New Content Since Last Visit
No New Content Since Last Visit
If I select a RAW file from Pro 2 that I have processed and send it to Photo Editor, I don't see any of the processing I've done. I can understand why this might be true - I would certainly not expect PE to understand processing done by any other application - but nevertheless, I'd still *want* this to work. Either by having PE actually be able to read the processing parameters from the XMP info associated with the file, or by having PM do a temporary conversion to TIFF and sending that to PE rather than the actual RAW file. The former would be better, because then it wouldn't depend on actually invoking PE from within PM, but since that's how I'd be doing it anyhow, it wouldn't actually matter to me.
ACDSee Photo Editor 2008
Editing RAW files processed by Pro 2
(11 posts)
-
Marc Sabatella
ModeratorPosted On March 28, 2008 - 10:54 AM (1 year ago) (Permalink to this post) -
Connie Bensen
InactiveWe invoke PE from PM all the time (by having set up the default editor). I saw you refer to that in another post. But that's because I use PE primarily & that's where I want my images to open. If I'm going to edit images in Photo Manager I double click on the image. As to processing RAW images, Pro 2 would be the tool for that. The functionality isn't built into Photo Editor. Wouldn't it be redundant?
Posted On March 28, 2008 - 11:39 PM (1 year ago) (Permalink to this post) -
Marc Sabatella
ModeratorWe invoke PE from PM all the time (by having set up the default editor). I saw you refer to that in another post. But that's because I use PE primarily & that's where I want my images to open. If I'm going to edit images in Photo Manager I double click on the image. As to processing RAW images, Pro 2 would be the tool for that. The functionality isn't built into Photo Editor. Wouldn't it be redundant?
I'm not saying I want to do RAW processing in PE. I want to do my RAW processing in Pro 2, then send the processed image over to PE for further editing - to do the things one cannot do via RAW processing or with Pro 2's built-in editor. So for instance, I'll set white balance and fiddling with exposure and so forth with Pro 2's RAW processing, but if I see some areas where I want to do more selective editing, using the facilities that PE provides above and beyond PM's editor, I want to take that processed RAW file into PE and do my further editing there, and then either save the result in PE's native format or as a TIFF.
In other words, I want PE to be a substitute for Pro 2's built-in editor. With Pro 2, I *can* take my processed RAW file directly into the editor, and start editing the image as it appears with all my RAW processing intact. But if I substitute PE as the default editor in Pro 2, all my RAW processing is ignored. Since I shoot RAW exclusively, I pretty much can't use PE without having to first generate a TIFF or JPEG conversion from Pro 2 - something I *don't* have to do if I stick to PM's built-in editor.
So while I'd love to b able to simply make PE my default editor so I could spend more time with it, that just doesn't seem to be an option for folks shooting RAW. Or, at least, it is not nearly as convenient as using Pro 2's built-in editor. Or, for that matter, Photoshop, in which RAW files processed with the Adobe Camera RAW plugin can definitely be passed directly to Photoshop without having to first convert to JPEG or TIFF.
Posted On March 29, 2008 - 12:20 PM (1 year ago) (Permalink to this post) -
Connie Bensen
InactiveHi Marc, So are you saying that you can edit a RAW image in Pro 2, then open the RAW image in Photoshop, do some more editing, then open it again later in Pro 2 AND Pro 2 will recognize the changes & you can do some more editing in Pro 2? thanks for the clarification.
Posted On March 30, 2008 - 03:04 PM (1 year ago) (Permalink to this post) -
Marc Sabatella
ModeratorHi Marc, So are you saying that you can edit a RAW image in Pro 2, then open the RAW image in Photoshop, do some more editing, then open it again later in Pro 2 AND Pro 2 will recognize the changes & you can do some more editing in Pro 2?
No, not at all. When I mentioned Photoshop, I meant, assuming an all-Adobe workflow, not combining Adobe and ACD tools. For now, forget I mentioned Photoshop. Just compare these two all-ACDSee scenarios:
1) RAW processing and editing using Pro 2. I do my RAW processing to, say, alter WB, apply some curves, and crop. Now say there is further editing - like red eye removal - I need to do that cannot be done via RAW processing. I select the RAW file and hit "Edit Image->Edit Mode", and there is my image with the WB, curves, and cropping that I did during RAW intact; all I have to do is my red eye removal. The results have to be saved as TIFF or JPEG, but I expect that.
2) RAW processing using Pro 2, editing using PE. I do my RAW processing - again, WB, curves, and cropping. Then I want to use PE to do my red eye removal - or, if you prefer, some other tweak that PE can do that Pro 2 cannot, like burn/dodge. I select the image and hit "Edit Image->ACDSee Photo Editor". When PE comes up, my RAW processing is gone. I'm back to the in-camera WB, the default curves, and no crop. I have to either re-do this work in PE - thus defeating any advantage to having shot RAW in the first place - or else take the time to first generate a TIFF or other conversion from Pro 2, and send *that* to PE rather than the RAW file itself. Either way, it is a *serious* impediment to using PE for Pro 2 users who shoot RAW.
As far as I know, in scenario 1, Pro 2 is actually doing the equivalent of converting to TIFF internally to allow you to edit the RAW file in Edit Mode. What I'm saying here is that if you want Pro 2 users to consider using PE for their editing tasks, it would be really nice if Pro 2 could similarly do this internal conversion to TIFF and pass that file as a temporary file to PE, so my starting place for editing has my RAW processing intact, just like Edit Mode.
Back to Photoshop. My point was that this distinction does not exist for them. You do your RAW processing using either Lightroom or the Adobe Camera RAW plugin (probably via Bridge, but this could also be done from within Photoshop or PS Elements, since ACR is a plug-in). If you then want to edit your image further, you send it to the editor - either the full PS editor or that in PS Elements - and your RAW processing is always intact. That is, as far as I know, it is *always* scenario #1 above for them. There is no combination of Adobe tools that cannot communicate in this way - that is, there is no situation where you must do your own conversion to TIFF before editing, or redo all your RAW processing in the main Photoshop editor. The tools either understand each other's RAW processing commands and can re-apply them by re-invoking the ACR plug-in, or else they communicate via temporary files.
Now, if you do RAW processing in Pro 2 and then want to do further editing in a *non-ACD product* like PS or The GIMP or PSP or whatever, it is of course completely expected that you will need to convert to TIFF first. Similarly, if you do RAW processing in Adobe and want to do further editing in ACDSee or any other nonAdobe product, you expect to have to convert from RAW to TIFF. Conversion is always expected when changing from one manufacturer's product line to another. What is not expected is that one would have to do this *within* a single manufacturer's product line.
Having to explain it in this much detail makes it sound like I'm discussing a subtle difference. Trust me - I'm not. It's the difference between me - and by extension, other Pro 2 users who shoot RAW - being able to use PE as their default editor versus not wanting to to use it at all except when there is no choice. The interface differences may still be such that folks would be reluctant to use PE even if the tools communicated in the way I'm suggesting, but really, I'm sure the PE interface is just as good as the Pro 2 interface, so *if* I could get the same functionality, I'd personally have no problem getting used to a different interface. But if I can't edit my RAW files without having to convert them to another format first, I'm basically not going to use it except in the *very* rare cases when I need to do something I cannot do with Edit Mode in Pro 2. And since, between the lack of communication between the tools and the completely different interface, there is no advantage whatsoever to using PE for these tasks rather than, say, a free alternative like The GIMP, this is why I say that PE is likely to be a *much* harder sell to Pro 2 users than it would be otherwise. And maybe this really isn't important - maybe ACD isn't banking on selling PE to Pro 2 users. But I think they *could*, if these issues - particular the RAW processing one - were addressed.
Posted On March 31, 2008 - 03:08 PM (1 year ago) (Permalink to this post) -
samn
Focus GroupHi Mark - My work flow is different from yours. I shoot in RAW and import into Pro 2. I then open RAW negatives as desired and edit in the Pro RAW editor. My concept of a RAW image is that it is like a photographic negative. It is something that I really don't want to ever change. After my desired changes in Pro 2 to the RAW negative I save it in my desired format (TIFF, JPG), then cancel my edits in the RAW editor saving the negative in it's original out of camera state. Then the RAW negative can be saved (with whatever descriptive info you desire) to a non view folder and I proceed to do further editing in the editor of my choice on the TIFF/JPG image (usually Pro 2 editor is enough). The RAW negative can then be moved to wherever forever unchanged. Therefore personally, it is not important for ACD Photo Editor to be able to read RAW.
Cheers, SamNo, not at all. When I mentioned Photoshop, I meant, assuming an all-Adobe workflow, not combining Adobe and ACD tools. For now, forget I mentioned Photoshop. Just compare these two all-ACDSee scenarios:
1) RAW processing and editing using Pro 2. I do my RAW processing to, say, alter WB, apply some curves, and crop. Now say there is further editing - like red eye removal - I need to do that cannot be done via RAW processing. I select the RAW file and hit "Edit Image->Edit Mode", and there is my image with the WB, curves, and cropping that I did during RAW intact; all I have to do is my red eye removal. The results have to be saved as TIFF or JPEG, but I expect that.
2) RAW processing using Pro 2, editing using PE. I do my RAW processing - again, WB, curves, and cropping. Then I want to use PE to do my red eye removal - or, if you prefer, some other tweak that PE can do that Pro 2 cannot, like burn/dodge. I select the image and hit "Edit Image->ACDSee Photo Editor". When PE comes up, my RAW processing is gone. I'm back to the in-camera WB, the default curves, and no crop. I have to either re-do this work in PE - thus defeating any advantage to having shot RAW in the first place - or else take the time to first generate a TIFF or other conversion from Pro 2, and send *that* to PE rather than the RAW file itself. Either way, it is a *serious* impediment to using PE for Pro 2 users who shoot RAW.
As far as I know, in scenario 1, Pro 2 is actually doing the equivalent of converting to TIFF internally to allow you to edit the RAW file in Edit Mode. What I'm saying here is that if you want Pro 2 users to consider using PE for their editing tasks, it would be really nice if Pro 2 could similarly do this internal conversion to TIFF and pass that file as a temporary file to PE, so my starting place for editing has my RAW processing intact, just like Edit Mode.
Back to Photoshop. My point was that this distinction does not exist for them. You do your RAW processing using either Lightroom or the Adobe Camera RAW plugin (probably via Bridge, but this could also be done from within Photoshop or PS Elements, since ACR is a plug-in). If you then want to edit your image further, you send it to the editor - either the full PS editor or that in PS Elements - and your RAW processing is always intact. That is, as far as I know, it is *always* scenario #1 above for them. There is no combination of Adobe tools that cannot communicate in this way - that is, there is no situation where you must do your own conversion to TIFF before editing, or redo all your RAW processing in the main Photoshop editor. The tools either understand each other's RAW processing commands and can re-apply them by re-invoking the ACR plug-in, or else they communicate via temporary files.
Now, if you do RAW processing in Pro 2 and then want to do further editing in a *non-ACD product* like PS or The GIMP or PSP or whatever, it is of course completely expected that you will need to convert to TIFF first. Similarly, if you do RAW processing in Adobe and want to do further editing in ACDSee or any other nonAdobe product, you expect to have to convert from RAW to TIFF. Conversion is always expected when changing from one manufacturer's product line to another. What is not expected is that one would have to do this *within* a single manufacturer's product line.
Having to explain it in this much detail makes it sound like I'm discussing a subtle difference. Trust me - I'm not. It's the difference between me - and by extension, other Pro 2 users who shoot RAW - being able to use PE as their default editor versus not wanting to to use it at all except when there is no choice. The interface differences may still be such that folks would be reluctant to use PE even if the tools communicated in the way I'm suggesting, but really, I'm sure the PE interface is just as good as the Pro 2 interface, so *if* I could get the same functionality, I'd personally have no problem getting used to a different interface. But if I can't edit my RAW files without having to convert them to another format first, I'm basically not going to use it except in the *very* rare cases when I need to do something I cannot do with Edit Mode in Pro 2. And since, between the lack of communication between the tools and the completely different interface, there is no advantage whatsoever to using PE for these tasks rather than, say, a free alternative like The GIMP, this is why I say that PE is likely to be a *much* harder sell to Pro 2 users than it would be otherwise. And maybe this really isn't important - maybe ACD isn't banking on selling PE to Pro 2 users. But I think they *could*, if these issues - particular the RAW processing one - were addressed.
Posted On April 27, 2008 - 07:45 PM (1 year ago) (Permalink to this post) -
Marc Sabatella
ModeratorHi Mark - My work flow is different from yours. I shoot in RAW and import into Pro 2. I then open RAW negatives as desired and edit in the Pro RAW editor. My concept of a RAW image is that it is like a photographic negative. It is something that I really don't want to ever change.
Nor do I, and and indeed, neither of us could in fact modify our RAW files, even if we wanted to. There is no sense in which "processing" or "editing" a RAW file can *ever* change it. That's true not just for ACDSee, but any program. All you can do - and as you suggest, all one would *want* to do - is perform processing that, or order to be made "permanent" and accessible outside ACDSee, needs to be saved into a different format (TIFF or JPEG), because neither ACDSee nor an other program is even *capable* of modifying your RAW data itself.
The only difference in our workflows is that I am taking advantage of ACDSee's ability to not force me to actually generate that converted TIFF or JPEG file right away. That is, when I am finished with my processing, by hitting "Done" rather than "Cancel", I am telling ACDSee to remember the settings I used, so that if/when I eventually do want to generate a TIFF or JPEG (for editing or any other purpose), ACDSee can do so using the settings I used previously. There is absolutely no technical difference whatsoever between generating the TIFF/JPEG immediately after making my RAW processing adjustments versus having ACDSee remember my settings and then do the conversion later - either way you end up with the exact converted file, pixel for pixel, bit for bit. But the advantage of waiting it that since most of my images never actually *need* to have conversions generated, it saves me enormous time, disk space, and organizational hassles if I can *not* to generate the conversions until necessary. And when using the built-in editor of Pro 2, ACDSee automates this for me. Hitting the Edit button on one of my RAW files automatically generates a converted version of my image - with all my previously stored RAW processing settings applied - that I can then begin editing.
The problem comes in if I want to use Photo Editor instead of Pro 2 for my editing. Photo Editor will also automatically generate a converted version of my image for me, but it completely ignores my previously stored RAW processing settings. Thus, the integration between Pro 2 and Photo Editor is no better than between Pro 2 and any other editor (I don't *expect* other editors to be able to understand RAW processing done in ACDSee).
Now, if Photo Editor could actually apply my settings when making this conversion, that would be great, but that would prsumably require building a significant amount of RAW processing functionality into Photo Editor, and I'm asking for that level of improvement. I'm just saying that if I launch Photo Editor on an image from within Pro 2, then Pro 2 should actually do generate the conversion itself before invoking Photo Editor so the processing can be intact just as it is when using the built-in editor of Pro 2.
And it occurs to me that really, ACDSee *could* use this same model to generate conversions on the fly when sending files off to *other* external editors as well. Although that's not always what I'd want, so this should probably be an option when configuring external editors in ACDSee (ie, "tell external editor to operate directly on RAW file" versus "generate temporary converted image and tell external editor to work on that"). But I wouldn't blame ACD for choosing to make this feature available with Photo Editor, so that there would remain a competitive advantage for using Photo Editor as your main external editor rather than some other company's product.
After my desired changes in Pro 2 to the RAW negative I save it in my desired format (TIFF, JPG), then cancel my edits in the RAW editor saving the negative in it's original out of camera state.
Canceling is completely unnecessary. Hitting the Done button will in no way whatsoever affect your RAW data. All it does is save (to the database, a sidecar XMP file, or an XMP metadata area within a DNG file) the parameters you used when processing it. In hitting Cancel, you are gaining nothing - your RAW data was not going to be modified either way - but you are sacrificing the ability for ACDSee to remember your settings. Thus, not only are you giving up the ability for ACDSee to delay generating conversions until necessary, but it also means if you want to revisit your RAW processing on a given file later, you have to start all over again.
As far as I am concerned, that's going back to the Stone Age of RAW processing - the days before Photoshop CS, Lightroom, and Aperture changed our expectations of how RAW processing could be done. And while you may be accustomed to working the old way, the ability of ACDSee Pro to remember your settings and not force you to generate conversions right away is one of the great competitive strengths of the program compared to using separate RAW processing, editing, and organizing programs. Of course, ACDSee did not invent this type of workflow, and in addition to the applications I mentioned above, I believe perhaps a few others such as Lightzone and Capture NX too and even Picasa support this type of workflow too. But for my money, ACDSee Pro 2 nails this integration especially well. The fact that I have to give it all up if I want to use Photo Editor makes the ACDSee Pro 2 / Photo Editor no more useful a combination than than any of the gazillion other completely separate standalone RAW processors and editors that are also not integrated and therefore force one to generate explicit conversions.
To summarize, Photoshop CS, Lightroom, Aperture, and others have really change the basic use model that people should come to expect from RAW workflow. As far as I am concerned, it is as fundamental and important a change as operating software going from the old command-line interface of MS-DOS to a window-oriented model. ACDSee Pro 2 supports this use model wonderfully if you use the built-in editor, but throws it all away if you want to use Photo Editor, which is a real shame.
Posted On April 28, 2008 - 11:45 AM (1 year ago) (Permalink to this post) -
samn
Focus GroupNor do I, and and indeed, neither of us could in fact modify our RAW files, even if we wanted to. There is no sense in which "processing" or "editing" a RAW file can *ever* change it. That's true not just for ACDSee, but any program. All you can do - and as you suggest, all one would *want* to do - is perform processing that, or order to be made "permanent" and accessible outside ACDSee, needs to be saved into a different format (TIFF or JPEG), because neither ACDSee nor an other program is even *capable* of modifying your RAW data itself.
The only difference in our workflows is that I am taking advantage of ACDSee's ability to not force me to actually generate that converted TIFF or JPEG file right away. That is, when I am finished with my processing, by hitting "Done" rather than "Cancel", I am telling ACDSee to remember the settings I used, so that if/when I eventually do want to generate a TIFF or JPEG (for editing or any other purpose), ACDSee can do so using the settings I used previously. There is absolutely no technical difference whatsoever between generating the TIFF/JPEG immediately after making my RAW processing adjustments versus having ACDSee remember my settings and then do the conversion later - either way you end up with the exact converted file, pixel for pixel, bit for bit. But the advantage of waiting it that since most of my images never actually *need* to have conversions generated, it saves me enormous time, disk space, and organizational hassles if I can *not* to generate the conversions until necessary. And when using the built-in editor of Pro 2, ACDSee automates this for me. Hitting the Edit button on one of my RAW files automatically generates a converted version of my image - with all my previously stored RAW processing settings applied - that I can then begin editing.
The problem comes in if I want to use Photo Editor instead of Pro 2 for my editing. Photo Editor will also automatically generate a converted version of my image for me, but it completely ignores my previously stored RAW processing settings. Thus, the integration between Pro 2 and Photo Editor is no better than between Pro 2 and any other editor (I don't *expect* other editors to be able to understand RAW processing done in ACDSee).
Now, if Photo Editor could actually apply my settings when making this conversion, that would be great, but that would prsumably require building a significant amount of RAW processing functionality into Photo Editor, and I'm asking for that level of improvement. I'm just saying that if I launch Photo Editor on an image from within Pro 2, then Pro 2 should actually do generate the conversion itself before invoking Photo Editor so the processing can be intact just as it is when using the built-in editor of Pro 2.
And it occurs to me that really, ACDSee *could* use this same model to generate conversions on the fly when sending files off to *other* external editors as well. Although that's not always what I'd want, so this should probably be an option when configuring external editors in ACDSee (ie, "tell external editor to operate directly on RAW file" versus "generate temporary converted image and tell external editor to work on that"). But I wouldn't blame ACD for choosing to make this feature available with Photo Editor, so that there would remain a competitive advantage for using Photo Editor as your main external editor rather than some other company's product.
Canceling is completely unnecessary. Hitting the Done button will in no way whatsoever affect your RAW data. All it does is save (to the database, a sidecar XMP file, or an XMP metadata area within a DNG file) the parameters you used when processing it. In hitting Cancel, you are gaining nothing - your RAW data was not going to be modified either way - but you are sacrificing the ability for ACDSee to remember your settings. Thus, not only are you giving up the ability for ACDSee to delay generating conversions until necessary, but it also means if you want to revisit your RAW processing on a given file later, you have to start all over again.
As far as I am concerned, that's going back to the Stone Age of RAW processing - the days before Photoshop CS, Lightroom, and Aperture changed our expectations of how RAW processing could be done. And while you may be accustomed to working the old way, the ability of ACDSee Pro to remember your settings and not force you to generate conversions right away is one of the great competitive strengths of the program compared to using separate RAW processing, editing, and organizing programs. Of course, ACDSee did not invent this type of workflow, and in addition to the applications I mentioned above, I believe perhaps a few others such as Lightzone and Capture NX too and even Picasa support this type of workflow too. But for my money, ACDSee Pro 2 nails this integration especially well. The fact that I have to give it all up if I want to use Photo Editor makes the ACDSee Pro 2 / Photo Editor no more useful a combination than than any of the gazillion other completely separate standalone RAW processors and editors that are also not integrated and therefore force one to generate explicit conversions.
To summarize, Photoshop CS, Lightroom, Aperture, and others have really change the basic use model that people should come to expect from RAW workflow. As far as I am concerned, it is as fundamental and important a change as operating software going from the old command-line interface of MS-DOS to a window-oriented model. ACDSee Pro 2 supports this use model wonderfully if you use the built-in editor, but throws it all away if you want to use Photo Editor, which is a real shame.
Hi Marc, I'm not sure I understand. If I edit a RAW file in Pro 2, and select "done" it saves the thumb with the edited changes. What I understand you are saying is that there is a way to get back to the original unedited RAW information? Your work flow is so much better. Suppose that you edit the RAW image and hit "done". You realize that you do not like your edits later and wish to change them, you can revert to the original image, so to speak? How is that accomplished?
SamPosted On April 30, 2008 - 08:35 AM (1 year ago) (Permalink to this post) -
Marc Sabatella
ModeratorHi Marc, I'm not sure I understand. If I edit a RAW file in Pro 2, and select "done" it saves the thumb with the edited changes. What I understand you are saying is that there is a way to get back to the original unedited RAW information?
YES! The changed thumb is saved in ACDSee's thumbnail database folder, and a larger preview is also saved in ACDSee' "RAW Image Preview" (RIP) cache, so when you view your file, your see your changes. But the RAW file image has not been modified. If you ever want to revert to the original version of your RAW file, simply select the file and hit the "Revert RAW Processing" button on the context-sensitive menu (Tools->Revert RAW Processing if you have your context-sensitive menu turned off).
But wait, there's more! :-)
The real beauty of all this is, rather than Revert and thereby having to start over if you want to revisit your processing settings, you can actually just go back to the RAW processor and find all your controls exactly where you left them last time you processed this file. Just select the image and hit "RAW Processing". If you're happy with everything except the white balance (maybe you've calibrated your monitor since last time you worked on this file), you can leave your exposure, light EQ, sharpness, noise reduction, and cropping settings right where you had them last, and just play with the WB sliders. Or, maybe doing so causes you to want to reevaluate exposure too, but at least you can start with your previous settings rather than having to start over. If you *do* decide you want to start over, you can use the Reset button within the RAW processor to reset everything, or just the controls on one tab. So really, I think using the Revert button is only for extreme cases where you screwed up so badly that you just want a clean slate.
The fact that you can at any time revisit your changes is really huge to me. It means I don't have to obsess about making things perfect the first time, because I'm not going to convert to TIFF/JPEG right away and more or less commit these changes. I just worry about about making things "good enough". I go through and rate my pictures, and the most highly rated one get the most attention in RAW processing, the least highly rated ones the least attention. Actually, the most highly rated ones actually *do* get converted to JPEG at the end of the day - but low resolution "proofs", just good enough for full screen display on my notebook when I don't have access to the external drives with all of my original RAW files), or maybe a 4x6 print in a pinch. I do tend to make those images look as good as I can before generating the proofs. But even so, the fact that I can work on one image, then move on to another, then return to browsing, then revisit some of the images I've already processed, means I can work very quickly, as compared to if I knew I had to get each file exactly right before moving on at all. If I think I really nail the WB in one image, I may copy it to other images I've already worked on. And so forth. I just keep flitting about like this without worrying about explicitly converting or saving anything - until I think I've done enough, and *then* I hit the button to generate the proofs.
Your work flow is so much better.
Well, it isn't "mine", of course, but I think now you can see why I said this is a huge fundamental change in how RAW processing can be done. It started (as far as I know) with the applications I mentioned, and ACDSee began supporting it with the original Pro release, but Pro 2 really kicked it up a notch with all the background processing it can do and the relative speed with which you can move from image to image and from RAW processor to browser (well, it could of course still be faster, but it's *much* faster than the original Pro at these operations).
Now, in reality, I don't actually use the Pro 2 built-in editor much on my RAW images, because then I am faced with the issue of having to save my modified image as a full resolution TIFF or JPEG somewhere, and although my workflow in theory allows for that, it kind of messes up my groove. I generally find that anything I really need done can be done in RAW processing - the things I can't do in RAW processing aren't worth the pain of having to generate and then manage full resolution JPEG or TIFF files. But I know that feeling won't last. The Pro 2 built-in editor doesn't actually do all that much I can't do in RAW processing, but Photo Editor definitely brings a lot more to the table, and that might get me over my resistance to having to deal with these extra edited / converted files. If Photo Editor fit into this workflow better, I'd probably get in the habit of using it. As it is, I just can't get into it.
Posted On April 30, 2008 - 10:53 AM (1 year ago) (Permalink to this post) -
samn
Focus GroupYES! The changed thumb is saved in ACDSee's thumbnail database folder, and a larger preview is also saved in ACDSee' "RAW Image Preview" (RIP) cache, so when you view your file, your see your changes. But the RAW file image has not been modified. If you ever want to revert to the original version of your RAW file, simply select the file and hit the "Revert RAW Processing" button on the context-sensitive menu (Tools->Revert RAW Processing if you have your context-sensitive menu turned off).
But wait, there's more! :-)
The real beauty of all this is, rather than Revert and thereby having to start over if you want to revisit your processing settings, you can actually just go back to the RAW processor and find all your controls exactly where you left them last time you processed this file. Just select the image and hit "RAW Processing". If you're happy with everything except the white balance (maybe you've calibrated your monitor since last time you worked on this file), you can leave your exposure, light EQ, sharpness, noise reduction, and cropping settings right where you had them last, and just play with the WB sliders. Or, maybe doing so causes you to want to reevaluate exposure too, but at least you can start with your previous settings rather than having to start over. If you *do* decide you want to start over, you can use the Reset button within the RAW processor to reset everything, or just the controls on one tab. So really, I think using the Revert button is only for extreme cases where you screwed up so badly that you just want a clean slate.
The fact that you can at any time revisit your changes is really huge to me. It means I don't have to obsess about making things perfect the first time, because I'm not going to convert to TIFF/JPEG right away and more or less commit these changes. I just worry about about making things "good enough". I go through and rate my pictures, and the most highly rated one get the most attention in RAW processing, the least highly rated ones the least attention. Actually, the most highly rated ones actually *do* get converted to JPEG at the end of the day - but low resolution "proofs", just good enough for full screen display on my notebook when I don't have access to the external drives with all of my original RAW files), or maybe a 4x6 print in a pinch. I do tend to make those images look as good as I can before generating the proofs. But even so, the fact that I can work on one image, then move on to another, then return to browsing, then revisit some of the images I've already processed, means I can work very quickly, as compared to if I knew I had to get each file exactly right before moving on at all. If I think I really nail the WB in one image, I may copy it to other images I've already worked on. And so forth. I just keep flitting about like this without worrying about explicitly converting or saving anything - until I think I've done enough, and *then* I hit the button to generate the proofs.
Well, it isn't "mine", of course, but I think now you can see why I said this is a huge fundamental change in how RAW processing can be done. It started (as far as I know) with the applications I mentioned, and ACDSee began supporting it with the original Pro release, but Pro 2 really kicked it up a notch with all the background processing it can do and the relative speed with which you can move from image to image and from RAW processor to browser (well, it could of course still be faster, but it's *much* faster than the original Pro at these operations).
Now, in reality, I don't actually use the Pro 2 built-in editor much on my RAW images, because then I am faced with the issue of having to save my modified image as a full resolution TIFF or JPEG somewhere, and although my workflow in theory allows for that, it kind of messes up my groove. I generally find that anything I really need done can be done in RAW processing - the things I can't do in RAW processing aren't worth the pain of having to generate and then manage full resolution JPEG or TIFF files. But I know that feeling won't last. The Pro 2 built-in editor doesn't actually do all that much I can't do in RAW processing, but Photo Editor definitely brings a lot more to the table, and that might get me over my resistance to having to deal with these extra edited / converted files. If Photo Editor fit into this workflow better, I'd probably get in the habit of using it. As it is, I just can't get into it.
Marc, thanks a bunch. Not only does this soften the amount of work on incoming images, it saves a huge amout of disc space and speeds Pro 2 up (which is already fast) because it does not have to handle so many files. Now I see your point in having the new ACD editor support this.
Posted On April 30, 2008 - 03:44 PM (1 year ago) (Permalink to this post) -
natla
Member.
To summarize, Photoshop CS, Lightroom, Aperture, and others have really change the basic use model that people should come to expect from RAW workflow. As far as I am concerned, it is as fundamental and important a change as operating software going from the old command-line interface of MS-DOS to a window-oriented model. ACDSee Pro 2 supports this use model wonderfully if you use the built-in editor, but throws it all away if you want to use Photo Editor, which is a real shame.
One thing not mentioned in this discussion is that while, as mentioned, both Photoshop and Pro 2 use the xmp file and neither uses the other's the bad part is that (so far as I can tell) either will overwrite the other's. So if the plan is to generate xmps in pro 2 and one day I decide to do fancier editing in PS, if I'm not careful I could blow away my RAW processing when I open in PS if I use "Done" (e.g. if I don't know there *is* an xmp file, or if I know there is but forget to convert to tiff or jpg)
Being new to this whole issue, I was really disappointed that everyone didn't have compatible xmps!
Posted On May 21, 2008 - 10:17 PM (1 year ago) (Permalink to this post)
Subscribe to this topic via RSS
Reply
You must log in to post.
