Free software to view 5D mk III 's RAW images?

+1. I would do a few quick exits and send SMALL jpegs, too small to print well.

Wilt wrote in post #16705518
I would never send RAW files, for these reasons...

1. You are sending originals, and there is ZERO reason why they ever need to pay you for any photos!
   
2. You are sending originals, and these have NOT been processed as YOU wish them to appear, to yield the exposure, contrast and brightness adjustment, improvement of shadow detail, etc. that you envison are best for the shot. That can bite you in the a$$ when someone sees a substandard photo that someone converted from your RAW file, and thinks the garbage shot is yours!
   
3. You are sending files 10-20x larger in file size than you really need to.

hollis_f wrote in post #16705900
That would be my choice. Or I'd do a batch convert using FastStone (which is, essentially the same as IJFR, just extracting the embedded jpeg) because that can add a watermark during the conversion.

I agree. Use Faststone. It is a free program, and it will even do minor editing.

Google: Faststone Image Viewer

As much as I love FastStone Image Viewer, I'd rather batch-convert with DPP.

That would allow me to first apply some approximate batch adjustments, especially those required to compensate the camera settings used to produce a more true-to-raw histogram (like Neutral Picture Style, low contrast, low saturation etc).

Windows back to XP can view raw, just have to go to microsoft and get the raw viewer plugin. Free.

marcosphoto wrote in post #16716725
Windows back to XP can view raw, just have to go to microsoft and get the raw viewer plugin. Free.

I like the sound of that. Need to check into it.

marcosphoto wrote in post #16716725
Windows back to XP can view raw, just have to go to microsoft and get the raw viewer plugin. Free.

Thanks I down loaded it, only slight problem when you look at the tumbnails they are not converted until you select one, but much better than nothing.

As for the job I am using DPP to batch convert - works well except it takes 12 to 15 secs each.
OK not too long but if you have 1000 from a 2 day shoot it sure seems like a long time.
I am also trying to find out how one can add a permanent watermark?

It has already been suggested, but why not shoot raw to card 1 and small jpeg to card 2. You can send the jpegs directly from card 2 and the images never have to go to your hard drive.

If you have Photoshop, you have Bridge right? You can batch them to a smaller jog, or use Photoshop to make a contact sheet.

I can't imagine that you want to send her the actual raw file. She just needs to see the raw image if I'm understanding correctly.

Sparky98 wrote in post #16732785
It has already been suggested, but why not shoot raw to card 1 and small jpeg to card 2. You can send the jpegs directly from card 2 and the images never have to go to your hard drive.

I would go with that ^^

stang67 wrote in post #16706005
Why has no one recommended IrfanView? Have I misunderstood the question? I've always used that to view my raw images, delete the bad ones and then import the good ones into Lightroom to process.

This! I would never think of clutter up my card/drive with two copies (raw + jpg) when irfanview have no problems with either CR2s or DNGs etc. Also, I use a CR2 codec from Ardfry to enable thumbnails for raw files. Now they are just as easy as jpegs to handle.

How adept is your model at downloading and using software? I still think the simplest thing to do is to shoot RAW on the CF card, card 1, and small JPEG on the SD card, card 2. You don't even have to copy the JPEG files to a thumb drive if you don't want to, just give the model the SD card with the JPEGs on it, if you trust her to give the card back to you. Many computers today have a built in reader for SD cards so all she would have to do is insert the card and look at the files. Of course this method won't work if you shoot RAW to both cards or if you don't trust the model to return the SD card. If you are not writing files to the SD card then why not use it?

joeseph wrote in post #16705773
would it be a silly suggestion to just shoot raw + small jpeg?

After reading though the previous post then getting to yours and thinking .. Why didn't I think of that.. Otherwise Batch process also seems the very good option..