Image Culling Software

[dabhand16]

Indeed I did and partly that's what re-started the thoughts about culling "the good". I particularly liked his comment....
– if I think there’s even the slightestchance I can snag a better photo, I’ll go for it.

This approach is especially true for the more ordinary subjects we encounter. Too often, people dismiss common subjects as not “good enough” to bother with. Still, the truth is, the mark of a skilled photographer is the ability to recognize when even the most common of subjects can be wrangled into a great image.

I've got to admit that I find culling difficult. I don't shoot much wildlife, I shoot more models and sport at the moment, but this might change in the future. With the models I get a lot of samey images and with sport sequences don't all have to be in the final cut. I am getting more ruthless though and I'm re-building my website which has gotten a bit crowded and bloated over the years.

I like to have a go at anything and like stepping outside of my comfort zone.. I used to shoot interiors for a builder and the activities at a local narrow gauge railway.

 

[bleirer]

I have read the views above with great interest. The workflows described and the supporting programmes are really helpful however my biggest issues are only partly dealt with here. Certainly FastRawViewer and PhotoMechanic have brilliant attributes and have been of interest for some time, both would certainly solve the issue of slow preview generation on which to make decisions. The biggest problem I have however is lack of ruthlessness in deciding which of the (say) 20-30 images of a Marsh Harrier or an Osprey taken at a perch or in a burst when in flight, should be deleted. Culling the bloopers is easy but selecting the nuances such as head tilt, beak position, wing position is the time consuming part. Studying a photo to make these decisions creates a mental link to it which, in turn, makes it harder to accept that it is no better than many others and should therefore be deleted. I am not generally a long-burst shooter but still end up with more images to consider than I would like to devote time.

I'm with you. Its hard to throw photos away. My middle ground is I put all my shots in one folder for this year on my desktop, photos 2021, my download software is set to make subfolders by shooting date. From there only the potential keepers make it into my lightroom folder. At the new year that 2021 folder just gets tucked away harmlessly on a backup hard drive and replaced with photos 2022. I'm glad hard drives are cheap. Though I will probably never look at those shots again.

 

[EricBowles]

I have read the views above with great interest. The workflows described and the supporting programmes are really helpful however my biggest issues are only partly dealt with here. Certainly FastRawViewer and PhotoMechanic have brilliant attributes and have been of interest for some time, both would certainly solve the issue of slow preview generation on which to make decisions. The biggest problem I have however is lack of ruthlessness in deciding which of the (say) 20-30 images of a Marsh Harrier or an Osprey taken at a perch or in a burst when in flight, should be deleted. Culling the bloopers is easy but selecting the nuances such as head tilt, beak position, wing position is the time consuming part. Studying a photo to make these decisions creates a mental link to it which, in turn, makes it harder to accept that it is no better than many others and should therefore be deleted. I am not generally a long-burst shooter but still end up with more images to consider than I would like to devote time.

There are different decisions here and you can't lump them all together. Part of that relates to how much time you devote to making decisions.

• The out of focus, misfires and soft images should be pretty straight forward - those are deletes.
• With a common subject you draw a harsher line about keepers and consider fair or poor wing position, head position, shadows on the face or eye, etc. as grounds to delete. How many "almost good" images do you really need to keep - especially when you have other images that are clearly better. As with photographing a subject, one of the basics is to get a safety shot - something good - but you don't need 10 or 200 safety shots.
• Among the good images, which 1-2 are you going to take the time to edit? Clearly if an image is in this category, it's a keeper - not a delete. Sometimes small differences in focus - even a small miss - could be part of a focus stack.
• Some images need to be kept because it's more efficient to keep them than deciding exactly where they rank. If you only keep images you edit fully and you delete the rest, you'll get rid of some very good images. Some simply provide a safety net for later.
• Storage is cheaper than time. If you are going to make an error, keep an image rather than deleting. You have options to use an image you keep.

I remember a few years ago I had a client that bought a group of canvas prints for a display in a commercial interior. They wanted a particular flame azalea image but in a vertical orientation. I had rated a vertical image a 3 rather than 4 - as presented to the client - because it was too close to the edge of the frame and the 4 rated image had better proportions. But the 4 rated image was horizontal - and did not fit the space. I was able to add canvas and space to the 3 rated image so that it worked. It was not my best - and had a serious flaw - but it was the one that sold as a large canvas print.

In judging a contest a few years ago an owl with a mouse was selected as a winner. But in reviewing selections, the image was just too perfect with the mouse being perfectly positioned so both eyes were toward the camera and even the ears were perfect. Was it Photoshopped? So the photographer was asked to furnish a RAW file. They did - along with a screen shot of the other 100+ images they took as part of the series. As it turned out they had been working the same nest and subject on a daily basis for a month, and worked the same subject and nest over consecutive years. It was their main subject for that time period. With that much time invested in the subject, it's no surprise they had a perfect image. But the less than perfect images documented their work. Personally, I could see a client wanting the winning image, but could see another client wanting a less perfect image that did not document "the death of Mickey Mouse".

 

[RikArt]

There are different decisions here and you can't lump them all together. Part of that relates to how much time you devote to making decisions.

• The out of focus, misfires and soft images should be pretty straight forward - those are deletes.
• With a common subject you draw a harsher line about keepers and consider fair or poor wing position, head position, shadows on the face or eye, etc. as grounds to delete. How many "almost good" images do you really need to keep - especially when you have other images that are clearly better. As with photographing a subject, one of the basics is to get a safety shot - something good - but you don't need 10 or 200 safety shots.
• Among the good images, which 1-2 are you going to take the time to edit? Clearly if an image is in this category, it's a keeper - not a delete. Sometimes small differences in focus - even a small miss - could be part of a focus stack.
• Some images need to be kept because it's more efficient to keep them than deciding exactly where they rank. If you only keep images you edit fully and you delete the rest, you'll get rid of some very good images. Some simply provide a safety net for later.
• Storage is cheaper than time. If you are going to make an error, keep an image rather than deleting. You have options to use an image you keep.

I remember a few years ago I had a client that bought a group of canvas prints for a display in a commercial interior. They wanted a particular flame azalea image but in a vertical orientation. I had rated a vertical image a 3 rather than 4 - as presented to the client - because it was too close to the edge of the frame and the 4 rated image had better proportions. But the 4 rated image was horizontal - and did not fit the space. I was able to add canvas and space to the 3 rated image so that it worked. It was not my best - and had a serious flaw - but it was the one that sold as a large canvas print.

In judging a contest a few years ago an owl with a mouse was selected as a winner. But in reviewing selections, the image was just too perfect with the mouse being perfectly positioned so both eyes were toward the camera and even the ears were perfect. Was it Photoshopped? So the photographer was asked to furnish a RAW file. They did - along with a screen shot of the other 100+ images they took as part of the series. As it turned out they had been working the same nest and subject on a daily basis for a month, and worked the same subject and nest over consecutive years. It was their main subject for that time period. With that much time invested in the subject, it's no surprise they had a perfect image. But the less than perfect images documented their work. Personally, I could see a client wanting the winning image, but could see another client wanting a less perfect image that did not document "the death of Mickey Mouse".

A thorough and very well reasoned view, lots to consider here and much appreciated

 

[Susan Scharenberg]

This is an interesting and informative topic, and there are certainly many important aspects of culling.

I use LrC for DAM and basic editing, but would like to eliminate rejects before import. If necessary for the subject ("20-30 images of a Marsh Harrier or an Osprey taken at a perch or in a burst when in flight" is a good example), I want to be able to buzz quickly through high-res (40-50MP) raw images already zoomed in to 100% (1/1) and flag gross rejects for mass deletion. Some level of zoomed-in is often necessary to judge focus.

For those using a tool such as FastRawViewer and PhotoMechanic, may I ask:
1) Does it support operating in the manner described, or is there the same wait as in LrC to render each image at 100%?
2) When zoomed into a specific area of an image, does it display the next image at the same location and zoom level as current (like LrC)?

 

[SteveReid]

Hello Everyone,

I use Lightroom Classic as my basic photo editor as well as organization tool. In general, I'm very pleased with Lightroom, but I do find it's a slow tool when it comes to culling a large number of RAW files looking for the "keepers". Does anyone use a software app for image culling that they really like?

Thanks!

Photoscape-free

 

[kimball]

This is an interesting and informative topic, and there are certainly many important aspects of culling.

I use LrC for DAM and basic editing, but would like to eliminate rejects before import. If necessary for the subject ("20-30 images of a Marsh Harrier or an Osprey taken at a perch or in a burst when in flight" is a good example), I want to be able to buzz quickly through high-res (40-50MP) raw images already zoomed in to 100% (1/1) and flag gross rejects for mass deletion. Some level of zoomed-in is often necessary to judge focus.

For those using a tool such as FastRawViewer and PhotoMechanic, may I ask:
1) Does it support operating in the manner described, or is there the same wait as in LrC to render each image at 100%?
2) When zoomed into a specific area of an image, does it display the next image at the same location and zoom level as current (like LrC)?

FRV definitely supports this style of moving through a large number of images while maintaining the same zoom level and position from frame to frame. It's also a lot faster than LrC if LrC hasn't built its 100% previews yet. You can finish culling in FRV in the time it takes to wait for LrC to build 100% previews on a multi-hundred image shoot.

 

[joe43]

I use the free Nikon software to view my images and cull them. I prefer Nikon View Nx-i over NX Studio. I may be forced into using NX Studio in the future. With View Nx-i , do not do any keywording or star rankings as that slows down the previews. I have found View Nx-i to be much faster than LR or Bridge for initial viewing of images.

I have thought about using Photo Mechanic, the version w/o the catalogue, but its price has kept me away.

After culling I use DXO-PL4 to process my NEF files.

Before you decide on any program, make sure it meets ALL of your needs and is "compatible" with other programs you use. This is one advantage of using Adobe products. And is often a disadvantage with other programs as they may use different protocols for keywording, ranking, single or multiple computers, etc.

 

[EricBowles]

This is an interesting and informative topic, and there are certainly many important aspects of culling.

I use LrC for DAM and basic editing, but would like to eliminate rejects before import. If necessary for the subject ("20-30 images of a Marsh Harrier or an Osprey taken at a perch or in a burst when in flight" is a good example), I want to be able to buzz quickly through high-res (40-50MP) raw images already zoomed in to 100% (1/1) and flag gross rejects for mass deletion. Some level of zoomed-in is often necessary to judge focus.

For those using a tool such as FastRawViewer and PhotoMechanic, may I ask:
1) Does it support operating in the manner described, or is there the same wait as in LrC to render each image at 100%?
2) When zoomed into a specific area of an image, does it display the next image at the same location and zoom level as current (like LrC)?

Photo Mechanic loads and displays virtually immediately, and you can easily zoom to 100% or more using the embedded JPEG in the RAW file. Canon and Nikon files have a 100% view available. I don't know that a 100% view is immediately available in Sony files, but it can access whatever is available. For comparison, LR has to create the 100% view either upon import or when you choose to view at that level. Lightroom can be set to use embedded previews for faster performance, but that is not the default. PM does not create thumbnails or 100% views - it uses the view embedded in the file by the camera manufacturer.

Yes - in PM when you move through consecutive images it provides the exact same display. There is no need to use any key or shortcut moving from image to image.

For the purpose of rating images, you can set PM to use number keys for either star ratings or color tags. When you use a number and set a rating, it can be set to automatically advance to the next image. This makes it extremely fast for reviewing images - you can review and assign a rating at the same speed you scroll through images.

I normally am able to make a first pass and rate images at a speed of 20-30 images per minute, then I make a second pass on my 4/5 rated images allowing a little more time to choose selects and adjust any ratings if needed.

 

[PhilcTx]

1) Does it support operating in the manner described, or is there the same wait as in LrC to render each image at 100%?
2) When zoomed into a specific area of an image, does it display the next image at the same location and zoom level as current (like LrC)?

I use PM for culling off memory cards. It can operate as you ask.

Using "Open a Contact sheet" for a folder of images on a memory card or other folder location - zoom retains its zoom level & location image to image. Render of each image preview is with essentially no lag even at 100% zoom. While in preview culling mode a histogram, metadata info, highlight and shadow clipping indicators and other tools are available.

When culling in PM preview I "tag" only keepers for selection and ingest - I don't mark/tag all the deletes from a memory card. In camera memory card formatting takes care of that.

 

[JollyGreybeard]

Thank you everyone for providing such insightful and helpful information.

 

[Calson]

The advantage of FastSone Viewer is that I can look at 4 images on the screen at a time and at a large enough size to decide which ones to keep and which ones to cull. If I take a series of shots of a bird in flight for example I do not want to look at them one by one to spot a problem. I have not found any other application that allows me to do this.

 

[Patrick M]

I’m not a pro, so workflow isn’t something I particularly need. NX Studio was my main culling tool…. but with Mac’s OS Monterey, it crashes reading NEF (raw) files which is Uber Frustrating!

 

[Ken Miracle]

I have a number of pro friends who use PM and love it and it is fast. I am in the @Charles Loy group and use Nikon's free NX Studio (my wife actually only uses NX Studio for review and editing). I like it not just as a "culling" tool but since almost all the camera setting info is there I can quickly see what I might have done to make something go awry on an image ... especially helpful when starting out with a new camera body or body and lens combo.

 

[RichF]

Almost without question, Photo Mechanic from Camera Bits is the best product for the front end workflow - download, renaming, applying metadata, reviewing, rating, identifying selects, keywords, captions, and a lot more. I've been using it for more than 10 years as the front end with several different editing programs.

Photo Mechanic was developed with AP photographers in mind, so it is built around fast processing for people who need to quickly work through hundreds or thousands of images on a same day basis. It starts by using the embedded JPEG files in the RAW image. Nikon and Canon RAW files include small basic JPEG files as well as a 100% view without needing any processing. In comparison, Lightroom needs to be set up to use the embedded JPEG files, and it can take time to reprocess the RAW file to create previews and 100% views.

I use Photo Mechanic to ingest and rename files. I use wild cards to automatically apply the date shot to both folder names and file names. I apply basic keywords upon ingest, and then apply additional keywords as needed. It fully supports keyword libraries. It also allows you to save IPTC templates so all of my keywords, captions, location data, and other IPTC data can be saved and loaded at another time for a similar shoot. Once IPTC and other data is loaded to the RAW file in PM, it's available downstream in any RAW converter or editing program.

After rating images using Stars in PM, I use Color tags to identify the Selects for editing. I use filters in PM to only look at my 4 and 5 rated images for Selects. Likewise I use filters for a final review of discards before deleting. I might have 5-10 similar images with the same rating, but I might only edit one. I only bring my Selects into Lightroom for editing and it's largely a drag and drop process that takes just one click.

Photo Mechanic can generate small files for web use directly from the embedded JPEG files. It can apply watermarks if desired. Those watermarks can include wild cards to automatically apply things like title, copyright or image data. For presentations I can use the watermark to apply camera, lens and shooting data to each file.

Photo Mechanic can be a bit overwhelming, but there are some good tutorials on how to use it from people like Jason O'Dell.

Video Workshop: Photo Mechanic and Lightroom - Jason P. Odell Photography

Photo Mechanic is a powerful image browser that offers some significant benefits for workflow, including fast file browsing, dynamic directories, and image triage. If you are using Adobe Photoshop Lightroom, Photo Mechanic can be an excellent complement to Adobe's image management tool. Some of...

luminescentphoto.com

Agree photomechanics is a great product. I do a first pass and identify images to delete by giving them 1 star.

I only wish that they support a dual monitor approach - one monitor would be 100% blow up and the other would be the image. That way I could check for composition as well as sharpness.

 

[EricBowles]

The advantage of FastSone Viewer is that I can look at 4 images on the screen at a time and at a large enough size to decide which ones to keep and which ones to cull. If I take a series of shots of a bird in flight for example I do not want to look at them one by one to spot a problem. I have not found any other application that allows me to do this.

Photo Mechanic gets close. As shown, you can enlarge the size of the thumbnails. You can also double click on a thumbnail (Windows) and it brings up an enlarged image. In that view, you can use the menu at the top of the page to bring up a side by side view of two images with the images stacked vertically or horizontally. In that view you can zoom either image to any level desired. In this side by side view you can go through a series of images retaining one image and scrolling the second until you get one that is better, and then you can keep the better image displayed and continue scrolling to compare additional images. At all times the filmstrip with thumbnails is shown - or you can go to full screen and see just the images.

You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

Here is my main PM display. I've customized the text under the photos using variables in the metadata so it automatically displays camera, focal length and shooting settings.

You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

 

[FB101]

I have recently included fast raw viewer in my workflow to help manage the massive amount of data coming from shooting the A1 at 20fps Non lossy. I like the near instantaneous display of the photos, the true raw base of the rendition which means to sort out blown highlights accurately and I love the fact that I can easily push my selected files to DXO pure raw with 1 click and from Pure raw to LRc with one click as well.
i wish the default shortcuts were the same as LR and PS but they allow you to change them but it would be easier if they matched from the start.

 

[airestudiosmt]

I use FastStone Image Viewer.

Hi Andy,

I just started to really dig into what FastStone can do - it is a nice piece of software and is very underrated. I use FastRaw Viewer, NX Studio, and others as well, but the speed at which you can cull photos using FastStone is a great time saver.

 

[dabhand16]

Hi Andy,

I just started to really dig into what FastStone can do - it is a nice piece of software and is very underrated. I use FastRaw Viewer, NX Studio, and others as well, but the speed at which you can cull photos using FastStone is a great time saver.

I've been using it for years and always recommend it for consideration. I occasionally give them $20 which stops the pop-up inviting a contribution with a key that they send you. I don't begrudge it as I use it on all of my computers.

 

[Replytoken]

The advantage of FastSone Viewer is that I can look at 4 images on the screen at a time and at a large enough size to decide which ones to keep and which ones to cull. If I take a series of shots of a bird in flight for example I do not want to look at them one by one to spot a problem. I have not found any other application that allows me to do this.

That is exactly how I use FastStone for culling. But, do note that FastRawViewer has released v.2 of their program and it now has up to four windows. I purchased the upgrade, but have not yet installed it. https://updates.fastrawviewer.com/data/pdf/About_FastRawViewer_2-0.pdf

--Ken

 

[airestudiosmt]

I was pleasantly surprised to find that in FastStone you can create contact sheets. I used a piece of software years ago called ThumbsPlus that would allow for the creation of contact sheets.

If you use the wheel on the mouse to move through the images you can get through a folder of images pretty quick. I also like how fast the software creates thumbnails in a folder. Great for looking for that one photo that you miss-placed. The software works fine with Z9 images.

 

[Calson]

For my own workflow I want to cull images as the first step. The ones that survive the cull are then sorted. Only the ones that I plan to process go into a DAM for retrieval. I dislike the applications that force me to load all the files into their indexing structure (not a DAM or true database but a flat file structure) and so far none have been designed to work with multiple users going after the same folder and help with version control as an image is processed in different ways or saved at different resolutions or CYMK instead of RGB.

I really gain little if anything in trying to have an all in one solution. It is like the old Japanese saying about a cook that he has many knives, none sharp. Culling, DAM, image editing are tasks for which I use three different applications. I can chose a different image editing tool or video editor like Resolve and not change the other aspects of my workflow.

I was in Costa Rica with a photographer who was unable to use Lightroom as it wanted to force authentication and the Adobe server could not deal with the long delay in communications and would cancel the operation. I want all my applications to be standalone ones that do not depend on having an internet connection to be used. I have had my own problems working with Adobe where they would cancel my enterprise license or force me to fax proof of ownership to India and then India was supposed to contact the home office which would process the update to their database for my company. At a certain point it became easier to go with non-Adobe applications for my business.

 

[jfbacks]

I've been using BreezeBrowser Pro, much faster than LR. You can compare 4 images at a time for subtitle differences. Can you do that with Photo mechanic?

 

[EricBowles]

I've been using BreezeBrowser Pro, much faster than LR. You can compare 4 images at a time for subtitle differences. Can you do that with Photo mechanic?

Photo Mechanic allows thumbnails to be resized from 2 to 14 across the page. That view does not allow zooming. You can also view up to two images side by side in vertical or horizontal formats and zoom to as much as 800% using the embedded JPEG in RAW files. There is no processing involved for these views - it is simply rendering the images created by the camera, so all of these options are instantaneous.