No announcement yet.

Why I changed from Ultimate 2018 to Capture One Pro 10

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Why I changed from Ultimate 2018 to Capture One Pro 10

    I changed because ACDSee barely takes care of the users needs. Here is a list of suggestions made two years ago. Only a few bug fixes can be seen until now:
    Additionally, the new features were not required by anybody and are buggy:

    Then I found Capture One Pro 10 has implemented most of those suggestions, it looks more focused to professional workflows and as a result, during those two years, it has become the facto competitor against LightRoom and Darkable, while ACDSee Pro/Ultimate the leader in Views:

    I wrote this post because I am indeed unhappy for wasting my time and money in a product with bad direction. The same I experienced before with Canvas, which was the best DTP software and now is almost dead.

    BTW, this comparison is not accurate:

    Capture One Pro 10 (COP) does have the Adjustment Layers, Light IQ and ACDSee Actions (Scripts) and Skin tune functionalities but implemented in a different way, actually it is better. The Adjustment Layers in COP work as the Develop Brush from Ultimate, except it has a "single mode" with a single file and all the functionalities available all the time, instead of a Develop with limited options and Edit with a different type of file. This is also an advantage for the COP equivalent to the Light IQ (which is only an interface to the tone curve), because in ACDSee Pro/Ultimate such does not work in the Develop Brush of the Develop Mode. The ACDSee Actions are similar to COP Styles, once you save the changes in an image, you can implement them in others, including crops, layers, labels in the database, etc.

    Neither the speed is so different, ACDSee Pro/Ultimate launches faster because it deploys permanently a bunch of files in your system, but once Capture One Pro 10 is running, it seems faster with big files.

    Capture One Pro 10 has more good things as well as some bad ones, but it has what I expected from ACDSee Pro/Ultimate since two years ago, so, good luck, I am out...
    Last edited by AAM; 09-29-2017, 06:40 PM.

  • #2
    Hi AAM
    Thanks for your honest opinion, however I would beg to differ.
    I have PS CS5.1, elements 13, and have tried the plethora of different alternatives that are out there, including COP.
    I enjoy using ACDSee Ultimate, and find the latest raft of changes a good set of incremental improvements, not least the speed increase.

    As the OP of the post to which you refer, I feel that the general opinion may not be as you refer; "flaky", and several new additions such as the liquify filter and frequency separation filter that does the heavy lifting for you, are great and welcome.

    At the end of the day I firmly believe that our choice of software has more to do with how easy you find it to use and navigate around, to the point where you accept its shortcomings.

    The fact that COP works for you is brilliant, it will further your hobby and make it all the more rewarding. Me, I will be sticking with ACDSee as it helps me in the same way.

    Gook luck and all the best, let us know how you get on.



    • #3
      While I agree completely that ACDSee development is frustratingly slow and doesn't seem to respond to user input, I think you're comparing Chevy to a Ferrari. COP is the gold standard for professional photo editing and is three times the price; whereas ACDSee is targeted at hobbyists/semi-professionals. The product offers enough features that it works fairly well for most users, however those interested in doing more complex tasks will usually have to have to take an image into a full-featured pixel-based editor. I cant justify spending the money for COP and I dislike the subscription based model from Adobe, so that only leaves ACDSee, ON1, DxO, and a few open source programs. Out of those options I think ACDSee comes out on top, it's just a shame they take so long to add new features (but maybe that's part of the business model, otherwise no one would need to upgrade?).


      • #4
        I have tried Capture One Pro a couple of times (30 days trial) because some says it has one of the best RAW converters out there. I have tried hard to like it, but instead I find it a little bit frustrating to use. I do not get good results with it either. I find ACDSee much easier/faster to use and the results I get from ACDSee are more pleasing to me. But I wish you some happy moments with COP! :-)


        • #5
          Thank you for your comments, indeed the best ASDSee's asset is its community, this is why I was troubled so see how we were not heard..

          Actually, ACDSee Pro/Ultimate as product were not bad, at least two years ago, the source of the problem is their management, as a result, they did not evolve as the current leaders did. The Chevy vs Ferrari comparison is a sign of this, you get similar results with COP, but its vendor did the things right to be considered this way.

          To better clarify my point, there are two significant features:
          1. Colour adjustment in the Develop Brush of the Develop Mode.
          2. Size, Resolution, Colour space and Bit depth in the save as option of the Develop Mode. Something similar than the export option (which has a bug as explained here:

          The link has more suggestions but this two are included in most competitors and all the photographers I know use them as an important part of their workflow. Why ACDSee did not implement them in two years? You have my answer...


          • #6
            I agree completely that the local adjustments in the develop module are limited at best and I would love to see HSL options included. Honestly I'd like to see local adjustments rolled into a single brush where you can access tune and detail functions instead of having them split. The other glaring issue with ACDSee for me is poor repair tools. I would love to see a repair brush (similar to tune/detail) in develop where you can view each edit and make changes to individual repairs. Additionally, we need an actual clone stamp that allows you to preview what will be copied instead of blindly hoping you're lining things up correctly. Lastly, while smart erase is a step in the right direction, it performs very poorly when compared to ON1, Affinity, etc. This needs to be drastically improved and then it should be added to the develop module.

            That's an interesting (and frustrating) bug you found, hopefully it'll actually be addressed in the next incremental update...