ACDSee Forums: Recent Posts

ACDSee Forums: Recent Posts http://community.acdsee.com/forums/ ACDSee Forums: Recent Posts en Tue, 09 Feb 2010 07:04:34 +0000 guthrie on "Tags, Categories and IPTC usage" http://community.acdsee.com/forums/topic/tags-categories-and-iptc-usage/page/2#post-47786 Tue, 09 Feb 2010 03:18:41 +0000 guthrie 47786@http://community.acdsee.com/forums/ I think that from what Mark has described, this is only for the Pro version, not the regular Photo Manager. alain_desilets on "Tags, Categories and IPTC usage" http://community.acdsee.com/forums/topic/tags-categories-and-iptc-usage/page/2#post-47785 Tue, 09 Feb 2010 00:54:57 +0000 alain_desilets 47785@http://community.acdsee.com/forums/ According to various posts on this thread, it sounds like I should be able to set IPTC data using Batch Set Information. But when I click on Batch Set Information,  I see the following 3 tabs:    Database, EXIF, Advanced I don't see a IPTC tab and IPTC is not mentioned in any of those three tabs. So, it looks like I can only set EXIF or Database info with Batch. Yet, i gather that EXIF is not extensible and can  only store information like date, exposure, etc... What I want to set is category information like: places, people, events, etc... So, how can I se IPTC with Batch Set? I am using ACDSee 8. Thx. alain_desilets on "How to write categories to image file?" http://community.acdsee.com/forums/topic/how-to-write-categories-to-image-file#post-47784 Tue, 09 Feb 2010 00:41:04 +0000 alain_desilets 47784@http://community.acdsee.com/forums/ I have seven years worth of photos meticulously tagged with categories using ACDSee. I would like to use this category data in other photo processing software. Unfortunately, the category data is stored in the ACDSee as opposed to the image files themselves. What is the easiest way to migrate my category information from the DB to the image files? Thx. faygord on "Ergonomy ACDSEE pro 3 - Help !" http://community.acdsee.com/forums/topic/ergonomy-acdsee-pro-3-help#post-47782 Mon, 08 Feb 2010 23:21:57 +0000 faygord 47782@http://community.acdsee.com/forums/ <blockquote><cite><a href="#post-47772">Marc Sabatella said:</a></cite> <blockquote> <cite><a href="#post-47734">faygord said:</a></cite> </blockquote> <blockquote> I do a rough cull  and then, whilst in Process find some images don't process well, aren't fixable, whatever. They need deleting otherwise I have to note their filenames, fiddle around, waste time and/or get confuded when I return to manager. However the real issue is that the missing delete button [always there when carrying out the same procedutre in earlier versions] was an UNECCESSARY change to the functionality. </blockquote> Note I am not saying this is a good thing - just observing that there are multiple ways around it.  If you don't want to mark images for deleting before enter process mode, then simply marking the image using the Tag or Rating *while* in process mode then deleting them uopn exit does the job quite nicely as a perfectly usable workaround.  There is no need to do what you describe (write down filenames, fiddle around, etc).  Instead of hitting delete on each image, you hit Tag on each image, then on exit, do Select Tagged and then hit delete.  It's two extra clicks for an entire batch of images - nowhere near the huge step backwards you imply.  But sure, adding the delete button would save that extra half a second a day it takes to perform those two clicks per batch of photos, so sure, I support this enhancement.   Point taken <blockquote> Fine. But what if, like me and I imagine many others, never USE the Develop mode?  Why whould we when we are simply usin ACDSee as an image database, balancing levels maybe, cropping, resizing, renaming in order to post 72 dpi images on web sites? </blockquote> Because Develop mode makes those basic image processing operations *FAR* simpler than has ever been possible before. errm...I rarely use Develop mode and am annoyed that ACDSee now defaults to that mode requiring that extra click each time to get to EDIT mode which is where I want to be. <blockquote> I have no need for my originals actually..the camera takes images that are far too big for my general use [though I prefer to stick with the high quality setting just in case] so one of  the FIRST things I do is create copies at 1024 x 768 to work on. Its faster. </blockquote> Wouldn't be if you used Develop mode.  And you get better results too if you do the processing at the original resize and *then* resize for the web.  So I really would recommend doing just that: leave your originals where they are, process them in place with develop mode (taking advantage of the improved interface and the facilities for leveraging work between images to greatly speed this process over what was ever possible before), then resize the resulting files in place using a batch operation.  No additional files whatsoever compared to what you are doing now 0 just the original and the processed & resized output - but a far more efficient workflow that produces better results to boot. In any case, you are certainly correct that if you are unable/unwilling to adapt one's workflow to the more efficient methods made available in Pro 3 and would rather work in the old more inefficient way, then the ability to turn off saved originals so that old inefficient way doesn't become *more* inefficient would indeed be welcome.  And for at least the hundredth time, I fully support this. Noted..but I would suggest more soiphisticated options to allow users to define which features they wish to prioritise/hide. That would resolve most of my niggles. And probably everybody else´s. If one makes an applñicatioon more complex -or powerful if you like - it should be axiomatic to allow users more control over how the application presents itself to them. My gripe, as is others, is about being forced to follow paths I don´t want to go down EVERY time I open the application I use as an important tool. But I still say virtually everyone requesting this feature would be better off simply learning to use the far more efficient new facilities, and tht's the purpose of my continuing to respond to these comments.  I think the majority of people complaining about the new facility simply have not explored it long enough to understand the huge benefit it provides.  Your example does not strike me as a counterexample in any way - it's actually a classic example of the sort of workflow that Pro 3 is designed to simplify. <blockquote> To create thumbnails I make a copy of the edited 1024 images. Then I resize them which creates another set of uneccessary originals in the THUMBNAIL folder </blockquote> Without fully understanding what you are trying to accomplish here, I can only suggest that there is *probably* a much more efficient way to do this.   Eg, why do you need to create thumbnails at all when ACDSee does this automatically?  Do you mean thumbnails to upload to your own web server, because the process you use in uloading images to your site doens't do this automatically?  That's fine, but there should still be no reason for creating an extra set of originals.  Simply run the second batch resize operation directly on your edited files, this time not doing so in place but having the results placed in your thumbnails folder.  No additional saved original is created in any batch operation if you turn that option off under tools-options-file management. Each set of thumbnails relates to each set of masters which are each in their own unique folder. There is no master folder nor master thumbnails folder. However, and with respect, it is not for you nor ACD See to tell me how to organise my work. That is precisely my point. I do it MY way, rightly or wrongly, and don´t see why I should change justr because some geeky programmer thinks I could do it better HIS way [ by which I don´t mean YOU :-) ] <blockquote> The change is only better for those who wish ACDSee to become a more powerful image PROCESSOR. I don't believe it was actually ever designed to be that. It was born as an image MANAGER. </blockquote> Maybe so, but to the delight of many, it has grown up to become a powerful image processor as well. Reading the thread, the "few" who aren´t entirely delighted are in fact quite numerous Is there still room for a totally separate product that would be an image manager only with no processing features at all?  Perhaps a small number of people would purchase an application like that, and if ACD's marketing thought it worthwhile to pursue such a product, that's fine by me.  But for most of us, it is precisely the integration of management with processing that makes the ACDSee Pro so compelling.  It's not the *only* program to combine these features, but it is a pretty small set of competitors (Lightroom, Bibble 5, maybe Lightzone, and that's about it for PC), each with particular strengths and weakness, and ACDSee actually competes quite well with these - enough so that I'd consider it a step backwards overall to have to change over to any of them.  These types of programs are *clearly* the way of the future. No need for a different porgramme. Merely more control over how ACDSee presents itself to the user. Options to turn off functions and/or change the way they appear. cf  AVG which has a simply interface that allows users more or less total control of what it does and how it does so. In simple terms, NOT allowing users to turn off 'originals' represents a backward step and is symptomatic of the developer's mind-set which is in fact what we all are annoyed by, not the detail of its representation. <blockquote> Other programmes do processing far better that ACDSee ever has or will IMO. I would never dream of using ACDSee to process an image I really cared about and intended to print to high quality. There is plenty of nit-picking going on elsewhere about the quality of the development tools. I would simply maintain that Photoshop is miles better. And always will be. </blockquote> Well, sure, for the sorts of things one might need it for - complex operations involving layers, extensive retouching, specialized plug-ins, etc.  But those aren't thngs most photographers are doing most of the time.  For basic adjustments to exposure, color, sharpening, NR, etc - the stuff that most photographers tend to do to large numbers of images - I'd disagree with the assessment that Photoshop is better.  Much clumsier and less efficient without even the slightst advantage in terms of IQ or anything else.  If then on a selected few images you need to go into the more advanced things Photoshop can do, great, one is welcome to use that in addition - but many, many people will still prefer to use ACDSee for the basic stuff that needs to be done quickly to large numbers of photos.  It needn't be an either/or thing.  Use ACDSee for the basic stuff it is good at, use a more powerful but less efficient program on occasion when the occasional need arises - that's the sort of workflow that ACDSee (along with Lightroom et al) are designed to support, in order to maximize efficiency. <blockquote> ACDSee should stop trying to play with the big boys of image processing, stop trying to re-invent the mousetrap. </blockquote> Well, that's your opinion.  I obviously disagree.  I use ACDSee precisely *because* it offers an alternative to the much clumsier or more expensive alternatives.  Luckily, it seems ACD and a great many other photographers agree with me. Again, I'm not saying there isn't also a market for the type of program you have in mind.  I just completely reject the notion that Pro 3 should abandon its tremendous strength in the area of integrated processing/management and resign itself to only competing in the small niche of dedicated image management programs. And FWIW, I don't think ACDSee actually competes all that well any more in that field.  Most people wanting a relative simple approach to image management  have left the niche of dedicate image management programs in favor of integrated solutions like Lightroom, and most of those remaining in the world of dedicated image management applications are wanting more powerful database functionality, including more robust network support, multi-user support, the ability to work with multiple databases, to access their db's from other applications, to perform complex SQl-like queries, etc.  ACDSee would really have quite a lot of catching up to do in order to compete with other dedicated image management programs. I appreciate the argument you present, but feel you miss the nub of mine and other posters. By so radically changing the look and feel and adding a rigidity of functionality, ACD See has become CLUMSIER, not neater from my point of view as a user. And, as it is not yet as good as its formerly clumsier rivals at the sophisticated features it has added of improved, the added clumsiness is not justified. By all means offer the functions, but allow US tro decide whether we want them presented and when and where. In that direction lies the best of both worlds. All the functions, organised by the user to be presented as he or she prefers. Including the simple ability to turn functions on and off and delete something rather than have too manipulate a database entry and then delete it. Even Microsoft learnt the error of imposing change arbitrarily by including ´Classic Look¨as an option when they intoduce a new version or even completely new OS. Even in Windows 7.  They did that in response to the howls of protest when they made seemingly trivial changes to the look and feel or position of a feature. ACDSee could and should take a leaf out of their book. </blockquote>   chas_m on "Is acdsee colormanaged..?" http://community.acdsee.com/forums/topic/is-acdsee-colormanaged#post-47781 Mon, 08 Feb 2010 22:24:18 +0000 chas_m 47781@http://community.acdsee.com/forums/ Following up as promised: In the betas, colour management is handled by ImageIO, which is the default framework for this in Mac OS X since Tiger. So the answer is "yes, it is colour managed by the system." If you'd like to learn more about ImageIO, <a href="http://developer.apple.com/graphicsimaging/workingwithimageio.html" title="About ImageIO">here's a link</a>. Cheers chas_m Evangelist, ACDSee Pro for Mac: Get the <a href="http://www.acdsee.com/offers/proformac/">beta</a>! Join the <a href="../">community</a>! Help us build the next great Mac photo manager! linzyucf on "Rotation Problem" http://community.acdsee.com/forums/topic/rotation-problem#post-47780 Mon, 08 Feb 2010 21:07:06 +0000 linzyucf 47780@http://community.acdsee.com/forums/ I recently deleted some files off of my computer. Now, when I rotate a photo and save it then go back to view that photo (by going to the file where my pictures are and then clicking on the photo) it will not let me view it. It first has an error message: "The specified message could not be read". After clicking OK it says: "Cannot open..." And then it lists the location of the particular file. Please help. Thank you!  bjarne on "No photo in Print Preview screen" http://community.acdsee.com/forums/topic/no-photo-in-print-preview-screen#post-47779 Mon, 08 Feb 2010 21:01:43 +0000 bjarne 47779@http://community.acdsee.com/forums/ Change the depth to 32 bit for your graphics card.   Sam Dring on "Huge file size for tiny image" http://community.acdsee.com/forums/topic/huge-file-size-for-tiny-image#post-47778 Mon, 08 Feb 2010 19:40:35 +0000 Sam Dring 47778@http://community.acdsee.com/forums/ Marc Interesting.  I'm picking up User Comments as blank for both images and Canon Maker notes appear normal.  No doubting what you are getting but what leads you to believe that please? Dand on "Ergonomy ACDSEE pro 3 - Help !" http://community.acdsee.com/forums/topic/ergonomy-acdsee-pro-3-help#post-47777 Mon, 08 Feb 2010 19:14:37 +0000 Dand 47777@http://community.acdsee.com/forums/ <blockquote><cite><a href="#post-43033">Heidi said:</a></cite></blockquote> <blockquote>When you are Process mode, you must do either click on Manage or click on Done (which sends you back to previous mode you were in (manage or view.)  What is the keyboard way of getting from Process mode back to Manage mode??? Kind of wish there was one shortcut key to flip between all modes.  (Like ESC since I am already hitting it.)   Anyway see how this can be assigned/customized? </blockquote> Not shure I get your poit... But if I do:  Ctrl+W pc@global.co.za on "Saved NEF files change when reentering RAW processor ACDSEE Pro2.5" http://community.acdsee.com/forums/topic/saved-nef-files-change-when-reentering-raw-processor#post-47776 Mon, 08 Feb 2010 18:44:31 +0000 pc@global.co.za 47776@http://community.acdsee.com/forums/ OK, so it's back to the drawing board then?? I have to make a decision whether to use my discount coupon to upgrade to version 3 by end of Feb. Naturally I am very nervous to do so. Is it a seamless upgrade or will i be losing all my database info, keywords, categories etc?   Thanks Paul pb on "Some benchmarks" http://community.acdsee.com/forums/topic/some-benchmarks#post-47775 Mon, 08 Feb 2010 18:13:54 +0000 pb 47775@http://community.acdsee.com/forums/ <blockquote><cite><a href="#post-47773">Marc Sabatella said:</a></cite> <blockquote> <cite><a href="#post-47732">pb said:</a></cite> I should have mentioned before that nevertheless, there is a spin box for time between slides, and "0" is an option that one can set in that spin box. </blockquote> Well, like I said, there are multiple ways to create slide shows, and I still have no idea which one you are referring to.  The first one I tried - the one you get via the Slideshow dropdown on the main toolbar - starts at 1. </blockquote> When I start up ACDSee, and when I view a directory of image files, there is no toolbar item on any toolbar that is labelled "Slideshow".  Please be more explicit in what you mean. Also, I would add that it is poor design to provide multiple ways to do the same thing, but which behave differently when you use them.  It's reasonable to have multiple ways to do the same thing, but what happens should be the same, not different depending on how you got there. <blockquote> <blockquote> Why can't we just use Occam's razor and conclude that it is slower than prior versions simply because it is slower? </blockquote> Because Occam's razom suggest no such thing.  I find the image rendering as fast as ever based on my usage on my system.  if you are seeing something different based on your usage on your system, then Occam's razor actually suggests the difference isn't in image rendering but in the difference betwene how we are doing things.  We're both rendering images, so that presumably isn't the difference.  But you are using one of the various slideshow mechanisms and I am not, so if something has changed, it's more likely there than in the image rendering itself. </blockquote> Well, if I do the exact same thing in various versions of ACDSee, and the timings get slower with each succeeding version, I would say Occam's razor would indicate that ACDSee is getting slower, not that I failed to find one of n new ways to do the identical function in the latest version. Marc Sabatella on "Can I install Pro 3 ................." http://community.acdsee.com/forums/topic/can-i-install-pro-3#post-47774 Mon, 08 Feb 2010 17:57:58 +0000 Marc Sabatella 47774@http://community.acdsee.com/forums/ You can have both installed simultaneously with no problems.  Pro 3 will prompt you to convert your existing db, which you can safely agree to without affecting your existing db at all - "converting" a db actually means "creating a converted *copy*". If/when you decide to purchase Pro 3, there will be no need to reinstall it - just enter the license code you will receive.  And you can delete 2.5 at any time before or after installing 3.0 Marc Sabatella on "Some benchmarks" http://community.acdsee.com/forums/topic/some-benchmarks#post-47773 Mon, 08 Feb 2010 17:55:24 +0000 Marc Sabatella 47773@http://community.acdsee.com/forums/ <blockquote><cite><a href="#post-47732">pb said:</a></cite> <blockquote></blockquote> I should have mentioned before that nevertheless, there is a spin box for time between slides, and "0" is an option that one can set in that spin box. </blockquote> Well, like I said, there are multiple ways to create slide shows, and I still have no idea which one you are referring to.  The first one I tried - the one you get via the Slideshow dropdown on the main toolbar - starts at 1. <blockquote>Why can't we just use Occam's razor and conclude that it is slower than prior versions simply because it is slower?</blockquote> Because Occam's razom suggest no such thing.  I find the image rendering as fast as ever based on my usage on my system.  if you are seeing something different based on your usage on your system, then Occam's razor actually suggests the difference isn't in image rendering but in the difference betwene how we are doing things.  We're both rendering images, so that presumably isn't the difference.  But you are using one of the various slideshow mechanisms and I am not, so if something has changed, it's more likely there than in the image rendering itself. Marc Sabatella on "Ergonomy ACDSEE pro 3 - Help !" http://community.acdsee.com/forums/topic/ergonomy-acdsee-pro-3-help#post-47772 Mon, 08 Feb 2010 17:48:34 +0000 Marc Sabatella 47772@http://community.acdsee.com/forums/ <blockquote> <cite><a href="#post-47734">faygord said:</a></cite> </blockquote> <blockquote> I do a rough cull  and then, whilst in Process find some images don't process well, aren't fixable, whatever. They need deleting otherwise I have to note their filenames, fiddle around, waste time and/or get confuded when I return to manager. However the real issue is that the missing delete button [always there when carrying out the same procedutre in earlier versions] was an UNECCESSARY change to the functionality. </blockquote> Note I am not saying this is a good thing - just observing that there are multiple ways around it.  If you don't want to mark images for deleting before enter process mode, then simply marking the image using the Tag or Rating *while* in process mode then deleting them uopn exit does the job quite nicely as a perfectly usable workaround.  There is no need to do what you describe (write down filenames, fiddle around, etc).  Instead of hitting delete on each image, you hit Tag on each image, then on exit, do Select Tagged and then hit delete.  It's two extra clicks for an entire batch of images - nowhere near the huge step backwards you imply.  But sure, adding the delete button would save that extra half a second a day it takes to perform those two clicks per batch of photos, so sure, I support this enhancement. <blockquote> Fine. But what if, like me and I imagine many others, never USE the Develop mode?  Why whould we when we are simply usin ACDSee as an image database, balancing levels maybe, cropping, resizing, renaming in order to post 72 dpi images on web sites? </blockquote> Because Develop mode makes those basic image processing operations *FAR* simpler than has ever been possible before. <blockquote> I have no need for my originals actually..the camera takes images that are far too big for my general use [though I prefer to stick with the high quality setting just in case] so one of  the FIRST things I do is create copies at 1024 x 768 to work on. Its faster. </blockquote> Wouldn't be if you used Develop mode.  And you get better results too if you do the processing at the original resize and *then* resize for the web.  So I really would recommend doing just that: leave your originals where they are, process them in place with develop mode (taking advantage of the improved interface and the facilities for leveraging work between images to greatly speed this process over what was ever possible before), then resize the resulting files in place using a batch operation.  No additional files whatsoever compared to what you are doing now 0 just the original and the processed & resized output - but a far more efficient workflow that produces better results to boot. In any case, you are certainly correct that if you are unable/unwilling to adapt one's workflow to the more efficient methods made available in Pro 3 and would rather work in the old more inefficient way, then the ability to turn off saved originals so that old inefficient way doesn't become *more* inefficient would indeed be welcome.  And for at least the hundredth time, I fully support this. But I still say virtually everyone requesting this feature would be better off simply learning to use the far more efficient new facilities, and tht's the purpose of my continuing to respond to these comments.  I think the majority of people complaining about the new facility simply have not explored it long enough to understand the huge benefit it provides.  Your example does not strike me as a counterexample in any way - it's actually a classic example of the sort of workflow that Pro 3 is designed to simplify. <blockquote> To create thumbnails I make a copy of the edited 1024 images. Then I resize them which creates another set of uneccessary originals in the THUMBNAIL folder </blockquote> Without fully understanding what you are trying to accomplish here, I can only suggest that there is *probably* a much more efficient way to do this.   Eg, why do you need to create thumbnails at all when ACDSee does this automatically?  Do you mean thumbnails to upload to your own web server, because the process you use in uloading images to your site doens't do this automatically?  That's fine, but there should still be no reason for creating an extra set of originals.  Simply run the second batch resize operation directly on your edited files, this time not doing so in place but having the results placed in your thumbnails folder.  No additional saved original is created in any batch operation if you turn that option off under tools-options-file management. <blockquote> The change is only better for those who wish ACDSee to become a more powerful image PROCESSOR. I don't believe it was actually ever designed to be that. It was born as an image MANAGER. </blockquote> Maybe so, but to the delight of many, it has grown up to become a powerful image processor as well. Is there still room for a totally separate product that would be an image manager only with no processing features at all?  Perhaps a small number of people would purchase an application like that, and if ACD's marketing thought it worthwhile to pursue such a product, that's fine by me.  But for most of us, it is precisely the integration of management with processing that makes the ACDSee Pro so compelling.  It's not the *only* program to combine these features, but it is a pretty small set of competitors (Lightroom, Bibble 5, maybe Lightzone, and that's about it for PC), each with particular strengths and weakness, and ACDSee actually competes quite well with these - enough so that I'd consider it a step backwards overall to have to change over to any of them.  These types of programs are *clearly* the way of the future. <blockquote> Other programmes do processing far better that ACDSee ever has or will IMO. I would never dream of using ACDSee to process an image I really cared about and intended to print to high quality. There is plenty of nit-picking going on elsewhere about the quality of the development tools. I would simply maintain that Photoshop is miles better. And always will be. </blockquote> Well, sure, for the sorts of things one might need it for - complex operations involving layers, extensive retouching, specialized plug-ins, etc.  But those aren't thngs most photographers are doing most of the time.  For basic adjustments to exposure, color, sharpening, NR, etc - the stuff that most photographers tend to do to large numbers of images - I'd disagree with the assessment that Photoshop is better.  Much clumsier and less efficient without even the slightst advantage in terms of IQ or anything else.  If then on a selected few images you need to go into the more advanced things Photoshop can do, great, one is welcome to use that in addition - but many, many people will still prefer to use ACDSee for the basic stuff that needs to be done quickly to large numbers of photos.  It needn't be an either/or thing.  Use ACDSee for the basic stuff it is good at, use a more powerful but less efficient program on occasion when the occasional need arises - that's the sort of workflow that ACDSee (along with Lightroom et al) are designed to support, in order to maximize efficiency. <blockquote> ACDSee should stop trying to play with the big boys of image processing, stop trying to re-invent the mousetrap. </blockquote> Well, that's your opinion.  I obviously disagree.  I use ACDSee precisely *because* it offers an alternative to the much clumsier or more expensive alternatives.  Luckily, it seems ACD and a great many other photographers agree with me. Again, I'm not saying there isn't also a market for the type of program you have in mind.  I just completely reject the notion that Pro 3 should abandon its tremendous strength in the area of integrated processing/management and resign itself to only competing in the small niche of dedicated image management programs. And FWIW, I don't think ACDSee actually competes all that well any more in that field.  Most people wanting a relative simple approach to image management  have left the niche of dedicate image management programs in favor of integrated solutions like Lightroom, and most of those remaining in the world of dedicated image management applications are wanting more powerful database functionality, including more robust network support, multi-user support, the ability to work with multiple databases, to access their db's from other applications, to perform complex SQl-like queries, etc.  ACDSee would really have quite a lot of catching up to do in order to compete with other dedicated image management programs. drewardrd on "Can I install Pro 3 ................." http://community.acdsee.com/forums/topic/can-i-install-pro-3#post-47771 Mon, 08 Feb 2010 17:16:42 +0000 drewardrd 47771@http://community.acdsee.com/forums/ I already have ACDSee Pro 2.5 but I have downloaded the trial version of Pro 3. The answer might be obvious to this silly question but can I install Pro 3 into the same drive as Pro 2.5 or can I better use a different drive such as F:\ instead of D:\. I don't want to uninstall 2.5 untill I'm sure ver 3 is as good or better. Secondly can I install ver 3 over 2.5 or will it be better to uninstall 2.5 completely and do a new install of ver 3? Any advice gratefully received Dave     Marc Sabatella on "Huge file size for tiny image" http://community.acdsee.com/forums/topic/huge-file-size-for-tiny-image#post-47770 Mon, 08 Feb 2010 16:53:31 +0000 Marc Sabatella 47770@http://community.acdsee.com/forums/ As I suggested above, it looks like you have a *huge* amount of EXIF info.  The image data itself is tiny, but you've got hundreds of K of EXIF data - much of it User Comment and Maker Notes, apparently.  Do you have any idea why that might be - something about the original image, perhaps?  If the original image didn't have this and ACDSee somehow created it, that would be a problem, but I'm guessing that extra metadata was there before ACDSee ever saw it. Marc Sabatella on "Saved NEF files change when reentering RAW processor ACDSEE Pro2.5" http://community.acdsee.com/forums/topic/saved-nef-files-change-when-reentering-raw-processor#post-47769 Mon, 08 Feb 2010 16:43:55 +0000 Marc Sabatella 47769@http://community.acdsee.com/forums/ Oh, that's not a bug at all.  It's impossible for two different RAW processing programs to access each other's processing.  If you process a file using one program, those changes are always only usable in  that program.  When ACDSee briefly shows you the image with your Capture NX edits intact, it isn't actually showing you the RAW image at all - it is showing you a JPEG "preview" that Capture NX creates.  ACDSee can actually show you that preview as long as you like - in View mode.  But as soon as you try to do anything else with the image, ACDSee will need to access the original RAW data, and as I said, it is unable to access any of the work you did in Capture NX.  That's just the nature of RAw - the actual RAW data is *never* modified. Your original problem description suggested that you make edits with ACDSee that disappeared later.  That would indeed be a bug somewhere.  But it is completely normal that edits done in Capture NX would not be honored by ACDSee, because the two programs have no way of communicating abut what edits you actually performed.  Again, the RAW data always remains in its original state. If you did edits in ACDSee, then worked on the file in Capture NX (which would have ignored ACDSee's edits), then when back to ACDSee, then in theory you'd see your image exactly as you left it when you last worked on it in ACDSee.  But it would be conceivable that a flaw in Capture NX might be causing it to delete the information ACDSee uses to remember what edits you had previously done.  Each program stores within the file a list of the edits it made so it can reapply them to the original RAW data next time you work on the file.  Programs should simply ignore each other's processing instructions, but if Capture NX is deleting ACDSee's, that would explain what you are seeing. faerywings on "Does ACDSee have stability issues?" http://community.acdsee.com/forums/topic/does-acdsee-have-stability-issues#post-47768 Mon, 08 Feb 2010 16:29:15 +0000 faerywings 47768@http://community.acdsee.com/forums/ Every once in a while I will get the message "ACDSee has encountered a problem and will close now." I use PM 2009 daily and if it happens 1-2 times a month, it would be a lot. I find that backing up and optimizing my database on a regular basis helps it run smooth. I do that at least once a week. Marc Sabatella on "Can't view thumbnails" http://community.acdsee.com/forums/topic/cant-view-thumbnails#post-47767 Mon, 08 Feb 2010 16:27:40 +0000 Marc Sabatella 47767@http://community.acdsee.com/forums/ Are you referring to one specific image, or do you mean *no* thumbnails display?  Are you in thumbnail mode (hit F8 to be sure)?  What are the thumbnail settings under tools-options-file list? Marc Sabatella on "how to do frames with ACDSee editor" http://community.acdsee.com/forums/topic/how-to-do-frames-with-acdsee-editor#post-47766 Mon, 08 Feb 2010 16:25:10 +0000 Marc Sabatella 47766@http://community.acdsee.com/forums/ Right - it's not a question of ACDSee not being able to do basic tasks - it's a question of defining what *is* a basic task.  What you are looking for is something that's basic in a general purpose *graphics editor* - a program, like Paint, that lets you draw lines, polygons, fill shapes, etc to create your own graphics.  And it's true that ACDSee isn't that that type of program - it is a *photo* manager. As such, it has controls like adjusting exposure, white balance, tone curves, noise reduction, and so forth that graphics editors like Paint don't have.  Two different types of programs for different types of purposes.  Not that it wouldn't be nice if ACDSee added some graphcis editing capability too as an extra - not "basic" - feature. Marc Sabatella on "Reading MOV files with ACDSee 2009" http://community.acdsee.com/forums/topic/reading-mov-files-with-acdsee-2009#post-47765 Mon, 08 Feb 2010 16:20:55 +0000 Marc Sabatella 47765@http://community.acdsee.com/forums/ Since no fellow users here seem to knw the answer, I'd suggest you contact support via the link at top left of this page. Heidi on "transparency" http://community.acdsee.com/forums/topic/transparency-2#post-47764 Mon, 08 Feb 2010 14:57:42 +0000 Heidi 47764@http://community.acdsee.com/forums/ To view, ACDSee will replace the transparent background with a selected background (can be configured in the plug-in.)  But don't do any edits to a transparent gif or png or you will get the transparency replaced with the selected background.  So the answer is no it doesn't support transparency for editing.  Heidi on "ACDSee 10 Photo Manager - closing down" http://community.acdsee.com/forums/topic/acdsee-10-photo-manager-closing-down#post-47763 Mon, 08 Feb 2010 14:53:43 +0000 Heidi 47763@http://community.acdsee.com/forums/ Glad you found the culprit file. bart_pattyn on "Move to trash in Full Screen Mode" http://community.acdsee.com/forums/topic/move-to-trash-in-full-screen-mode#post-47762 Mon, 08 Feb 2010 10:36:43 +0000 bart_pattyn 47762@http://community.acdsee.com/forums/ Better still, you could / can do this in beta1.1, I returned to it exactely for this essential function! Soon it will expire, and so will my interest in Acdsee until that works again...   wotan_odyn on "Stop/Continue catalog files" http://community.acdsee.com/forums/topic/stopcontinue-catalog-files#post-47761 Mon, 08 Feb 2010 09:58:02 +0000 wotan_odyn 47761@http://community.acdsee.com/forums/ I have a collection of about 80.000 files, half of them RAW and a not very fast computer. It'd take quite a few days to cataloge them all. But when I start the process after a few hours Acdsee crashes. Even if it didn't, I'd like to have an option to stop/pause cataloging and continue when I want. chas_m on "I don't need to re-edit batch operations every time" http://community.acdsee.com/forums/topic/i-dont-need-to-re-edit-batch-operations-every-time#post-47760 Mon, 08 Feb 2010 08:45:13 +0000 chas_m 47760@http://community.acdsee.com/forums/ Sorry I didn't reply to this earlier. I added it to the list of suggestions for the team. Thanks for letting us know! Cheers chas_m Evangelist, ACDSee Pro for Mac: Get the <a href="http://www.acdsee.com/offers/proformac/">beta</a>! Join the <a href="../">community</a>! Help us build the next great Mac photo manager! chas_m on "Rotate image in view mode" http://community.acdsee.com/forums/topic/rotate-image-in-view-mode#post-47759 Mon, 08 Feb 2010 08:28:27 +0000 chas_m 47759@http://community.acdsee.com/forums/ I'm not at a machine where I can test this at the moment, but I'll add it to the list and report it to the team. Thank you for letting us know. Cheers chas_m Evangelist, ACDSee Pro for Mac: Get the <a href="http://www.acdsee.com/offers/proformac/">beta</a>! Join the <a href="../">community</a>! Help us build the next great Mac photo manager!  chas_m on "Zoom lock" http://community.acdsee.com/forums/topic/zoom-lock#post-47758 Mon, 08 Feb 2010 08:25:18 +0000 chas_m 47758@http://community.acdsee.com/forums/ I apologise for not acknowledging this earlier -- I didn't happen to see this thread. I'll add it to the list and report it to the Mac team. Thanks for letting us know. Cheers chas_m Evangelist, ACDSee Pro for Mac: Get the <a href="http://www.acdsee.com/offers/proformac/">beta</a>! Join the <a href="../">community</a>! Help us build the next great Mac photo manager! jhren on "upgrade to Canvas 11 to 11.1" http://community.acdsee.com/forums/topic/upgrade-to-canvas-11-to-111#post-47757 Mon, 08 Feb 2010 07:36:53 +0000 jhren 47757@http://community.acdsee.com/forums/ If you are running an earlier version that was stable at one time but has become unstable tells me that the possibility of corrupt program files (not necessarily, as it could be other non-Canvas files that Canvas interacts with... but the possibility exists).  Given that possibility, I'd uninstall the earlier version.  At that point you could try to run the full update to build 1252 without reinstalling the earlier build... it'll either run to completion or it won't, and you'll know soon enough.  That said, in general most updates usually check for the existence of the program on your system before it will execute in its entirety. kokorosz on "Canon 1dmark4 RAW support" http://community.acdsee.com/forums/topic/canon-1dmark4-raw-support#post-47755 Mon, 08 Feb 2010 02:52:42 +0000 kokorosz 47755@http://community.acdsee.com/forums/ I have the raw sample in the old place Have been uploaded mart4494 on "Change skin" http://community.acdsee.com/forums/topic/change-skin#post-47754 Sun, 07 Feb 2010 22:59:37 +0000 mart4494 47754@http://community.acdsee.com/forums/ Tried ACDSee Pro 3 and the new features look good enough to upgrade but not with that default only dark color scheme.  Why oh why when there have been so many negative comments about it won't the developers just release a 'quick fix' - this is a case where they don't know what's best although I doubt if they will ever be able to admit they got it wrong!!! Roll on V4   Dand on "Hot tracking image preview" http://community.acdsee.com/forums/topic/hot-tracking-image-preview#post-47753 Sun, 07 Feb 2010 20:19:31 +0000 Dand 47753@http://community.acdsee.com/forums/ No plug in as far as I know... But I have two displays. Usually I only use one display when I run ACDSee. When I run Photoshop I have tools and stuff on the secondary display. But some times when I import images from a source in to a folder (not using ACDSee for that purpose) I still have ACDSee running with that folder opened to let ACDSee register all images during the process. I have ACDSee set to select all new images as you described. And I have the preview pane (and only the preview pane) opened on the secondary display - and I let it fill the display... The preview will always show the latest import… This might be a way for you to do it… And actually… You don’t have to have two monitors… You can let the preview pane float (expanded to full screen size) over the other windows… I’ve tried it… And it works... rob.vino on "AcDSee 3.1 Unrecoverable Plugin error" http://community.acdsee.com/forums/topic/acdsee-31-unrecoverable-plugin-error#post-47752 Sun, 07 Feb 2010 19:09:34 +0000 rob.vino 47752@http://community.acdsee.com/forums/ <blockquote>thank you, very helpful advice, i resolved the problem!! i first installed the plugin <a href="http://files.acdsystems.com/english/plug-ins/ide-acdstd.exe">http://files.acdsystems.com/english/plug-ins/ide-acdstd.exe</a> but it didn't work. then i followed your instructioins ad it worked!! thank you again</blockquote> <blockquote></blockquote> <blockquote><cite><a href="#post-43276">edp said:</a></cite></blockquote> <blockquote> Hello, I´ve made one change on my system, suggest by the system to run correctly my mail, this change produced the same error that you have in AcdSee!!. Now  I am going to tell you, what i did to get Acdsee run correctly: (my system is W Vista Home Premium) The problem was in DEP Data Execution Prevention. Excuse me but i´m going to write in spanish: Go to: Panel Control>Sistema y mantenimiento>Sistema>Configuracion avanzada del sistema>Opciones Avanzadas>Rendimiento>Configuracion>PREVENCION DE EJECUCION DE DATOS (Data Execution Prevention).  NOW YOU MUST MARK "Only with essentials Windows Services". The system need be restarted. My Acdsee run now perfectly. I hope help you. Excuse my English. A greeting from Seville. Spain. </blockquote>   Neurad1 on "Reading MOV files with ACDSee 2009" http://community.acdsee.com/forums/topic/reading-mov-files-with-acdsee-2009#post-47751 Sun, 07 Feb 2010 17:45:09 +0000 Neurad1 47751@http://community.acdsee.com/forums/ Any solution yet? I am having failure of ACDSee Photomanager 2009 to play Quicktime movies from my phone camera, as well. They play with Quicktime outside the ACDSee program, but not within ACDSee wotan_odyn on "how to do frames with ACDSee editor" http://community.acdsee.com/forums/topic/how-to-do-frames-with-acdsee-editor#post-47750 Sun, 07 Feb 2010 13:38:11 +0000 wotan_odyn 47750@http://community.acdsee.com/forums/ Perhaps you're refering to ACDSee Photo Editor? ACDSee Photomanager / ACDSee Pro line of products is not meant for that kind of work. I guess it could be implemented in Edit section of ACDSee Pro, but it'd make everything quite confusing. For drawing a line I'd just use Paint.net or something similar.