Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Poor Acdsee...

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Poor Acdsee...

    It seems Lightroom is on its last legs... So, many orphans are looking for an alternative, why not Acdsee ? But, obviously, these users want to find the same « routine » in Acdsee : are the Acdsee features similar to the ones found in Lightroom ? Poor Acdsee, it will not satisfy everyone. Should I give a piece of advice ? To forget Lightroom once and for all, do as if it had never existed. I did it.
    Last edited by Alaric; 10-25-2017, 11:51 PM.

  • #2
    Yeah, but you can never keep people from complaing...
    However, it is rather natural to seek similarities, all the more as LR features cover many photography handling requirements (regardless of ergonomic considerations, wich have to be taken in account, anyway).
    To me, ACDSee has a card to play, there.

    Comment


    • #3
      Oui, la comparaison est assez normale, je suis d'accord avec toi, mais il faut savoir couper les ponts. Personnellement, quand j'ai eu décidé de quitter Lightroom, et une fois que j'ai eu importé mes images dans Acdsee, j'ai détruit les catalogues de Lightroom. Pas de regret.

      Comment


      • #4
        I find there is a lot of interest in ACDSee since Adobe dropped the 'bombshell' that we all knew was coming eventually. I'd like to see ACDSee Systems spend some advertising money on the availability of the Lightroom conversion utility. This is an opportunity that won't come again.

        Comment


        • #5
          I have been using ACDsee since v3.1 back in the 90's and have found it to be the best cataloging tool available, (although it has had its ups and downs in different versions over the years). I just got the Photo Studio Pro 2018 version and am thoroughly impressed with most aspects of it. Although I wish it could play FLAC files, as all of mine are and I convert to MP3 as needed.
          I went to look at an upgrade from my PhotoShop CS5 and was amazed to see a subscription base only, same with lightroom and it's expensive at several hundred a year with any decent storage space online. I just hope ACDsee doesn't follow suit with a 360 option only.

          Comment


          • #6
            Personally, I work with several photo software, both paying and free. Each having its advantages and disadvantages but all have a utility according to my needs.

            Comment


            • #7
              Maybe my first message was misunterstood ? I did'nt mean to say that Acdsee is less good than Lightroom, but that Lightroom users needs are so wide and different that Acdsee can't fill in all the gaps.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Alaric View Post
                Maybe my first message was misunterstood ? I did'nt mean to say that Acdsee is less good than Lightroom, but that Lightroom users needs are so wide and different that Acdsee can't fill in all the gaps.
                So, what "gaps" do you think ACDsee needs to fill?

                Comment


                • #9
                  When one has developed a routine usage on one software he tries to replicate it on another. In that case, it creates « gaps ».
                  A non exhaustive list, in no particular order :
                  - In LR, all changes are done on the raw image, including local adjustments. For instance, I can change the white balance of a particular area => to do this with AC, I must go to the Edit Mode (= « bitmap » image).
                  - No virtual copy in AC.
                  - If I want to edit a modified raw in an external software, Lightroom converts automatically this raw in tif or jpg => With AC, I must do this conversion before by myself.
                  - In Lr, it's easy to delete an image from the catalog; this possibility does not exist in Acdsee (at least not as straighforward).
                  - The number of camera bodies and lenses supported by AC is very poor.
                  - No possibility to stich photos into a panorama.
                  - In Lr, you can specify the maximum weight of an exported jpg.
                  - After a search query, the results are almost instantaneous in Lr ; too long in AC.
                  - LR does not often freeze (hardly ever).
                  ...
                  Those are the reasons why I preferred to forget any kind of comparison with LR. Ac does have some good points.... A new life begins....

                  Alaric (French)
                  Last edited by Alaric; 10-27-2017, 12:26 AM.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Glen Barrington View Post
                    I find there is a lot of interest in ACDSee since Adobe dropped the 'bombshell' that we all knew was coming eventually. I'd like to see ACDSee Systems spend some advertising money on the availability of the Lightroom conversion utility. This is an opportunity that won't come again.
                    I wouild rather suggest they spend some extra money on development, especially on the develop module. Compared to on1 Photo Raw and the latest DxO PhotoLab the basics of raw conversion, demosaicing, rendering of fine detail, noise reduction are sadly lacking in ACDSee. Now that DxO have introduced local adjustments with Nik's U-point technology, the pressure should be on ACDSee's development department.rather than on marketing.
                    I find myself using the manage module quite regularly while I have almost forgotten where to click for "develop" or even less "edit", And even as asset manager on1 browse is catching up fast. I keep upgrading Ultimate because the so called upgrade insurance is cheaper than to switch to Pro or Standard and maybe there will be some improvements over time.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Good points, thanks Alaric. I'm not really familiar with LR. I use ACDsee to catalog and Photoshop to work on images beyond simple editing in ACDsee. I do find the upgrade from v18 to this new Photo Studio Pro has some really easy to use and nice basic editing features, but I haven't tried to use it with RAW images yet. I have a Lumix LX7 and FZ200.. I'll probably stick with PS to work on RAW files

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Hello,

                        I was right. Not a day goes by without a forum member mentioning Acdsee's shortcomings when compared to Lightroom.
                        I have to say it’s starting to get on my nerves
                        If you miss Lightroom so much then why did you stop using it in the first place ? And if you decided to stop using it then why do you refer to it all the time ?

                        Alaric (French)

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Alaric View Post
                          Hello,

                          I was right. Not a day goes by without a forum member mentioning Acdsee's shortcomings when compared to Lightroom.
                          I have to say it’s starting to get on my nerves
                          If you miss Lightroom so much then why did you stop using it in the first place ? And if you decided to stop using it then why do you refer to it all the time ?

                          Alaric (French)
                          Perhaps it is not the comparison to LR itself, but the existence of specific functionality that people are complaining about. For example, I stopped using LR years ago and have been using Optics Pro (not PhotoLab) and CaptureOne. Both of those have specific basic functionality that is missing in the Mac Pro 3 Beta and now the Mac Pro 4. If I list things that I would like to see it does not mean that I am comparing it to Lightroom (or other software), I am not. But functionality that is missing in ACDSee's software needs to be addressed it the company wants to create an alternative to other workflow software that can be successful in the current competitive market.

                          Some examples:

                          Optics Pro (PhotoLab) has a very nice de-hazing adjustment that is missing in ACDSee. I have never listed that as something they should address because that is a specific function, and not a basic function, that is missing. ACDSee has its own specific functionality that is missing in Optics Pro, and I do not list that as a complaint on the Dxo website either.

                          However the concept of a non-destructive workflow is a pretty basic idea that has been picked up by almost every other photo editor, but is missing in the Mac Pro 3/Pro 4 software. If I adjust a jpg or tiff, then those adjustments get written directly back to the original file and that means that I can not retrieve the unadjusted image without access to the database. No other major workflow tool does that, and neither should Pro 3/Pro 4.

                          Another example is the ability to automatically create an adjusted tiff or jpg from a raw image for use in sending to an external editor. There is a lot of missing functionality in Pro3/Pro4 and the only way to address that missing functionality is with an external editor. OK. But then accessing that external editor should be a lot easier than it currently is, where I now have to change tabs to Manage, manually create an intermediate file with adjustments, call the external editor, save the image back and then manually change back to Develop Mode. All of that should be done automatically with the right-click of a mouse as it is in pretty much any other workflow tool.

                          You mistakenly think that these comments are aimed at criticizing ACDSee, and that is not what I am trying to do. I like the software, and I want it to succeed so that I may be able to use it as my main workflow tool. My comments are an attempt to help them succeed by asking them to build in basic functionality that will make the software competitive. I am not trying to complain, I am trying to help.

                          Comment

                          Working...
                          X