw converters (DxO, Capture One, Etc.), shows a perfectly fine preview. Show the great results that can be achieved with this worthless product vs what can be achieved much faster with mainstream raw converters.
PHOTO MECHANIC 5 VS FASTRAWVIEWER SOFTWARE
I stand by my word: FastRawViewer is utter crap, useless software that only entertains geeks and weirdos trying to substitute talent with pseudo-technical bs. If you claim otherwise, show a video or something that explains how it leads to clearly better results than just using Lightroom, Capture One, Affinity Photo, etc.Īll that crappy FastRawViewer website has is screen captures of clunky, old-fashioned software making extremely vague promises while delivering nothing. He probably also knows way more about Photoshop then you can dream of.ĭont let the facts get in the way of IRv-įastRawViewer is not only inferior. Or are you only going for top poster top spot every week.īy the way, Thom Hogan knows way more about software and hardware then you can dream of. Your expertise lies apperntly with Adobe software and clearly NOT with other software. We allready know what your preference is. You don't NEED to reply in any non Adobe software related post.
PHOTO MECHANIC 5 VS FASTRAWVIEWER HOW TO
Rawdigger exposure shows you everything you need to know about the exposure of the image with actual raw data, NOT jpeg previews like LR.Īll we get from your information is that you don't know how to use other software. LR only shows jpeg previews, rawdigger and fastrawviewer show actual raw data, thus more precise and correct. Here we go again, irv00 advertising his sooo beloved Adobe software and spreading misinformation about other products being inferior. Now you can go back to your fantasies about men whose space makes you feel safe. You may spend your days fantasizing in which stranger man’s space you would feel ‘safe’, but that has nothing to do with the fact that this is software people do not need at all and is being sold under false pretenses, as shown in my post. If I had to share your safe space, or the safe spaces of MacWorld or Thom Hogan, who both life the software, I'd rather be in their safe spaces. Wow, its hard to imagine that a $15 software application that many people like to use, could trigger someone so hard as it did you, but at least you weren't calling everyone irrational. Because it is useless and only appeals to people like you. Once again, Thom Hogan does *not* use this crap. He wrote a courtesy little article as a favor for a friend, but he knows this is totally useless. He concludes his discussion, however, by writing: " Good alternative: FastRawViewer."īelow, I excerpt from one of irv00's lengthy posts his claim regarding Thom.Īnd, no, Thom Hogan - like all knowledgeable people - does NOT use this crap. In an article entitled What Thom Uses, to which irv00 links, Thom extols the virtues, "for pros," of PhotoMechanic. But as he puts great emphasis on the authority of Thom Hogan, I think it worth noting that Thom does recommend FRV. I do not claim sufficient expertise to "prove" one way or the other irv00's vigorously expressed claim that FRV is worthless. This post is written to correct one potentially significant piece of misinformation for anyone else who, like myself, finds this thread in trying to decide whether to buy FastRawViewer only or bundled with RawDigger.
0 kommentar(er)
