No announcement yet.

Color Comparison ACDSee vs On1 for interesting dialog.

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Color Comparison ACDSee vs On1 for interesting dialog.

    I thought this interesting. As I use ACDsee and evaluate On1, I did a side by side comparison. Mind you ALL I did was import into ACDsee and On1, export as RGB Jpeg for print. No other alterations. I was surprised at the level of color depth ACDsee seems to have over On1. ACDsee on left, On1 on right. Is it as significant to you as it is to me? But - I am in love with how easy textures and stacking layers is in On1. What is a girl to do? I even did a print test from local lab and the difference was even more noticeable on print, IMHO. Just for conversation Click image for larger version

Name:	2017-09-19 (1).png
Views:	1
Size:	737.9 KB
ID:	43616 Click image for larger version

Name:	2017-09-19.png
Views:	1
Size:	1.11 MB
ID:	43617

  • #2
    AC is not generally better. Imho it depends not only on apps, but also on camera (raw file) and even on developer versions. E.g. the interpretation of NEFs from my good old D700 changed at least 3 times in AC in the last decade.

    You always need to find the best (in your eyes) app for your camera yourself.


    • #3
      good points made. Any others offer feedback.


      • #4

        What Emil said may be true but all processors will have a different take on the photos. I noticed that all the photos you showed may be JPEG - how off were they as raw. I ask because I tested a photo of mine in both programs and the raw photo was similar but not 100% in both programs ... I tried to take a screen shot and for whatever reason this website didn't like the Affinity Photo JPEG. When I was investigating DXO they did mention that they render things differently then LR so do not compare the 2.

        I personally think that it's what the photo looks like at the end vs beginning that's important. If you need to bring something down is it any better than pushing it up? It's the same to me. Of course if a person likes the outcome of a certain program right from the start then it makes it easier for that person.

        I know this is an ACDSee forum but I am on my 2nd trial, Ultimate 10 and now Studio 18, but I find it lacks the common tools that would make it a superior product. It is great that they have pixel targeting but it is only for the left side editing. So far any time I have tried to select the magic brush after launching an adjustment layer (right side) it does absolutely nothing but does work if I first use the magic brush and then go into an adjustment ... what happens if you want to add to the layer - you need to go and add an additional same type of layer it seems. To me you should be able to pop in and out of any adjustment and add or subtract what you did ... exactly how ON1 does it. Personally I think that if they made the left side the same non destructiveness as the right side (heck get rid of the right side) and made their magic brushes work everywhere and all the time it would really blow away the competition. Although I say this, I know the ACDSee users really like the program so it just may be me. What you said about ON1 is so true - easiest program I've found to use, there's another one coming out that appears to be just as easy but we will have to wait until it's here.


        • #5
          You can use pixel targeting on the right side right click the layer and select pixel targeting


          • #6
            Originally posted by Nxdibbles View Post
            You can use pixel targeting on the right side right click the layer and select pixel targeting
            Thanks for this!! But I find right side selections have to be done before you select what you want to do ... what am I missing?


            • #7
              The first image, ACDSee is much better for me. The second image, On1 is much better. I noticed the same with Capture NX-D. Sometimes the Nikon version is better, sometimes the ACDSee version. Depends on motive and personal preferences.


              • #8
                RAW images are at the mercy of the RAW processing engine. Every RAW processor takes the camera data and turns it into an image based on it's algorithm.

                ​Many times (all the time?) the RAW processing engine provided by the camera manufacture will create the same view as a camera generated JPG. This makes sense as the camera supplier knows the algorithm inside the camera, thus can create the same math inside a computer.

                ​Third party tools like ACDSee, Adobe RAW, RAW Therappee, or any other RAW processor use their own algorithms to generate the image from the data. Thus, a JPG created from a RAW processors may not match a JPG created from an alternate RAW processors..

                ​Going a step further....
                ​Basically, JPG, PNG, TIFs files are already processed with a specific color profile applied. All things being equal, any single image should look the same in every software.

                ​Try looking at a JPG/PNG/TIF image generated by your favorite software..... for example, Windows PhotoViewer and ACDSee and ToolXYZ. They should look the same. To the extent they don't, there could be issues with ColorProfiles... but all other things equal, they should look the same.

                ​Next, look at a JPG/PNG/TIF generated from RAW_processor_1 and compare that to a JPG/PNG/TIF​ generated by RAW_processor_2. My guess is they will be a little bit different.


                • #9
                  I've been trialing ON1 as well and find that it has a lot more options in terms of local adjustments, processing effects, masking, blend modes, etc. I thought that sharpening and noise reduction worked really well with some excellent pixel targeting/masking options. Unfortunately I find that ON1 just feels sluggish when when switching between modules and particularly when working with color effects. The browse module seems especially slow when compared to ACDSee. I'll be interested to see if this is improved with they release their 2018 update, but for the meantime I'll continue with ACDsee.