My guess is that opening a folder with 30 images is much better than opening one with 300 even if filtering. I’m not sure how much slower it is to have the hundreds of images there hidden in the background (are the thumbnails taking memory even if they are invisible for instance?).Īll of my computers have a lot of RAM and between four and twelve processors so background RAM use or processing wouldn’t show up to me right away.

If the image are pre-rated, opening the folder in DxO PhotoLab and filtering 5 star or 4/5 star images as visible also works. I’ve done less experimenting with that.īefore opening up PhotoLab I move most 4 and 5 star images into a separate folder for processing (I say most as it may be I have multiple 4 star ratings for a single image or I just have too many 4 star images for a subject and I don’t want to process them all). It may be that even the flagged images show up as selects. The ratings from either FRV or Bridge or even Lightroom xmp files show up in DxO PhotoLab. There are others like PhotoMechanic which are equally fast, have stronger keywording tools but are considerably more expensive (more than 10x). If I move all my selects into a folder before starting work in DxO (out of 200 images I might process between 10 and 70 depending on whether they are artistic images or an event).įastRawViewer is my sorting and selects tool of choice as it’s fast, powerful and inexpensive. PhotoLab is very slow with hundreds of images from a session. What I find most effective with DxO PhotoLab for quick management of images is to make sure the folder I’m browsing only includes selects for processing.

If you have a lot of images in a folder scrolling to the newest is a bit laborious. Sorting - not possible to sort descending in library.

Dxo photo lab 4