Anyone using Acdsee?

[enseth]

I've been looking at the ACDsee software. I haven't downloaded the trial version yet, and will probably do so, but was wondering if anyone is using it, and if so, is it superior to Lightroom?

[bobt]

I've been looking at the ACDsee software. I haven't downloaded the trial version yet, and will probably do so, but was wondering if anyone is using it, and if so, is it superior to Lightroom?

I have been using ACDSee for years, and I've tried virtually every other program out there. ACDSee gets better with each incarnation and I do most of my processing with it. I prefer it to lightroom because I absolutely loathe the way programs like lightroom tend to work on virtual files rather than the actual file. To me, ACDSee is intuitive, effective fast, and contains everything you need to process photos except where you really have some heavy pixel level editing to do. Then I use Paintshop Pro, which again is far more user friendly than the rest - a little like Photoshop Elements.

I'm not big on huge learning curves, and both of the above programs are very intuitive, not bloated with stuff that you don't need and just plain user friendly. I'd seriously consider giving it a try ... I don't think you'll be disappointed.

[enseth]

Thanks for the feedback Bob. I've downloaded Pro 8. It seems quite good, particularly when it comes to light adjustments. Some things are going to take some learning but it does seem to have some powerful capabilities in comparison to Lightroom.

[TAG]

Hi Bob
Thanks for the heads up on ACDsee,I looked at other programs that you mentioned and found you had to have a lot of knowledge to use them before starting out.
I'm using ultimate now and have found it easy for a relative newcomer to photography to use.
Terry

[ameerat42]

Enseth. From a HISTORical point of view, yes. It's an old version on another machine, but only for downloading etc.
On the current machine I use FastStone Image Viewer - a misnomer, since it is quite an editor as well! Functionally too, it
is similar to ACDsee. BUT I do know know :o if either one can handle 16-bit files. I've HEARD that FS can "handle" some raw
files, and BOTH certainly can DISPLAY an image from them (some sort of jpeg?). That's why I use both to show me and
download raws from the camera. I have NOT found any layers-type function in FS (?ACDSee) but there are heaps
of color, tone, sizing, resampling...

Whether it is superior to LR I have no idea, only a doubt that it would be. If you want a full-blown program, what about the free CS2?

[bobt]

Hi Bob
Thanks for the heads up on ACDsee,I looked at other programs that you mentioned and found you had to have a lot of knowledge to use them before starting out.
I'm using ultimate now and have found it easy for a relative newcomer to photography to use.
Terry

Glad you liked it. Over the years I've tried most of the graphics packages, and I still keep coming back to the same combination of ACDSee and Paintshop Pro. I've yet to find anything significant that these two can't handle, especially now that ACDSee is gradually filling in the few blanks it didn't cover.

Anything not covered suggests to me that I should have taken a better photo in the first place !! :D

[Mikl]

Hi Bob interesting to read that you don't like the "virtual file" set up of LR, with ACDsee are your actions reversible i.e. non destructive to the image? Or do you work on a copy of your original file to maintain the integrity of the original. I am new here so hope this is not construed as a smart question.
I always disliked manipulated pics (inexperience lol) but over the last few years have embraced LR and to a lesser extent PS and have never explored any options to these programs.
Michael

[bobt]

Hi Bob interesting to read that you don't like the "virtual file" set up of LR, with ACDsee are your actions reversible i.e. non destructive to the image? Or do you work on a copy of your original file to maintain the integrity of the original. I am new here so hope this is not construed as a smart question.
I always disliked manipulated pics (inexperience lol) but over the last few years have embraced LR and to a lesser extent PS and have never explored any options to these programs.
Michael

I always shoot in RAW, and after processing in ACDSee I save as a Jpeg which means that the original RAW file remains intact. In any event, I always keep the original file intact no matter what the format, as this is effectively my negative. There is a mechanism to ensure that you don't write over your original, but it's not something that concerns me seeing that my workflow doesn't involve overwrites anyway.

Insofar as manipulation is concerned, every photo is manipulated - if not by you, by the camera - so the concept of a "pure" image isn't really something anyone actually follows even if they think they are. There is a long path which involves manipulation of some sort, and wherever you are comfortable on that path varies from photographer to photographer. The less "manipulation" you need to do the better, but then in various specialty areas such as HDR you have to manipulate the image to get the desired result.

At the end of the day, each of us finds their own preferred definition of that "good" photograph, and how we achieve that end is a very individual thing.

[Mikl]

. Great thanks, I don't know if I want to explore options to LR but good to know they are there.
. Yep that is what woke me up to embracing editing, I now enjoy it as much as taking the image in the first place.
Thanks for the reply.
Michael

[arthurking83]

..... I prefer it to lightroom because I absolutely loathe the way programs like lightroom tend to work on virtual files rather than the actual file. ....


Hi Bob interesting to read that you don't like the "virtual file" set up of LR, with ACDsee are your actions reversible i.e. non destructive to the image? ......

Most pros seem to prefer the 'virtual' file workflow for some reason.
I'm with Bob on this one myself tho.

A coupl'a points too tho.
I've yet to meet any raw editing software that destructively alters the raw file.
While I use Nikon gear and Nikon software, I've noted this with Canon's own software too(DPP).
Nikon's older software used to work directly on the raw file, so even tho you could burn in a version of the file that is not 'camera original' .. the raw files were always easily reverted back to a state that is almost camera original. That is, as it came out of the camera but with the only issue being that the files couldn't subsequently be loaded back into the camera and viewed.
So if I edited an NEF file in Nikon's old software, I could revert it back to original status(ie. as shot in the camera) but as the file is then saved with some Nikon software embedded data, the camera refused to load it as an image. The ability to load an image back onto the camera has never been important to me, so I couldn't care less.

What happens with software that actually works on the raw file, once the image has been edited to look differently it edit some embedded metadata in the raw file and it also embeds a new jpg preview file for displaying those new edits.
If the raw file is viewed in any other program(even the likes of Lr and some others) that can read raw files, the image is displayed as it has been edited.
I've noted that with Lr that if you edit a raw file prior to opening that file with Lr, the preview of the file as a thumbnail is displayed as the edited image.
Once you load it fully to be edited in Lr, it's only then that Lr displays an unedited version obviously reading the raw data, ignoring any edits already made and creating it's own system thumbnail.

Of course there isn't actually anything wrong with the virtual file editing routine .. you're still editing the file in some way.
What actually bugs me most is that there is zero interoperability between the various software because they all seem to use their own version of a xml sidecar file .. which hardly any of the other software can read .. even tho they're all supposedly based on similar xml data.
If all manufacturers could get together to agree on a real standardised side car format that each software can operate with, only then is the major issue with virtual file editing eliminated.

From what I can see of ACDsee, it claims non destructive editing, which usually means virtual file editing .. that is, it creates side car files that it uses to effect the edits.

I'd love to try ACDsee, but as with almost all of these types of programs, they all seem to dislike adding keywording/tagged data directly into the original raw file.
One thing that attracts me to ACDsee over say an equivalent like Lr is that there is no annoying import routine!(my biggest pet hate with Lr .. and why I haven't reinstalled it on my Win10 installation).

At US$90 for the Ultimate version(which equates to about just over AU$100) it seems like pretty good value.

[Mikl]

Thanks Arthur. Very informative.
Michael

[TAG]

Hi all
I jumped in to ACDSee Ultimate 8 last year as LR ,photoshop all seemed to need a level of photography knowledge I don't possess.:umm:
I've found it is reasonably simple to use- "matches the operator" and I'm slowly working out what it can do for me and how.
I have used it to rescue photos that hadn't turned out as I expected "inexperience" and fine tune others to get the effect I was after.
For me it is a great product at a reasonable cost that doesn't have me thowing a tantrum.:th3:
TAG

[bobt]

Hi all
I jumped in to ACDSee Ultimate 8 last year as LR ,photoshop all seemed to need a level of photography knowledge I don't possess.:umm:
I've found it is reasonably simple to use- "matches the operator" and I'm slowly working out what it can do for me and how.TAG

I've been using it for years, and as it's grown so have its capabilities. Tried all the others, but ACDSee remains the weapon of choice for most things. Anything it doesn't do is covered by Paintshop Pro, another excellent alternative to the big programs which generally have huge learning curves. Beginner or hardened photographer ..... nothing much that these two can't handle! You've made a good choice.

[richtbw]

I am with bobt on this. I started using ACDSEE pro 4 (I think). Have upgraded to ACDSEE Pro 9. I shoot RAW and editing the Nikon RAW files is a breeze. Still have LR4 installed, but the moment they moved to cloud computing and subscriptions I lost interest. Instead of using PS I use GIMP.