Open individual file rather than directory - impossible?

@George My recommendation for a RAW (and JPG etc.) viewer is FastRawViewer. I am biased, it is cheap, quick, it renders RAWs (even those from my Pixel 4a) and I have had excellent service from the developer (not fixing bugs but helping with queries and a request for enhancing a certain feature when I was testing Ratings in PL5).

It costs nothing for a Trial and if you don’t like it then you can try something else.

Just tested and it passes multiple files to PL5 as a a single group but cannot pass from more than one directory at a time.

Hope that helps.

The layout is customisable, the keyboard is completely customisable, the options are …extensive and it can show 4 photos at once! The first photo is showing the RAW (top left) and the second showing the embedded JPG (also top left). Controlled and shown by the R and I on the bottom line (or toggling with the J key.

They are all showing the same photo because they are part of a bulk test of 11,000 photos created by copying and recopying the same directory!!

and I do not get a commission!


There is currently an offer on until the 2nd January, it is also available for the MAC and I do not get any commission!

The latest Nikon software is now NX Studio, which, as far as I can tell, also stores the changes in the NEF file. But it is not possible to see any of the edits outside of NX Studio, so it obviously doesn’t change the embedded JPEG.

I know this was for a test but, why on earth do folks keep so many images? Is it some perverted photographic form of hoarding?

When they discovered Vivian Maier’s collection, there were only just over 150,000 for a whole lifetime and most of those were 120 roll film strips where it wasn’t easy to “cull” individual negs. And it is reckoned Ansel Adams’ archive only contains just over 40,000 images.

At this time of festive cheer, I would ask if there is really any sanity in keeping thousands and thousands of images, most of which are either duplicates, failed shots or things like HDR series that failed.

If you really feel the need to keep everything, can I suggest folks use something like FRV to cull those images that are worth processing and organise them into some structure, then put the rest out of the way, on an external disk, as an archive? Then you might find DxO PhotoLab once again becomes responsive and easier to use as it regains its purpose as an image editor and not an image archiver?

1 Like

It renders the out of camera RAW file. It doesn’t the edits I made in PL


Hi Bryan,

Just remembered that about a year ago there was an issue with PM not sending images to PL properly.

Are you on the latest release? If not try using to the latest release of PM.

@Joanna you never found in your archives images which you could not evaluate at the time you took them? Remember “Moonrise over Hernandez”, one of A. Adams’ 40.000? And you’ve seen edits from right after the shot? Very different from the copies which became famous.

Vivian Maier was also a hoarder (or you could call her “messy”, the term for people who cannot throw away things they still can see a reason why the things might be handy to have “one day”). So why didn’t she keep 1000 great images and throw away the rest? Some of her images became interesting as they are a contemporary document of everyday life - not as a “great piece of art”.

There are tons of reasons to keep pictures which eventually turn into images. Or raise the profits of HD manufacturers… It was never as easy as it is today to get. For us computer generations, digital pictures become more and more a substitute for “real memories” (which btw usually are turning into “stories” more than what “really” has happened). Also, you keep telling us how much money goes into a single 4×5" film. For ten of your images we could also buy a 5 TB HD which holds (to calculate easier, I use 100 MB/picture give, or take) 50.000 High res RAWs + their JPG versions. It’s clear that you value your film images more as you were working longer to get a single picture – and you’ll be holding the physical result in your hands and can look at it without the need to start a PC. Most of my pictures are simply “etudes” to try out something. Being a more or less self-teached photog. I sometimes want to look up in “old” pictures if I made any progress. To me this is as interesting as to judge my stuff today.

That might be relevant for prints, where every print was handmade every time. If you want a digital equivalent, then only keep the one RAW file and start from scratch every time, possibly creating a preset in the same way that Ansel Adams would have created a printing plan, because I very much doubt if he kept more than one “version” of the 10" x 8" glass plate neg.

But keeping near duplicates and failures isn’t one of them. Example: I took over 600 shots of La Patrouille de France aerobatics team. First sort left me with 41 and I really need to lose some of those. Absolutely no point in keeping the other 560+.

But do you really need to keep all the obviously bad shots, or the virtually duplicate shots where you shot in burst mode and most of which didn’t work?

It’s not just a matter of cost, it’s about photographic self-discipline and moving on from “snapping” photos as memories to making images. Surely, once you’ve learnt any lessons from old failed photos, they can be ditched? Believe me, I just recovered a corrupted archive external drive and am still going through the recovery files, thinking, “why on earth did I take that?”

1 Like

I do not use burst-mode or bracketing (except for focus bracketing) and ⅓ to ½ of my shots are going to the bin.

“Moonrise” was done on film if i’m not mistaken. And sold for $ 800.- by Mr. Adams because he made a “shop closing” announcement and got orders for 3.000 images (instead of 1.000 expected), which kept him busy for most part of 3 years. It was sold on an auction for $ 71.000 from one of the first-hand-buyers.

Once again, I don’t gain a lot of diskspace by throwing away single shots - once my sorting is over, they are still some “doubtful” leftovers.

And also, 10.000 pictures is not that high of a number, when Nikon D4 and D5 are sold second hand with 300.000 or 500.000 pictures on it’s counter. Who knows if Leonardo da Vinci would have done more oil paintings if there was already brushes and canvas’ with burst mode…

Fact is, DxO PL is the worst app to cull through that number. I still can browse rather fluently through 5× more pictures. In an iMac from 2010. With rather standard HDD, no SD involved for database or picture lib. With an app no longer sold since 5 years.

And you can ask yourself why people keep all this materials, but why did Viviane keep her 150.000? She never had an exhibition or sold an image as far as I know (which really is not that far… :relaxed:)

Once again, PhotoLab was never conceived as a browsing/culling app for multi-thousands of images. It is a superb image editing app that knocks the socks off any other for making the very best out of RAW (and non-RAW) files.

Are you saying that you process all your RAW files before culling them? Surely not. In which case, if you are culling RAW files, you might as well use Mac Finder in thumbnail view. What is the point of having PhotoLab generate the same demosaïced preview that you can get in any other browser. PhotoLab doesn’t “import” files, it simply looks at those that it finds on disk; if you use an external tool like FRV, etc, before you get to PhotoLab, it makes life a whole load simpler (and faster)

@KeithRJ It says that it is the latest version of Photo Mechanics (not plus). I am on Windows 10 as I believe you are but that does leave the configuration of Windows (we could be here forever with that one) and also PL5 itself(?!)

It would be good to get to the bottom of what might (must) be different between my installation/configuration and yours just because I do not like mysteries!!

I don’t like too use external tolls for an app which converts RAW files, yes, but also has a second tab which is called “library”. I just take the tool name by it’s wording. And I don’t care for what PL “was conceived” back in the day, I care with what promises it is sold today.

Image management made simple with PhotoLibrary

Access files directly and instantly locate your photos using dynamic search suggestions.

A photo library packed with tools for managing your images

Please stop defending PL as if it only promises to convert or edit RAWs.

It’s a suite consisting ViewNx-i and CaptureNx-D. They don’t store in the NEF.
I had to reinstall ViewNx2.


It doesn’t say anything about how fast it browses thousands of files. It just says it accesses them and even the bit about “instantly locate your photos” is stretching the truth - that is only possible after you have told PL to index a folder and then waited upon to half an hour for it to do that with thousands of images.

Marketing speak is far too clever to “promise” or otherwise. It just says what is, according to them, possible, under certain circumstances. One of the benefits of this forum is that you get what real people have found to be true and, for years now, real people have been saying th PL is not a browser/culler.

You already have a Mac with one of the most powerful browsing, tagging and searching engines I have ever found. As good as PL is at editing, why would you switch from macOS Finder and Spotlight just because PL adds a less efficient “copy” of that functionality?

I suppose it might be because Lightroom does it and has sucked people in to paying monthly for a cataloguing system that, on a Mac is barely necessary and that DxO have tried to emulate.

NX studio is a single app that, according to Nikon, stores edits in the NEF.

ViewNx-i and CaptureNx-D only handle certain cameras.

That’s true. But it also doesn’t say "as long as you don’t have more than xxx pictures in one folder… :grin:

I like that :laughing: Reminds me on some descriptions of holiday residences, “ocean view” doesn’t say anything about the landfill site you can also see while trying to stare at the ocean. My bad to take this kind of texts too serious.

Oh, and that bit of the Mac might be flattering for Tim Cook’s crew, but well, I’m not all that keen in seeing big fat DxO symbols while scrolling through the pictures…

Depending. I take quite a few images in dark places and lime you, try to keep the lights not overblowing. Which means at least a bit of development before rating high be possible.

I’m sure you know better than me what I mean…

That’s simple. Just filter for only RAW files…

Then, if I want to inspect or compare, all I do is select the files I want and press the spacebar to bring up a Quicklook panel. If I want to edit in PL, I just double-click on any selected files.

Sure. For those times, I will just double-click to open in PL or open them in FRV to see what is available in the shadows. But those tend to be the exception


That search was on my Images folder and brought back all NEF files, regardless of which sub-folder they were in…

Capture d’écran 2021-12-25 à 17.58.11

Addenda 2

Personally, I use my own app, which also allows for flattened hierarchical browsing, keywording, rating, Finder Tags, etc…

@Joanna @md999 explained in one of his mails the reason for the large number of photos in a single directory in his particular case. I recently had a large number of photos in one directory as a result of an “accident” with burst mode and these formed the components of my mega photo test.

I am not worried about the “accident” nor of experimenting with exposure bracketing nor of taking multiple pictures of the same scene from slightly or wildly varying angles. I pay the price in the hard drives necessary to maintain the files and the many backups I keep but that is part of my “hobby”.

The test itself was useful and regardless of what anyone else may take away from the results I found the outcome enlightening and XnViewMP went up in my estimation for its ability to handle very large numbers of photos as elegantly as any software (that I have yet tested) can.

However, if it is possible to only pass items of interest on to editors that, perhaps “suffer” from fatigue while presenting the thumbnails for large directories, then there is a win win situation.

However the “complaints” about PL5 speed come from a number of different users in a number of different circumstances and any ideas that may help performance are worth investigating and presenting to DxO in the hope that it might quieten the critics, make my life easier with my “mistakes” directories and lead to an even better product.

The photographers you cite were using a different technology and were working with the limitations of that technology and are renowned because of the quality of what they achieved (in spite of, because of, regardless of …). What they may have achieved with modern technology and how many photos would have been in their portfolio is anyone’s guess.

Sadly my portfolio will be a curse to my children when they have to clean up the mess and I do need to sort some of the nuggets from the family photos so that they don’s all get “thrown out with the bathwater”!? In the meantime I enjoy them all, both photos and family (most of the time).

I consider DxO optics pro 11 my best purchase (except that Beyond Compare has been “saving my bacon” for years and NEO helped me with every telephone call from my clients when I could summon up all the emails about any subject instantly and …).

Sadly I feel that the the product went backwards with PhotoLabs 1 and the initial release of local adjustments, DxO deprecated the feature I bought DxO 11 for(DxO7 Smart lighting) but it started to pick up from there.

However, much as I admire the product, I will not ignore any issues that could be improved or bugs that need to be fixed and at the moment it does appear that there are quite a few bugs being encountered, I have never experienced so many releases in such a short space of time.

Either the Beta testers did not do their job or we could have been better directed in ways that might have reduced the number of errors.

@Joanna and when are you going to release your product for Win 10, I am dying to have a crack at it but no intention of buying a Mac just for that opportunity.

Don’t know if you’ ve any experience with old Aperture, @Joanna I just like to browse, tag, find, edit, export, compare and search for more exotic metadata within ONE app. I found that the most convenient and productive way for em. And I slowly get a bit angry about all the old users of some RAW converter defending their need to have a couple of apps started to get the job done. I want to work with and on my pictures. I have no patience for the workAROUND part. Waste of time and resources.

And that’s my final word in this thread.

Maybe it’s the constraints and expense of film but I class them as “real” photographers who decided on what they wanted to photograph before pressing the shutter release, not machine gunning and hoping that something might work. Just because electrons don’t cost anything doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t make images rather than blasting away in hope that something might have worked.

Equally sadly, I fear that most of them may never see the light of day because they will be invisible, hidden in a metal or plastic box which, when opened, will tell them nothing about the existence of the pictures you have so lovingly collected. And, if they do find them, do you really think they will take the hours and hours it will take to sift through them? It was bad enough when we found the box of prints from a past relative in the days of film. But at least then, they might have something written on the back to tell us the what, where, when and why of the image. Which is why it can be very useful to fill in the Description EXIF tag.

Unfortunately, that is never going to happen unless someone else is willing to help out. It has, so far, taken me over two years to write the Mac version and it is working well enough for beta testing but still not finished. I had to take a break from the 14 hour days, 7 days a week, for the sake of my own sanity and to get a night’s sleep without waking up with yet another idea or solution to a problem.

@Joanna while I have heard the argument about having to “conserve your ammunition” leading to better photography, do we know how many photos were taken and then destroyed. We have what was left but from how many? In truth that doesn’t matter even an outtake from one the “greats” may have been more than good enough.

However, I have grandchildren and the machine gun approach is definitely the best (only) approach. My wife came up with the idea of a children’s camera for the 7 year old and a simpler and cheaper one for the 3 year old and that seems to have gone down very well. Their Dad is a videographer/editor and their Mum edits material for online presentation for a number of charities.

In an average day visiting gardens (1 or 2 in the day when that was easy to do) will mean 500 photos at least. I use the camera to capture the moment and use the photos to remind me of what I saw, they chronicle the day. Hence, few are culled because that would leave a hole in the “space time continuum” and that is my excuse and I am sticking to it!

We were going over photos from my wife’s family, some in an old photo album complete with annotations and others loose in a box, with the 7 year old grand daughter and got more of a response for a longer period of time from her than we would get from her father (and from her as she gets older). When we took over the collection I photographed every album as quickly as possible with my LX7 and at least we have a digital copy in the event we lose the originals or start to remove photos from one purpose or another.

I effectively need to create the digital equivalent (which can then be printed if required) to hand on to the next generation; multiple photos on a page with narrative to bind them together.

None of this helps with your software and sadly I cannot help. In my career, which was never as a programmer, I only wrote about 750,000 lines of COBOL code or pseudo-code. That is definitely the wrong language for developing for the PC (although it helped my customers at the time) and I have never indulged in PC development, even buying B4A (now free) didn’t manage to get me to return to programming. I prefer to “break” other peoples programs rather than develop my own!!