ACDSee Forums: Forum: ACDSee Pro 3 Beta - General Discussion

ACDSee Forums: Forum: ACDSee Pro 3 Beta - General Discussion - Recent Posts http://community.acdsee.com/forums/ ACDSee Forums: Forum: ACDSee Pro 3 Beta - General Discussion - Recent Posts en Sat, 21 Nov 2009 13:39:18 +0000 QuBe on "Thank you." http://community.acdsee.com/forums/topic/thank-you-1#post-42912 Tue, 29 Sep 2009 02:38:44 +0000 QuBe 42912@http://community.acdsee.com/forums/   Aw shucks....t'wernt nuthin. <img src="http://forum.cubase.net/phpbb2/images/smiles/icon_redface.gif" /> QuBe. JohnL on "My thoughts on solutions to issues with saved originals!" http://community.acdsee.com/forums/topic/my-thoughts-on-solutions-to-issues-with-saved-originals#post-42896 Mon, 28 Sep 2009 21:30:16 +0000 JohnL 42896@http://community.acdsee.com/forums/ Marc said But similarly, don't think "techies" aren't also photographers, or that all pro photographers think alike. and I think this holds a clue to where things are going. There are camera users I could call - 'us' (as in you and I and everyone else outside the following 3 titles), 'techies', 'amateur and serious photographers' and 'pro photographers'. They all have their own requirements in equipment and I include software etc in equipment. One's needs are mainly based on your field of operation inside the photographic sphere and the tendency may be to favour systems which support one's photographic way or means of working. My way of working in the field is quick, responsive, dynamic  :-)  etc etc but once in the darkroom or on a computer, it is methodical yet direct. Which is also now called some sort of drudgery. However that suits the majority of my present photographic style, my work-flow works for me and my results reflect the image I wished to capture in the first instance and gives me a guarantee of fidelity from capture, to management and cataloging. Other photographers have different needs and requirements. One solution does not fit all. Marc has outlined how the present ACDSee and its concept is a great value to his style of photographic needs re workflow which I could call a journalistic style. But I very much doubt that style of working would be the favourite of other photographers ie producers of fine art images although I am sure some of the new features will be of overall benefit. To this end the latest configuration of ACDSee is not a do it all solution to all photographers and should not be viewed as such and I am beginning to object to the argument that I should accept it because  . . . . . . Differences have been aired on many things but we must not lose sight of all photographers requirements and systems should be placed for all, not just a few. To answer directly your request for answers on your solutions to the 'mainly' loss of files/hidden files etc the I do not think your solutions address the concerns some of us have in the way the Develope mode works, but have no view on how best to address the problems because I did not dream up this mode in the first place.  I am also confidant ACDSee will not implement a change as this mode is becoming a standard way of working for some apps. I cannot see me using the Develope mode as envisioned by the programmers and will continue working in my style of drudgery comforted in the fact that I am financially supporting a system I will not fully use and yet will be enjoyed by many others. I will leave with another thought.        Until one has come to rely on photography as a sole means of support and income, one cannot possibly comprehend the value and importance of how and what others could do to your images and income. Part time photography has no bearing on full time pro photography. CamCarmichael on "Thank you." http://community.acdsee.com/forums/topic/thank-you-1#post-42894 Mon, 28 Sep 2009 20:58:22 +0000 CamCarmichael 42894@http://community.acdsee.com/forums/ With the launch of Pro 3 today, I'd like to acknowledge the major contribution made by you, the Beta Forum Members. The conversations that have taken place here have been heard - providing both specific issues that required attention as well as a general sense of the workflows and features that are most important to you. Of course, not all issues were addressed, but your tireless testing - and subsequent posts - provided real input that helped shape Pro 3 and will serve as a base for future development. On behalf of the entire team, I thank you and encourage your participation in not only the Pro 3 forum but the Development area as well. Cam Melanie Wood on "Beware the acdsee pro 3 download" http://community.acdsee.com/forums/topic/beware-the-acdsee-pro-3-download#post-42893 Mon, 28 Sep 2009 20:10:43 +0000 Melanie Wood 42893@http://community.acdsee.com/forums/ Can you provide me with your support ticket number so I can follow up? tanney on "Cost of upgrading to ACDSee 3" http://community.acdsee.com/forums/topic/cost-of-upgrading-to-acdsee-3/page/4#post-42888 Mon, 28 Sep 2009 18:22:50 +0000 tanney 42888@http://community.acdsee.com/forums/ <blockquote> 1. Log in to your ACDSee account to get your Beta tester discount code and keep note of that or copy it.  (This was actually the tricky part because it's not clear where to go to find that.  Click on the Support tab at the top of the screen, then choose Support.  Click on the Log In to Your Support Account option on the right side of the screen.) </blockquote>   Unfortunately I cannot find anything indicating "Beta Tester Discount".  Anyone know where I can find this?   Thanks haddat on "Beware the acdsee pro 3 download" http://community.acdsee.com/forums/topic/beware-the-acdsee-pro-3-download#post-42883 Mon, 28 Sep 2009 16:56:33 +0000 haddat 42883@http://community.acdsee.com/forums/ I've contacted DigitalRiver support AND ACDsee support twice. No feedback. I get the impression that's all just fraudulent activities. timmorr is right, they just wanna make additional money with stupid extended download support which most probably will not work either. Best would be to try to get the money back and buy a different product from a more credible company. I'm very disappointed from ACDsee's business behaviour. haddat batray on "not happy with upgrade from 2.5 to 3 - poor raw editing" http://community.acdsee.com/forums/topic/not-happy-with-upgrade-from-25-to-3-poor-raw-editing#post-42881 Mon, 28 Sep 2009 16:40:18 +0000 batray 42881@http://community.acdsee.com/forums/  It is a lot more than 2 or 3 pixels.  You would of seen that if you read my earlier post in this series.   I use Olympus E-410, E-510, E-520 SLRs.  All of these cameras have raw files at 3720x2800. The resulting JPGS are 3648x2736.   Version 3 crops the all RAW files to fixed 3648x2736, which is a different crop than the camera does for it's JPGs.   You are denying access to 72 pixels (1.9%)  on the horizontal axis. You are denying access to 64 pixels (2.3%)  on the vertical axis. Thus you are not allowing me access to 4.6% of the RAW images area.  This is unacceptable since every other RAW editor (including ACDSee 2.5 does).   As I stated earlier I will be happy to send you RAW and JPF files from the camera so you can see for yourself. tanney on "Help with login to "My Account"" http://community.acdsee.com/forums/topic/help-with-login-to-my-account#post-42880 Mon, 28 Sep 2009 16:26:35 +0000 tanney 42880@http://community.acdsee.com/forums/ Never mind I managed to get it to work...... rocsen on "Photoshop file munged by ACDSee?" http://community.acdsee.com/forums/topic/photoshop-file-munged-by-acdsee#post-42879 Mon, 28 Sep 2009 16:10:02 +0000 rocsen 42879@http://community.acdsee.com/forums/ Good point, Marc. I've done some more testing in this app and you can actually just hit the save key to apply settings permantly to the file. Even when doing this it saves the original in a seperate folder. And it also comes up with a prompt stating this when you click save, with the option to disable next time :-) So this is truly having your cake and eating it with both options to the user. This program is however very basic in comparison to Acdsee Pro, but it shows that the options are available and that there could possibly be room for improvement. Marc Sabatella on "Photoshop file munged by ACDSee?" http://community.acdsee.com/forums/topic/photoshop-file-munged-by-acdsee#post-42876 Mon, 28 Sep 2009 15:17:56 +0000 Marc Sabatella 42876@http://community.acdsee.com/forums/ Right, that is in a nutshell how the other method that *could* have been chosen works.  It suffers the drawback of requiring explicit exports of changes to make them visible, so some people find that to be unacceptable.  The method chosen by ACDSee eliminates that problem, but substitutes another that others find unacceptable: the original is moved so the edited version can be saved directly in place.  One set of users find one solution unacceptable, another set of users finds the other unacceptable.  The problem is that it may be impossible to satisfy both sets of users completely.  But I am becoming more and more convinced that the proposal I posted in another thread comes as close as possible, by allowing those with existing workflows that preserve originals by religiously using Save As to to continue doing to with no fear of their originals being moved, and by providing tools to allow one to view all originals in cases where you *do* decide to edit in place, cleanup extra files if you're concerned about unnecessary duplication, etc.  As far as I can tell, this is the closest to having our cake and eating it too that can be achieved. Marc Sabatella on "not happy with upgrade from 2.5 to 3 - poor raw editing" http://community.acdsee.com/forums/topic/not-happy-with-upgrade-from-25-to-3-poor-raw-editing#post-42874 Mon, 28 Sep 2009 14:55:45 +0000 Marc Sabatella 42874@http://community.acdsee.com/forums/ The others do sound like bugs, but I'm still not sure what you mean about the RAW issue - the extra pixels most cameras have on outside edges of their sensors are not *supposed* to be available for editing - they are there only to aid in the de-mosaicing algorithms.  At least, that is my understanding.  So if you're just talking those 2 or 3 pixels or whatever on the outside border, and you are still left with a usable area at least as big as the JPEG's that come out of the camera, then I wouldn't call that a bug.  If on the other hand you are finding you are losing more than just those few pixels, and you are left with a usable areas that is *smaller* than the JPEG's that come out of the camera, then it sounds like a bug. Anyhow, if this is the actual product version, to reports bugs you'd want to do so directly to ACD's customer support - click the Support link top left of this page to get started. rocsen on "Photoshop file munged by ACDSee?" http://community.acdsee.com/forums/topic/photoshop-file-munged-by-acdsee#post-42870 Mon, 28 Sep 2009 13:41:48 +0000 rocsen 42870@http://community.acdsee.com/forums/ Not going to mention program names, but there's another tool on the market that saves all the changes made to an image in a  .ini file. So everytime the program is launched it instantly applies these changes to the image again. Changes can be undone in backward steps at any stage, even after closing the program. When viewing the image in another viewer it just loads the original. I thought this was quite clever and saves HDD space. Ofcourse you have the option to export these files so the changes are permanently applied to image if you so wish.   mak_kawa on "Questions for ACDSee Pro 3" http://community.acdsee.com/forums/topic/questions-for-acdsee-pro-3#post-42868 Mon, 28 Sep 2009 12:22:18 +0000 mak_kawa 42868@http://community.acdsee.com/forums/ Brett, Marc, thanks for responses. I am a registered ACDSee Pro3 beta user, but I am not sure that I am a "beta tester" or not. Only I have recieved is an e-mail saying "Pre-order ACDSee Pro 3 at a special price get a bonus Versa Pod Pro tripod. US$ 152.99". I don't want/need the tripod and non-upgrade version of ACDSee Pro 3. I had expected next e-mail offering the upgrade version of Pro3 ($100 or so?!) from Pro2.5.　But no such e-mail from ACDSee. I missed an opportunity to be an "early bird", sigh... For the PENTAX K-7 launched 3 months ago, Pro3 beta2 still doesn't support its PEF RAW. And also RAW plug-in update is still not in download page. So I am very anxious for the support by released first non-beta (and next week? public) version of Pro3. Probably I am impatient, and shoud be patient and patient. batray on "not happy with upgrade from 2.5 to 3 - poor raw editing" http://community.acdsee.com/forums/topic/not-happy-with-upgrade-from-25-to-3-poor-raw-editing#post-42865 Mon, 28 Sep 2009 10:11:00 +0000 batray 42865@http://community.acdsee.com/forums/ The F5 sort issue also happens if I just select sort type.  In both cases the problem only shows up when you come from the View mode into Manage Mode and hit F5 or sort type.  It doers not manifest itself if you only stay in sort mode.   But pleas fix the issue with not being able to access the full RAW image before you fix these other minor issues!     batray on "not happy with upgrade from 2.5 to 3 - poor raw editing" http://community.acdsee.com/forums/topic/not-happy-with-upgrade-from-25-to-3-poor-raw-editing#post-42864 Mon, 28 Sep 2009 09:46:48 +0000 batray 42864@http://community.acdsee.com/forums/ I have additional minor issues 1) In manage mode when I het F5 for a resort it looses the selection of the picture I am on an put me back to the first one in the directory. 2) When I click on JPG compression the "Save As" dialog the mosu must hover over the text as I roll the wheel to change it.  I like 2.5 where once I click on the tect I do not need to hover.   However I would happily put up with these minor issues if the major issue of not having full access to the Raw image area was fixed! Marc Sabatella on "My thoughts on solutions to issues with saved originals!" http://community.acdsee.com/forums/topic/my-thoughts-on-solutions-to-issues-with-saved-originals#post-42852 Mon, 28 Sep 2009 00:48:00 +0000 Marc Sabatella 42852@http://community.acdsee.com/forums/ <blockquote><cite><a href="#post-42829">tdi said:</a></cite> That's because you, Marc, are a 'techie' [software developer] as you have said.  So don't think for a minute that you will look at this like a pro photographer who makes his living from this.  You are, and always will be, the 'techie' side. </blockquote> Granted.  But similarly, don't think "techies" aren't also photographers, or that all pro photographers think alike. <blockquote>Still it's very simple, leave the original where it is, create a subfolder for [developed] or 'processed' or whatever you want to call it.</blockquote> Simple, except as I've pointed out repeatedly, it's incredibly non-intuitive to people who are accustomed to editing an image in place actually modifying the file. they are used to being able to enter an editor, make some adjustments, hit save, and and then immediately have those changes visible to other applications.  Not in another folder, but right there. So again, as I've said, *either* approach will surprise some users.  There is *no known way* to implement non-destructive editing in a way that doesn't involve doing something some users will not like.  You've made it clear you don't like the current implementation; I'm offering a proposal that I believe completely addresses every one of your concerns here.  It would help if you would actually comment on the proposal directly.  If there's a hole I've left unaddressed, point it out.  If on the other hand I've nailed it as I think I have, then please acknowledge that so it can be presented as something we can all accept, which I would think would greatly increase the chances of it getting accepted. Marc Sabatella on "My thoughts on solutions to issues with saved originals!" http://community.acdsee.com/forums/topic/my-thoughts-on-solutions-to-issues-with-saved-originals#post-42851 Mon, 28 Sep 2009 00:31:46 +0000 Marc Sabatella 42851@http://community.acdsee.com/forums/ <blockquote><cite><a href="#post-42842">JohnL said:</a></cite>  - but why would I wish to revisit and presumably adjust/change whatever is an already adjusted and  finished image? </blockquote> In many people's workflows, this is pretty common.  People do a relativly quick series of adjustments during initial processing because they have hundreds of images to get through and they want to deliver proofs to a client. But later, when the client has a chosen an image they want a larger print of, they go back and spend a bit more time on the image.  That sort of thing. There are also side benefits that might not be clear at first, but end up being hugely beneficial.  For example, I come back from a concert shoot with lots of images shot at high ISO under colored stage lights.  I can go in, set a WB for images, crank up the NR, then simply copy those settings to all my other images shot under that light.  I'm not *done* processing them, but I have a good starting point.  I then open them individually and fiddling with exposure, curves, etc.  Even then I don't tweak each one of them individually - I might custom process the best image from a series of similar shots, then copy all of those settings to the rest of the images in the series.  It's the fact that you don't have to do all your processing at once that makes this sort of workflow possible, and it's something veyr many photographers are coming to rely on in programs like Lightroom, etc. <blockquote>Actually, I'd say it is the other way around... So these apps are written by photographers who can readily write workarounds to circumvent inherent problems/shortcomings? </blockquote> No, as should have been clear, features like non-destructive are *not* intended only for techies; it's workflows like yours (the only non-destructive workflows possible before the advent of application support - I'm not saying it wasn't a fine workflow before Pro 3) that only a techie could love.  What non-techie *wants* to be creating To Edited and Edited folders, using Save As to save changes to a different folder, managing the multiple copies, etc?  That's exactly the sort of drudgery most "non-techies" are normally thrilled to be able to *avoid*. <blockquote> So users aren't tempted to mess with it, thus destroying ACDSee's ability to use it for further Developing or Restoring it. </blockquote> <blockquote> That is the point. It is there for the photographer to do as they wish - not for ACDSee's ability to use it for further developing or Restoring it. </blockquote> That's why I also do recommend cloning the whole folder, as you are doing, if you do shoot JPEG.  That way you are working on the clones only, and really, none of this should matter.  For the techie (and face it, you're one) who wants to be in "control" of his files, cloning the whole folder accomplishes this.  For the non-techie who doesn't care about being in "control" of his files but just wants to be able to get the job done, that step is optional. <blockquote> Precisely!  and that *is* exactly why non-destructive editing has become so popular. Non-destructive editing was popular before ACDSee adopted it but how do these photographers feel about the moving/hiding of their files as ACDSee does; why does it not integrate more readily with external editors and will we ever get a non-techie reply  :-) </blockquote> I find ACDSee's approach actually integrates *better* with external editors than the approach taken by others, for the reasons I've already explained several times.  Lightroom, for example, requires the user to explicit "export" a copy of the file in order for any other program to see it. That's another use model only a techie could love. <blockquote> Moving on. Tell me, if one adjusts an image in Develope, can you do a 'Save As' to another folder yet retain  the developed image unchanged, what happens to the 'original' image I was working on in Develope </blockquote> Currently, the changes are applied to the "original" as well unless you Cancel out of Develop mode.  And that's what my proposal above is designed to address. <blockquote> and what are the consequences if some of my adjustments are made in an external editor? </blockquote> Depened on which files you take to the external editor and when yo do it, just as would be the case with any other use model. tanney on "Help with login to "My Account"" http://community.acdsee.com/forums/topic/help-with-login-to-my-account#post-42847 Sun, 27 Sep 2009 23:55:04 +0000 tanney 42847@http://community.acdsee.com/forums/ I think I screwed my account up by changing the email address.  Neither the old or the new login email address works. Can someone point me to who I need to contact to get it fixed?  Thanks JohnL on "My thoughts on solutions to issues with saved originals!" http://community.acdsee.com/forums/topic/my-thoughts-on-solutions-to-issues-with-saved-originals#post-42842 Sun, 27 Sep 2009 23:12:31 +0000 JohnL 42842@http://community.acdsee.com/forums/   Interesting reply Marc 'but again, your method really does not provide all the advantage of true non-destructive editing, in that for you, undoing changes is all-or-nothing, but in true non-destructive editing, you can at any time re-enter Develop mode and find all your settings exactly as you left, just as if you had never left, and have full ability to revisit each setting individually.'  - but why would I wish to revisit and presumably adjust/change whatever is an already adjusted and  finished image? Once it is adjusted and finished, its adjusted and finished! If for any reason I wish to revisit the image in the future I can revert to my original and revisit the process. I may not want to start where I finished previously. <a href="http://community.acdsee.com/forums/topic/my-thoughts-on-solutions-to-issues-with-saved-originals#post-42799">JohnL said:</a> I am becoming increasingly aware apps such as these are made by techies for techies who use a camera in some instance in their work or pastime. We get systems which need work-arounds because it is there for a techie not for the photographer end user. Actually, I'd say it is the other way around... So these apps are written by photographers who can readily write workarounds to circumvent inherent problems/shortcomings? <blockquote> Speed of process seems to dictate events at present, ie a faster workflow. I would prefer to see integrity of the original image retain more priority, and I am aware one can 'find' the hidden file somehow when needed but why should it be hidden? </blockquote> So users aren't tempted to mess with it, thus destroying ACDSee's ability to use it for further Developing or Restoring it. That is the point. It is there for the photographer to do as they wish - not for ACDSee's ability to use it for further developing or Restoring it. <blockquote> All this is my take on where we are and where we seem to be going. Its not meant to be dismissive but I really wish the techie brigade would sit down, stop trying to be too clever and discuss with  Photographers what they want, and that is safety of their product ie The Image - not the File. </blockquote> Precisely!  and that *is* exactly why non-destructive editing has become so popular. Non-destructive editing was popular before ACDSee adopted it but how do these photographers feel about the moving/hiding of their files as ACDSee does; why does it not integrate more readily with external editors and will we ever get a non-techie reply  :-) Moving on. Tell me, if one adjusts an image in Develope, can you do a 'Save As' to another folder yet retain  the developed image unchanged, what happens to the 'original' image I was working on in Develope and what are the consequences if some of my adjustments are made in an external editor? finlays on "Pro 3 Database problem" http://community.acdsee.com/forums/topic/pro-3-database-problem#post-42836 Sun, 27 Sep 2009 21:03:36 +0000 finlays 42836@http://community.acdsee.com/forums/ I downloaded Pro 3and installed on my Vista desktop and XP laptop. All went well, 2.5 database converted fine and all seems to be working without a hitch...except...when I try to optimize database on my Vista machine, it appears to complete the task(yellow bar full)  then hang. I have to use task manager to close ACDsee. Doesn't seem to cause any problems, just annoying. Optimize on XP works just fine.