Xnview mp double click open archive#

Management power over your collection - by exporting them to TIFF you induce quasi-duplication of your files just for the sake of them. In-place editing - If you're more-or-less satisfied with how you Raw looks like, and you want only 'normal' adjustments (levels, brightness, crop, sharpening etc.) why you don't just do a simple double-click and edit the image in XnView MP? Also, after the conversion is done, you must go in the 'other program' (Photoshop) to chose 'Open', to find your TIFF file. I tested a lot of conversion programs and only XnView MP surpasses it. The conversion takes time, even if XnView has (one of) the fastest conversion engines available. Streamlined workflow - the TIFF step induces an unnecessary step which you must manage taking your attention away from what you must do.

anything else'ДЄlso, I will speak about XnView MP (the enhanced version of XnView) which is due to a new release shortly with big enhancements because is the program which I use heavily from several years now, after I upgraded from XnView.ДЄpply what I say to XnView - most of them should work, even if something not as powerful as in his newer and enhanced brother, XnView MP.Д®diting/post-processing power/latitude - mattdm detailed this, I will not talk about it again. (Or the digital answered rather about 'image quality' hence I will concentrate on the other part of your question: '(I lose). Only a certain subset of photography enthusiasts care about looking at negatives: everyone else wants to look at the final prints. Some might gasp: 'but that's like throwing out the negatives!', which is partially true, but, also, not the end of the world.

Xnview mp double click open archive#

For this, you might shoot RAW and your conversions, and if you're happy with them, only archive the TIFF or JPEG final output. However, it's also perfectly valid to leave your finished work as it was, and to concentrate on improving for the future. You could do that, and it's a perfectly fine choice for some people. Second - and this is more of a philosophical point - you don't have to be obsessed with the idea of preserving all of your history in case you might want to go back and redo. Still, having the RAW files does give you more flexibility, particularly in color balance - the second link I give above demonstrates this nicely. RAW conversion is not a substitute for getting the shot basically right in camera, and so conversely, getting it close to right in camera makes RAW conversion less important. That said, there are two things to keep in mind before panicking.ДЇirst, the range of adjustments you can make and still get excellent results even on JPEG files is still large, and this is particularly true if you're basically in the ballpark anyway. Once those are saved into an image format like TIFF, you can make only a more limited range of adjustments, so in that sense, you have lost something.Дepending on the conversion choices you made, this could include loss of shadow or highlight detail, sharpening choices (too much or too little) that you regret later, white balance adjustments, contrast curves, and more. What you loose is flexibility, since the initial conversion 'bakes in' decisions about color balance, contrast curves, and demosaicing, and sharpening. So, if detail loss from compression is all you are concerned about, no, there is no loss of that sort.Д«ut, take a look at What is RAW, technically? and Good examples of RAW's advantages over JPEG?. By that measure, quality isn't degraded in the same way it might be with JPEG (and especially with re-saving JPEG or by using high JPEG compression levels).

On the first TIFF is generally not compressed in a lossy way, so artifacts weren't introduced. The question here really resolves around what you mean by 'quality', followed closely by needing to understand what RAW really is and how it relates to other image formats.