Fast Raw Viewer with DXO Photolab 4

Is there a way for DXO Photolab 4 to read XMP files from Fast Raw Viewer? If so, how? Now the why: I would like to use the rating system from Fast Raw Viewer after viewing the images using that software to check for blown highlights, shadows, etc and using the histogram from that software.

If it is not possible, then I will simply find a work around or do it the longer way. I do like like Fast Raw Viewer’s histogram and wish DXO had one just like it. It does help.

Thanking everyone in advance.

At the moment, you will see the star ratings in Photolab and the added Title/Description in the exported photos.
You will not see the color labels (and the Title/Description) in Photolab.

FRV 's xmp file is made for LR.
So all the tagging and things as EV comp and WB correction are not read by DxOPL only starratings are read.
If you use stars rating FRV creates a xmp file.
Me personal use the workflow.
1 ingest and cull with FRV. Rate the good one’s with a star or more.
2 then i use adobe bridge to tag keywords.
3 select the one’s i want to edit. (bridge can open DxOPL and creates a project in DxOPL for you.)

This way you can use the search function in DxO and select on keywords.
Note that changing and adding in DxOPL of keywords are not updating the xmp file.

I have found the PL4 Photo Library very slow for viewing and selecting large raw images. It becomes remarkably slow with large amount of images in a folder.

I have used Nikon View NX-i to view the NEF images. I star mark the photos to be
edited. Then I filter the photos and copy the star marked to a new folder - preferably on my C: SSD. From there I do the editing in PL4. The DOT files are saved to this folder leaving the original NEF:s ready for new attempts. Extra browsing speed is gained due to the PL4 folder is not containing all files.

I have recently not checked if the View NX-i star markings do copy into PL4. It used not to be so.

1 Like

I am using AcdSee as DAM, I assign star rating in AcdSee and in Photolab I can use filters to see only photos with the rating I wish. It works well, if you don’t touch rating in Photolab it always reads from XMP

It’s always a matter of workflow, I would not do it like that. Instead I shoot RAW and also let the camera create a small jpg ooc. Back home I separate jpgs from raw in different temporary folders (W10), preselect these jpgs for technical issues, doublettes, “best of five” and whatever. Then I copy the remainder jpgs into the raw folder and delete (or re-move) every raw which has no jpg equivalent (simply sort by name). And then open DXO and continue. Easy.

I certainly wouldn’t delete a RAW file on the basis of an OoC JPG ! - - as the very nature of a RAW file is that you can get a lot more out of it than the camera’s basic JPG processing. See here for an example.

John M

Try ViewNx2. That writes directly to the nef in an iptc and xmp section. Also the keywords. And PL reads them.


I did so already yesterday but did not find it working.
I will try once more - hope I was wrong.

Now I tried once more. No remedy. Stars do not transfer from VievNx2 to PL4.
On the other hand, ViewNx2 crashes and does not want to stay in selected folder. Further, ViewNX2 seems to be slower than its predecessor, so PL4 is not so bad anymore…
This is, however, not a topic for this site.

With me it’s working.
I think there’s a difference between Fast Raw Viewer and ViewNx2 in this, that FRV is using an external xmp file, while ViewNx is adding that file to the nef.
In general those files, both the internal and the external, should be the same.


Thank you George for your contribution. I will continue trying in the future.
I consider uninstalling and re-installing ViewNX2 to see if that helps and come back with the results.

The fact that we still have, in 2021, to rely on an external program to catalog our images and build a library is absolutely mind boggling.

@VincentR I don’t agree, DPL is a raw developer and I think DXO should invest time and resources to make it even better not to add DAM functions, there are better programs for DAM


Fully agree, maybe some basic DAM functions but not another Lightroom

The point we need to pass is ending the dependence on the DataBase for keywords.
It’s no use to change things which are stuck in one program.
Rawfiles are long term files and wile applications change over the years, the iptc and keywords are stationairy mosly on your raw archive.
So a non depending DAM system using common used file types like xmp are vital for your concistency in organising your growing rawfilecstock.
Not to mention the springoff’s as tiff.s, jpegs, dng’s.

If DxO builds a simple but effective editing field for iptc, xmp which export alway’s this to the external sidecar that will be enough if added to the allready present DAM facilities.
Home users will use that and more demanding users will choose apps like photomechanic.

So imho before exporting in xmp of keywords and such , rawfiles and there iptc info are vulnerable when using DxO’s keyword editor.

I use the “freeware” adobe Bridge to tag and edit iptc. Yes at the cost of poking in my property by Adobe. Like google and FB also do.
When DxO manage to import export in xmp i still be using this for anything else then rawfiles.

Finaly, it’s better to use small effective applications for parts of your workflow then a one do it all on It’s own way so you bound to that system. It’s more flexible, faster, easier to migrate among systems, split workflow on devices. (tagging and editing iptc on holiday on a simple portable needs no heavy cpu user like LR or DxOPL. Just prepare xmp data wile your on holiday and back up dayly from camerasd to a HD/cloud wile you doing that.)


I totally agree, some basic DAM functions are useful but tags must be written to standard xmp tags, a database is useful for searching and filtering but it must be in synch with xmp.
Standard xmp tags are important because they can be read by any program, you can start tagging with DPL then one day switch to a more powerful program and you can still use your tags.

@OXiDant Totally agree!

@OXiDant Totally agree!
and like we say in our office if sometimes take too long time “we need a coup” :sunglasses:

1 Like

John, thanks, that’s appreciated. But I’m talking about just obvious faults which can easily be pre-selected and deleted before turning on PL in order to smoothen the workflow. Camera-shake or misfocus does not improve in raw. And the brides closed eye is not getting open in raw either. I see no need for PL to be an allround picture-management-tool and would prefer the DXO-guys to focus on the cool stuff.