While it supported RAW, decoding a 24MP Canon CR2 file took ~4-5 seconds on a 2015 mid-range PC, and the preview quality was mediocre (lots of noise, poor highlight recovery). Lightroom was far superior, but also $10/month.
Unlike Picasa (which scanned everything into a massive SQLite DB) or Windows Live Photo Gallery, XnView worked on a browser-based system. You navigated folders, it cached thumbnails ( .db files), but never forced you to "import" anything. This made it ideal for external drives and network shares. xnview review 2015
In 2015, the image management world was split between heavyweight tools like Adobe Bridge and Lightroom, free OS defaults (Windows Photo Viewer, Preview), and the increasingly popular PhotoScape or IrfanView. XnView sat firmly in the "power user utility" camp. Core Strengths (2015 Context) 1. Unmatched Format Support By 2015, XnView supported over 500 image formats (including 70+ read-only RAW formats from almost every camera manufacturer). It could open obscure formats from the 1990s (Amiga IFF, Atari IMG) that even Photoshop had abandoned. This was its #1 selling point. While it supported RAW, decoding a 24MP Canon
The batch convert dialog was a beast. You could resize, add watermarks, change color depth, apply filters (sharpen, blur, emboss), and rename with regex-like patterns—all in one queue. No other free tool in 2015 offered this much control without a script. You navigated folders, it cached thumbnails (
By 2015, Picasa had excellent face recognition and Google Maps integration. XnView had none of that. Its "category" tagging was manual and clunky.
On a standard 2015 PC (e.g., Intel Core i5, 8GB RAM, HDD), XnView loaded in under 2 seconds. Batch renaming 200 JPEGs or converting a folder of RAW to PNG took a fraction of the time compared to Picasa or FastStone.
We use cookies to track usage and preferences. Read more about it in our cookie policy.
