Feature Request

[Maike13]

Feature Request:  I want to be able to control the background color in the iMatch Viewer.

Many sites where I post photos use a different colour than black for their backgrounds, for example light grey (#CCCCCC) seems popular.  I find the high contrast created by the black background used in the viewer can give a false impression of the brightness of the colours in my photos, so they don't look as good when posted on these other sites.  I'd like to be able to match the colour of the viewer background to the colour of the background on the site where the photos will be posted, to see if I need to make any adjustments to brightness and colour saturation.

Thanks

[Mario]

I have added this for the next IMatch release. I was working on the Viewer anyways, and this was quick to do.

See Release note #1502 at https://www.photools.com/release-notes/

[ColinIM]

Thank you @Maike13 and thank you @Mario.

Although I only use Viewer occasionally, I like this enhancement a lot.

I like it for pretty much the same reasons explained by Maike13, but especially for the reduction in contrast - which I can now arrange to have - when viewing images.

My chosen background colour will probably be nearer to #4A4A4A (more subdued / less 'light') than #CCCCCC, but of course I'll need to experiment to be sure I don't reduce the readability of other components in and around the Viewer window.
Thank you again.

[Maike13]

Wow.  Thank you Mario.  This rapid a response is really impressive.  I figured, at best, if my feature suggestion was ever implemented, it would be months before anything actually happened.

I've probably looked at a couple of dozen DAM (and pseudo DAM) applications, based mainly on a list I found on DPReview ( https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/62178173 ) and an interesting article by Mike Briggs on how he chose his DAM ( https://www.bkwinephotography.com/technology/found-best-digital-asset-management-dam-system/ ), although I didn't agree with his final selection (s).   iMatch is easily the one I liked best, even before my suggestion was implemented.  So now I have absolutely no excuse and will be purchasing soon.

[Maike13]

Just a PS to my last post:

I happened to read the comments section for Mike Briggs article on how he chose his DAM and he added this thought in answer to one of the comments (May 14, 2020 at 19:59)

"However I would now add iMatch to my shortlist.  The original shortlist was digiKam, Daminion and Photo Supreme

[Mario]

Different users have different needs, preferences and workflows. As I always say: "Whatever works for you is good!".

I find that many times posts/blog entries like "The best software for bla" are written by users who have worked, for a short while, with 2 to 5 products  - in markets which literally have dozens of vendors and products.
They should better use headlines like "I have tried these 3 DAM applications and I like product X best".
That would be more honest, because they don't know if a product they did not try yet would work much better for them.

If you check the Digital Asset Management Software list at Capterra (no affiliation), you'll learn that they list 392 (!) products. DAM for many audiences and price tags. From 100 US$ for a perpetual license to 100,000US$ rent per year.

Also, I find reviews on the net always a bit short on important things like:

"Does it break when my image collection is more than 100,000 files?"
"Does it read and write metadata properly, respecting and implementing all relevant ISO and industry standards?"
"Is my data independent from my DAM, allowing me to switch products easily?"
"How's the support?"
"Is there a proper documentation?"

Because, many of the popular and often recommended applications fail badly in one or more of these important areas.

When I have a few minutes, I sometimes read the support boards of some other "DAM" software (corporate-grade and home market).
This gives me a good impression on what their users are fighting with. How responsive and knowledgeable the support is. Etc.

Very enlightening