ACDSee Forums Topic: V3 is a dud! (and other points of view)

ACDSee Forums Topic: V3 is a dud! (and other points of view) http://community.acdsee.com/forums/ ACDSee Forums Topic: V3 is a dud! (and other points of view) en Sat, 21 Nov 2009 14:33:13 +0000 Picture Man Photography on "V3 is a dud! (and other points of view)" http://community.acdsee.com/forums/topic/v3-is-a-dud/page/3#post-41957 Sat, 12 Sep 2009 17:52:18 +0000 Picture Man Photography 41957@http://community.acdsee.com/forums/ Hi guys/gals, Something happened on the way to learning Pro 3.  Early on I said that I didn't need to have edited images saved since I never work with the originals.   Well, I have to eat those words now because I was editing one night after many hours of no sleep and I had to do several recoveries - several steps into editing and I had to revert to the primary original.  Glad it was there, as saved by Pro 3. A lot of new 'toys' I've incorporated into my work flow nicely.  Thanks to bringing the product to this level of sophistication.  I've got to figure out how to get this upgrade paid for.  I was hoping last nights gig would work.  It didn't.  I've got about 6-wks to generate funds for the upgrade.  Hoping I make it.  I really do not want to revert to 2.5 Picture Man Photography on "V3 is a dud! (and other points of view)" http://community.acdsee.com/forums/topic/v3-is-a-dud/page/3#post-41954 Sat, 12 Sep 2009 17:40:17 +0000 Picture Man Photography 41954@http://community.acdsee.com/forums/ <blockquote><cite><a href="#post-37333">Picture Man Photography said:</a></cite> It seems to me that screen resolution has a lot to do with whether you like the new product or feel challenged because of it.  If you have a low screen resolution, 800x600 or smaller, the side bar menus are a chore for you. Also, generally speaking, people don't like change which challenges preconceived notions about intuitive assumptions.  Yes, there are some issues with 3.0.  However, once a person finds what they are seeking, reverting to the old structures in 2.5 will be difficult at best - such as the comparison for the Model T or Mode A Ford and the new Fusion Hybrid - simple to complex. Intuitively, 3.0 is a better interface if that is the way you do your work-flow. For those of us that do not use the traditional work-flow methods, we will have our challenges with 3.0, at least until we learn to do it right I have challenges with the 3.0 interface because it is requiring that I do more mouse clicks then necessary to get to the functions I use most.  2.5 and earlier versions allowed me to create custom tool bars. This beta version of 3.0 does not, and that is a challenge I have when editing large libraries of images.  For me, I would like to see 3.0 offering the ability to customize further then what it does based on what I am use to doing in 2.5 and earlier versions.  That premise may go away as soon as I fully understand all the nuances of 3.0 and, eventually, find better ways to process large quantities of images. To those who tend to chop down the first release of the Beta version, I suggest you be patient and learn how the new tool behaves.  If you do not like it, then you have the choice of using what you are happy with, even if over time it becomes a vintage tool. </blockquote> Ah, the good ol' days - now I see them as pure drudgery.  I figured out how to make Pro 3 do what I needed to do and it showed me the proper way to do it right.  Pro 3 won and I'm sure glad for ACD Systems for bring me into reality. Rob Kuno_K on "V3 is a dud! (and other points of view)" http://community.acdsee.com/forums/topic/v3-is-a-dud/page/3#post-39706 Wed, 22 Jul 2009 18:43:54 +0000 Kuno_K 39706@http://community.acdsee.com/forums/ One could say, that pro 3 is just following the current fashion of calling every thing process oriented and trying to look like lightroom. BUT, I don't think that is bad. The new interface has more structure than 2.5, and it is nice that I can develop other files than raw without modifying them. For me the biggest problem is that the RGB values are not shown in the status line as I move the mouse over the image. It probably means nothing to most people, for me it is a showstopper, so I will stick with 2.5 for now. sweetswel on "V3 is a dud! (and other points of view)" http://community.acdsee.com/forums/topic/v3-is-a-dud/page/3#post-39561 Thu, 16 Jul 2009 23:11:56 +0000 sweetswel 39561@http://community.acdsee.com/forums/ I prefere using pro 2.5 the best yet ...new beta 3.00 good but slower to work with.... yukonchris on "V3 is a dud! (and other points of view)" http://community.acdsee.com/forums/topic/v3-is-a-dud/page/3#post-39480 Tue, 14 Jul 2009 14:18:11 +0000 yukonchris 39480@http://community.acdsee.com/forums/ Something else that I'd very much like to see involves tags. I don't keep a mental picture of the thirty odd tags that I'm likely to want to use in organizing a large and complex image library. Presenting the tags as icons in a floating palatte would be extrememly helpful. One could simply select all of the photos needing a specific tag and then drag that icon over the group, applying it to all. Of course the "drag and drop" metaphor could work the other way as well, but having a visual cue that was also functional would be a real organizational boon. yukonchris on "V3 is a dud! (and other points of view)" http://community.acdsee.com/forums/topic/v3-is-a-dud/page/3#post-39479 Tue, 14 Jul 2009 14:04:20 +0000 yukonchris 39479@http://community.acdsee.com/forums/ In addition to being a smarter way of doing things, the "Develop" interface is, in my opinion, superior to the "Edit" interface. The ACDsee team should try to eliminate the confusion surrounding these two different modification options by incorporating all of version 3's editing functionality into the non destructive "Develop" module. In terms of design, as much as I like ACDsee 3.0, I can't help but agree with the other posters who have commented on its complexity. Frankly, I think the interface needs to be simplified a little. Making the changes I suggested in the first paragraph would help a lot. There are some complications that seem to get in the way of usability. Another example that comes to mind is the image basket, which at first blush, doesn't seem to offer the kind of seemless movement of images from desktop to web that it should. k h on "V3 is a dud! (and other points of view)" http://community.acdsee.com/forums/topic/v3-is-a-dud/page/3#post-39422 Sun, 12 Jul 2009 18:18:17 +0000 k h 39422@http://community.acdsee.com/forums/ "Apply Last Used" brings back your settings from the last time you used Develop.  It's a timesaver when you're processing a series of images and want to repeat the same or similar settings. [attachment=0] Copy/Paste Settings lets you grab the settings from one image and apply them to another, without having to create a named preset.   WeeJavaDude on "V3 is a dud! (and other points of view)" http://community.acdsee.com/forums/topic/v3-is-a-dud/page/3#post-39270 Thu, 09 Jul 2009 06:14:42 +0000 WeeJavaDude 39270@http://community.acdsee.com/forums/ Good suggestions... And I think you guys just pointed out exactly what I am talking about.  Polish and consistency... Edit shows the Crop "Contrain proportion" as not checked.  Develop shows it as checked.  Is there a reason for these to differ?    It is nice to have the ability to save setting for each individual tool in develop though I find it confusing... Also.. Here is use case.. 1)  I go and make some setting to Crop and save them as a "DEFAULT" name. 2)  I close ACDSee and open it back up.  I then have to reload it again rather than it sticking. Might sound like a nitpick, but this is what drives people crazy. Having to do the same thing over and over again.  In my opinion, I think the more user friendly approach is to either save what you have set so that when you close and open it is as the same point as you left it or provide the user the ability to set as default. Going down that same path...  I also don't have a glue on the Develop tools to know if the settings i am showing were preloaded from a file and I don't get what purpose copy settings does.  Actually I do see names of the presets and in some cases they check when I load them and others they do not..  Crop does not check when loaded and Sharping does show the loaded preset as checked.  I copy Crop settings Why?  where am I going to past them?  is it just so that I can copy... Make some changes and paste them back in.  Seem a little odd to me. Don't get me wrong.... I like some of the things I am seeing and my guess is a lot of these suggestions that seem like just personal preferences might get discounted.  However, I do hope that ACDSee listens and thinks long and hard as to how to make things quicker for the user rather than just providing a bunch of knobs.   When I look at the Develop screen and play with it a bit.. that is how I feel.  A bunch of knobs that I have to set each time I go there.  I do UI for a living and funny thing is we are building a control similar to the develop control.  Concept is good in my opinion some polish is needed to fully see how presets could save time. Also... In playing with the Develop.. I found what I consider a odd... If I save twp presets with the same settings and load a preset.  It shows both presets as checked.   Yes I know they have the same setting but I was definitely confused by having two presets showing up as checked. I think I am wondering a bit off topic.   Over the weekend I will create my own thread with my thoughts..   Thanks for the suggestions and they are ways of addressing my concerns, but I still think the Tools should provide a save as default and restore to system default.             Marc Sabatella on "V3 is a dud! (and other points of view)" http://community.acdsee.com/forums/topic/v3-is-a-dud/page/3#post-39227 Wed, 08 Jul 2009 16:55:19 +0000 Marc Sabatella 39227@http://community.acdsee.com/forums/ <blockquote><cite><a href="#post-39212">WeeJavaDude said:</a></cite> Example: When you go and do crop, 95% of the time I crop to the aspect ratio so I have to click this ever time. </blockquote> Are you using Develop mode?  Cropping there works this way for me - always defaults to using the original aspect ratio. <blockquote> Really wish there was a set to default button on the tools so I can set my defaults that I want so I don't have to click things almost ever time I use a tool. </blockquote> You *can* of create a preset for each tool and call it "Default" if you wish, but I'd prefer a way to make the settings truly default (meaning no action required at all). losch on "V3 is a dud! (and other points of view)" http://community.acdsee.com/forums/topic/v3-is-a-dud/page/3#post-39226 Wed, 08 Jul 2009 16:54:58 +0000 losch 39226@http://community.acdsee.com/forums/ <blockquote><cite><a href="#post-39212">WeeJavaDude said:</a></cite> There is no way to save a default setting for things like cropping.  Example: When you go and do crop, 95% of the time I crop to the aspect ratio so I have to click this ever time. </blockquote> Develop-Geometry-Crop-Save Preset. WeeJavaDude on "V3 is a dud! (and other points of view)" http://community.acdsee.com/forums/topic/v3-is-a-dud/page/3#post-39212 Wed, 08 Jul 2009 06:15:51 +0000 WeeJavaDude 39212@http://community.acdsee.com/forums/ Just getting a chance for the first time to spend more that a few minutes with the program.  WHen I first loaded it my first reaction was same produce with just a face lift.   Tonight I went through the help portion that pops up at the beginning and that helped me understand the changes.   I have to say I am liking it more and hopefully this week I will get a chance to play with it a bit more.  My orginal thought was that a lot of the stuff I normally did was gone.. but Afer playing with it and getting an understanding of develop versus edit I am more comfortable with it.   The one thing I see that was not addressed was the stickyness when you set a value.  There is no way to save a default setting for things like cropping.  Example: When you go and do crop, 95% of the time I crop to the aspect ratio so I have to click this ever time.   Really wish there was a set to default button on the tools so I can set my defaults that I want so I don't have to click things almost ever time I use a tool.  This the polish that I thought 2.5 was missing and I am sorry to see it is still not there. I think 3.0 does appear to offer more than a face lift, but it is these little details that turn out to be time savers when processing picture after picture.  I hope you guys add them into 3.0.  Setting defaults for tools to me is a big win in the productivity catagory. Picture Man Photography on "V3 is a dud! (and other points of view)" http://community.acdsee.com/forums/topic/v3-is-a-dud/page/3#post-39200 Wed, 08 Jul 2009 01:33:40 +0000 Picture Man Photography 39200@http://community.acdsee.com/forums/ Hello again, all interesting commentary.  It shows the real passion we all have for ACDSee products.  That's a good thing.  There will always be certain aspects we don't like - goes with what you like or don't like (maybe you'll never use those functions).  There are certain products within the ACDSee product family that aren't my thing because they lack certain tools that I need.  However, ACDSee included many of those functions in the Pro versions (see the Product grids for an explanation of those nuances). I took look at the recent product from Olympus.  They have a Pro version of their Studio product for $199.  I wouldn't give them two cents for it because of its archaic <span style="0pt none; margin: 0pt; padding: 0pt; background: transparent none repeat scroll 0% 0%; font-family: serif; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: bold; font-size: 100%; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; -x-system-font: none; position: static; text-align: left; text-indent: 0pt; text-transform: none; color: green; text-decoration: underline; cursor: pointer;">architecture. Yet, I suppose, people who haven't been exposed to the ACDSee family of products would never know that.  The point being is that if you like <span style="0pt none; margin: 0pt; padding: 0pt; background: transparent none repeat scroll 0% 0%; font-family: serif; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: bold; font-size: 100%; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; -x-system-font: none; position: static; text-align: left; text-indent: 0pt; text-transform: none; color: red; text-decoration: underline; cursor: pointer;"><span style="0pt none; margin: 0pt; padding: 0pt; background: transparent none repeat scroll 0% 0%; font-family: serif; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: bold; font-size: 100%; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; -x-system-font: none; position: static; text-align: left; text-indent: 0pt; text-transform: none; color: red; text-decoration: underline; cursor: pointer;">Lightroom, then use it like you would a different hammer or chisel. You can include it in your tool box of programs that make up your ability to do what editing you feel you need to do.  I like what ACDSee is doing in their Beta version.  I'm finding a lot of things I can do more <span style="0pt none; margin: 0pt; padding: 0pt; background: transparent none repeat scroll 0% 0%; font-family: serif; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: bold; font-size: 100%; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; -x-system-font: none; position: static; text-align: left; text-indent: 0pt; text-transform: none; color: green; text-decoration: underline; cursor: pointer;">efficiently then I can in prior versions as well as in competitive products.  I have several editing programs in my tool box.  <span style="0pt none; margin: 0pt; padding: 0pt; background: transparent none repeat scroll 0% 0%; font-family: serif; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: bold; font-size: 100%; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; -x-system-font: none; position: static; text-align: left; text-indent: 0pt; text-transform: none; color: red; text-decoration: underline; cursor: pointer;"><span style="0pt none; margin: 0pt; padding: 0pt; background: transparent none repeat scroll 0% 0%; font-family: serif; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: bold; font-size: 100%; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; -x-system-font: none; position: static; text-align: left; text-indent: 0pt; text-transform: none; color: red; text-decoration: underline; cursor: pointer;">Lightroom isn't one of them, not because I don't like it, because I don't need it.  I have a couple of obsolete programs that I like for other things like screen captures that work better then ACDSee Pro product.  Yet, there are times that the Pro <span style="0pt none; margin: 0pt; padding: 0pt; background: transparent none repeat scroll 0% 0%; font-family: serif; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: bold; font-size: 100%; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; -x-system-font: none; position: static; text-align: left; text-indent: 0pt; text-transform: none; color: green; text-decoration: underline; cursor: pointer;">product works better then those other programs. If you are a fisherman/person, you know what it's like for fly fishing.  Need I say more? BrettB on "V3 is a dud! (and other points of view)" http://community.acdsee.com/forums/topic/v3-is-a-dud/page/3#post-39110 Thu, 02 Jul 2009 17:03:35 +0000 BrettB 39110@http://community.acdsee.com/forums/ I don't quite understand why this thread has become abusive (or the language the abuse is couched in), but I appreciate the experience of photomarketingusa having spent time getting used to version 3 - I haven't spent as much time on it as I would have liked. The management side, which is primarily why I started with ACDSee hasn't changed a great deal (I quite liked the changing toolbar at the top of version 2.5 that changed with context). I then started to use elements of the processing and editing more and more. I will still use other programs alongside it, but an upgrade to version 3 is looking a possibility. I do get the impression that I will get used to it quite quickly. I haven't used Lightroom, but there is a logic to the new tabbed approach to the different elements - it doesn't feel so much as if you are using different programs. Brett Melanie Wood on "V3 is a dud! (and other points of view)" http://community.acdsee.com/forums/topic/v3-is-a-dud/page/2#post-39107 Thu, 02 Jul 2009 16:10:06 +0000 Melanie Wood 39107@http://community.acdsee.com/forums/ Dezog, please let's try to remain civil. All opinions are welcome here and there's no need for name calling. -Melanie r10k on "V3 is a dud! (and other points of view)" http://community.acdsee.com/forums/topic/v3-is-a-dud/page/2#post-39105 Thu, 02 Jul 2009 14:18:22 +0000 r10k 39105@http://community.acdsee.com/forums/ Wow, nice retort.  Let me write that down so I can earn some respect on teh intarwebs, because that's like, amazing stuff. Derzog on "V3 is a dud! (and other points of view)" http://community.acdsee.com/forums/topic/v3-is-a-dud/page/2#post-39104 Thu, 02 Jul 2009 14:03:30 +0000 Derzog 39104@http://community.acdsee.com/forums/ r10k, Fanboi for ACDSee Systems. You just keep churning out those second rate photos, fanboi, doesn't worry me. r10k on "V3 is a dud! (and other points of view)" http://community.acdsee.com/forums/topic/v3-is-a-dud/page/2#post-39059 Wed, 01 Jul 2009 15:44:26 +0000 r10k 39059@http://community.acdsee.com/forums/ Well said, photomarketingusa. Picture Man Photography on "V3 is a dud! (and other points of view)" http://community.acdsee.com/forums/topic/v3-is-a-dud/page/2#post-39051 Wed, 01 Jul 2009 14:18:09 +0000 Picture Man Photography 39051@http://community.acdsee.com/forums/ Time for me to jump in here.  At first I was unsure whether I would like or dislike the ver 3 make over. I voiced my opinion in that regard.  Then, after having played with it - oops - no, used it in all my editing, I find it very easy to use, complimentary to what I've been looking for in the way of processing work flow, and just darn right a very good improvement.  Will I go back to <span style="0pt none; margin: 0pt; padding: 0pt; background: transparent none repeat scroll 0% 0%; font-family: serif; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-size: 100%; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; -x-system-font: none; position: static; text-align: left; text-indent: 0pt; text-transform: none; color: black; cursor: default;">Ver 2? No, because I've learned <span style="0pt none; margin: 0pt; padding: 0pt; background: transparent none repeat scroll 0% 0%; font-family: serif; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-size: 100%; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; -x-system-font: none; position: static; text-align: left; text-indent: 0pt; text-transform: none; color: black; cursor: default;">Ver 3 and <span style="0pt none; margin: 0pt; padding: 0pt; background: transparent none repeat scroll 0% 0%; font-family: serif; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-size: 100%; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; -x-system-font: none; position: static; text-align: left; text-indent: 0pt; text-transform: none; color: black; cursor: default;">Ver 2 is old school. Do I like any of the Adobe products?  Sure but not to where they bust my budget.  There is no panacea for what we all need in our tool boxes.  Thus, we'll always have many different tools which work better then some and less then others, depending on our needs for that particular work flow.  Just as a painter has many different brushes or a <span style="0pt none; margin: 0pt; padding: 0pt; background: transparent none repeat scroll 0% 0%; font-family: serif; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: bold; font-size: 100%; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; -x-system-font: none; position: static; text-align: left; text-indent: 0pt; text-transform: none; color: green; text-decoration: underline; cursor: pointer;">carpenter has many different hammers or the chef with many different pans and pots. r10k on "V3 is a dud! (and other points of view)" http://community.acdsee.com/forums/topic/v3-is-a-dud/page/2#post-39048 Wed, 01 Jul 2009 05:33:29 +0000 r10k 39048@http://community.acdsee.com/forums/ Derzog, what's with the negative attitude?  You sound silly as someone who, "just had a play with Lightroom" and yet is able to advise Acdsee on the best course to take in development.  I'll speak for myself by saying- you don't speak for me, so quit harping on as if you do.  There are lots of other options out there, so if you don't like the direction Acdsee are taking, find something that matches what you're looking for.  No one has a gun to your head, forcing you to change Acdsee or die.  This, "My way or the highway" attitude singles you out as a seriously unprofessional character. Is the program perfect?  No.  Is any program?  Of course not.  You should get used to that fact.  Developers copy each other and try and go with the popular choice, because sometimes that's how they stay in business (assuming you're correct that Acdsee V3 is a Lightroom copy).  If you want to blaze a path a set a new standard for everyone else to follow, scratch up on those good ol' programming skills and write something yourself.  What do you not do however is jump onto a beta forum and whine about the good ol' days and start dictating to the company how they should take your precious advice.  That's the kind of action I'd expect from an immature teenager. If you are a professional, start acting like one.  It's cool you put forward your opinion (and I personally have no issue with people reminding Acdsee to keep it simple), but leave it at that, if that's all you have to offer. Derzog on "V3 is a dud! (and other points of view)" http://community.acdsee.com/forums/topic/v3-is-a-dud/page/2#post-39022 Tue, 30 Jun 2009 12:17:08 +0000 Derzog 39022@http://community.acdsee.com/forums/ OK, I've just had a play with Lightroom and now I see where all this new direction is coming from. Clearly you are copying that application as far as your legal advice will allow. Look, Lightroom is a nice app and very successful in the market place, but that doesn't mean ACDSee will sell more units by imitating it. - Firstly, you can't do it as well as Adobe because that would infringe their copyright. - Secondly, copying someone else's scheme means that you lose your own character and unique place in the market and you wreck what was good about your own product in the first place. - Thirdly, there are plenty of short comings with Lightroom, it's perfectly possible to produce a better work flow solution than that. In my opinion you should follow your own direction, not copy the execrable Adobe. I can tell you what is required, but first you need to drop this imitation policy.