ACDSee Pro 3

Back to Topic OverviewPost New Reply

Horrible keywording

(17 posts)

  • jto1
    Member

    I've stuck with ACDSee Pro for years because it's fast, easy to use, and helpful.  The new Pro 3 version is a big step forward.  However, the Achilles heel of Pro 3 is still its implementation of keywording.  It's absolutely horrible.

    I can't imagine why so much time was obviously spent to improve the new Pro 3 version over Pro 2, yet keywording is still terribly neglected.  All you have to look at is the templated approach that Photoshop Bridge CS4 uses for keywording and you can see the power, ease, and flexibility of Bridge in this area.  Consequently, you can also see how terrible ACDSee Pro 3 is.

    Unfortunately, Bridge runs so slow on my older machine that I can't use it on a regular basis as my photo manager/browser, but I do return to it only for keywording on a monthly basis.

    Wake up ACDSee!  You've got a great release with Pro 3, but to truly make this "pro" software, you've got to get the keywording functionality on par with all other software of this type out there.

    I'm interested to hear what others think.

    Posted On October 4, 2009 - 01:10 PM (1 month ago) (Permalink to this post)

  • Shabbadang
    Member

    I have not tried Adobe Bridge or Lightroom, in fact I haven't tried that many photo organizers at all. But I have decided to bring order to my 60 GB of jpeg images! And there's where ACDSee come in. I just started dabbling with categories, and it looks nice. I can embed the chosen categories into IPTC data, and that was one of my requirements. I can also rename categories and the images update, and that also seems awfully smart, if I decide to change names or language.

    But you talk about keywords and that's another thing, true. And I can see that they just are listed in one long list, or at least so it seems to me at first glance. What I did now was to use the categories (which you can arrange in subcategories in several steps) and wrote those to the Keywords IPTC field. It seems like pretty easy way to go. What do you think?

    Posted On October 5, 2009 - 08:37 AM (1 month ago) (Permalink to this post)

  • jto1
    Member

    It seems like your work-around might work as long as the Categories and sub-categories you are creating end up represented in the IPTC core properly so that other photo software can recognize them as keywords.  You would definitely want what you're doing to be recognized elsewhere in case you switch software down the road.

    I'm personally not willing to implement a work-around on a $100+ piece of software, so I hope eventually ACDSee re-thinks this approach to keywording.  It's been the same for years over three versions, and they are far behind their competitors in this regard.

    Posted On October 5, 2009 - 11:17 AM (1 month ago) (Permalink to this post)

  • Shabbadang
    Member

    jto1 said:

    It seems like your work-around might work as long as the Categories and sub-categories you are creating end up represented in the IPTC core properly so that other photo software can recognize them as keywords.  You would definitely want what you're doing to be recognized elsewhere in case you switch software down the road.

    I'm personally not willing to implement a work-around on a $100+ piece of software, so I hope eventually ACDSee re-thinks this approach to keywording.  It's been the same for years over three versions, and they are far behind their competitors in this regard.

     Absolutely, that's why IPTC writing from the database was a requirement for me. Can you think of a scenario where the IPTC keywords wouldn't be recognized?

    I would like to hear how you want to see the keywords organized. Did you think of organizing them in a tree structure like the categories?

    Posted On October 5, 2009 - 11:41 AM (1 month ago) (Permalink to this post)

  • OlyPaul
    Member

    To be honest the method I use in ACDsee (using catorgories as hierachial keyword structures) works better for me and gives a easier workflow (on the dam side) than it does in LR2 which I also own.

    The only one that works better is Expression Media 2's hierachial keywording, but this software is on the point of extinction and has fell behind in so many other areas.

    I own LR2, Expression Media 2 and ACDSee Pro3 and I have trialed ID imager and belive me there is no all in one program that does everything perfectly as you wish it would.

    When there is I will be at the front of the queue, but at the moment pro 3 does it best for me as a Dam application though it still not that good on the none dam side in my opinion.

    Posted On October 5, 2009 - 03:25 PM (1 month ago) (Permalink to this post)

  • Shabbadang
    Member

    OlyPaul said:

    To be honest the method I use in ACDsee (using catorgories as hierachial keyword structures) works better for me and gives a easier workflow (on the dam side) than it does in LR2 which I also own.

     Well, then I think I'm on the right track, 'cause I'm doing it the same way, with categories.

    What is meant by "dam"?

    Posted On October 5, 2009 - 03:35 PM (1 month ago) (Permalink to this post)

  • BrettB
    Member

    DAM - Digital Asset Management. Organising your pictures!

    Posted On October 5, 2009 - 03:50 PM (1 month ago) (Permalink to this post)

  • jto1
    Member

    Believe me...I agree that no software is perfect for this and everyone has individual nuances of the way they want to work with keywords.

    If you have an opportunity to download a trial copy of the version of Adobe Bridge that comes with Photoshop CS4, I would suggest trying it.  It implements keywording with hierarchical structure (including full filtering capability) so easily and eloquently that I can't believe so many other companies are still battling with this topic.  I can't imagine keywording being any easier or fully-featured than it is in Bridge CS4.

    Posted On October 5, 2009 - 03:57 PM (1 month ago) (Permalink to this post)

  • Shabbadang
    Member

    I opened Bridge and it looks ok, but what is the big deal with its keywords compared to categories in ACDSee?

    Posted On October 5, 2009 - 08:10 PM (1 month ago) (Permalink to this post)

  • OlyPaul
    Member

    Why? I have bridge and  Lightroom 2 does it the same if not better.  You can also use full filtering on Pro 3's catorgories when using it as a hierarchical structure and lets face it browsing "Full Size" images (and not preveiws) in bridge or LR is painfull slow compared to Pro 3.

    If you want to see hierarchical structure keywording at its best take a lookat Expression media 2 it blows LR and bridge out of the water, shame the rest of it is not so cutting edge.

    Posted On October 5, 2009 - 08:58 PM (1 month ago) (Permalink to this post)

  • jto1
    Member

    I agree.  Bridge is a performance dog.  There's no two ways about that.  

    I will do some more investigation with the Pro 3 Categories.  Maybe "Categories" in Pro 3 is really like "keywords" everywhere else.  If it writes to the IPTC core in the same way as keywords do and ACDSee categories/keywords are recognized in other software as hierarchical keywords, maybe that's a step in the right direction.  

    The other major flaw with Pro 3 that deserves its own entire thread is the workflow.  I appreciate the usability intent of segregating certain editing functions into the "Develop" and "Edit" modes when you're in the Process section of the software, but not allowing you to flip back and forth between Develop and Edit if you forgot something in one place or the other is a tragic flaw.  

    I simply could not believe the warning message that I got when I was in Edit mode last night that told me that going back to Develop would cause me to lose all my changes that I made in Edit unless I saved them to another version of the picture and then re-opened that one in Develop.  What???!!!

    Whoever thought of that gem of functionality should be released from their job.  You should be able to flip back and forth between Develop and Edit at will.  

    But I digress..... 

    Posted On October 5, 2009 - 10:26 PM (1 month ago) (Permalink to this post)

  • Marc Sabatella
    Moderator

    FWIW, I've never used the keyword list in ACDSee.  I simply type them into the keyword box.  With auto-complete active, I find this incredibly efficient.  Far more so than selecting from a list - no matter how well-organized - could ever hope to be.  So I guess i don't see what's so "horrible" about ACDSee's approach.  Except that I think it would be nice to be able to implement a "controlled vocabulary" where typing "Ger" would not only autocomplete "Geranimum", but also fill in "Flower" for me, etc.

    Posted On October 7, 2009 - 06:49 PM (1 month ago) (Permalink to this post)

  • Marc Sabatella
    Moderator

    jto1 said:

    I appreciate the usability intent of segregating certain editing functions into the "Develop" and "Edit" modes when you're in the Process section of the software, but not allowing you to flip back and forth between Develop and Edit if you forgot something in one place or the other is a tragic flaw.  

    It's not a flaw; it's unavoidable given what these modes are.  They aren't an arbitrary partitioning of functions - one is a non-destructive / parametric image editor, the other a traditional "destructive" bit-oriented editor.  It's simply impossible to take the output of a "destructive" bit-oriented editor back into a non-destructive editor - the "damage" has already been done.

    You mention Bridge, so I assume you're familiar with Photoshop.  Think of Develop mode as ACR and Edit mode as Photoshop proper.  You can't do processing in ACR, then in Photoshop, then take the results back to ACR.

    Posted On October 7, 2009 - 08:09 PM (1 month ago) (Permalink to this post)

  • Roger Mardon
    Member

    Marc Sabatella said:

    ... I think it would be nice to be able to implement a "controlled vocabulary" where typing "Ger" would not only autocomplete "Geranimum", but also fill in "Flower" for me, etc.

     Oh yes, very handy if you've taken a picture of a German :-)

    Posted On October 7, 2009 - 08:15 PM (1 month ago) (Permalink to this post)

  • jto1
    Member

    Hi Marc,

    You make an excellent point regarding the non-destructive versus destructive nature of the two modes and the analogy to ACR and Photoshop.  I hadn't thought about it that way, even though I do occasionally use the ACR-> Photoshop workflow when processing Raw files.

    I guess the root of my issue is that I can make all of these types of changes on JPEGs in Photoshop using its native tools and layers (without being in ACR), and go back to change anything any time with a few clicks.  Obviously, ACDSee doesn't have layers, and I guess that's the root of my fundamental disconnection with its new workflow.  I'm used to being able to go back and change anything in Photoshop at any time, and I can't do that with Pro 3 due to the fact that the technology to do it is absent.

    In the end, I suppose ACDSee has a niche to fill, and that niche is to provide a nice program in a certain price range that does a lot.  We don't need another $600 Photoshop-clone out there.

    For me, however, I need the flexibility to tweak and re-tweak without worrying about not being able to go back, so I'll stick with CS4 for my editing despite its heavy weight.

    Thanks for the interesting discussion!

    John

    Posted On October 7, 2009 - 09:33 PM (1 month ago) (Permalink to this post)

  • Marc Sabatella
    Moderator

    jto1 said:

    You make an excellent point regarding the non-destructive versus destructive nature of the two modes and the analogy to ACR and Photoshop.  I hadn't thought about it that way, even though I do occasionally use the ACR-> Photoshop workflow when processing Raw files.

    Glad that explanation helped.  For people *without* that background in ACR, it's  *lot* tougher to explain why this is so.

    But of course, you're also right that Photoshop + ACR provides many capabilities lacking in ACDSee, and that this is reflected in the price tags.  Lightroom is a somewhat better analogy, in that it's like ACDSee without Edit mode.  So in the sense that it lacks Edit mode entirely, it might seems more limited than ACDSee.  But that's not really true either, because it incorporates into its equivalent of Develop mode some functionality that ACDSee requires you to switch to Edit mode for.  So it also manages to eliminate at least *some* of the need for such a mode.

    Anyhow, as you can see, ACDSee is in a somewhat unique position in terms of the capabilities it does and does not provide, so you do kind of have to figure out how to work within its constraints.  When it comes to Develop and Edit modes, what generally makes the most sense is to try to do everything psosibly in Develop mode first, then apply Edits when done, knwoing you won't be able to go back.  The other interesting option is to do your Edits *first*, save them as a separate copy, and then make that your "original" that you take into Develop mode.  But either option assumes you can make a pretty clean break between things you want to do in Develop and things you want to do in Edit mode.  For me, that is always true - I essentially never use Edit mode except for the clone tool when I discover dust on my sensor.  And in those cases, I'm content to apply that as the last step in my workflow.  If I shot JPEG, I might consider doing de-dusting  first and making that de-dusted copy my working original and then do all else in Develop.

    Posted On October 9, 2009 - 05:28 PM (1 month ago) (Permalink to this post)

  • Marc Sabatella
    Moderator

    Roger Mardon said:

    Marc Sabatella said:

    ... I think it would be nice to be able to implement a "controlled vocabulary" where typing "Ger" would not only autocomplete "Geranimum", but also fill in "Flower" for me, etc.

     Oh yes, very handy if you've taken a picture of a German :-)

    :-).  Of course, autocomplete keeps updating as you type; get to the letter "m" and then it fills in German.  But there is actually one annoying limitation with autocomplete in ACDSee, and that is the fact that spaces kill it.  If I have John Jone and John Smith, typing "Joh" automatically completely to John Jones, which is fine (although I'd prefer it if ACDSee selected between the options based on *frequency of use* rather than simply alphabetically).  But I'd expect to be ble to keep typing, and by the time I reached "S", have ACDSee figure out I meant John Smith.  Unfortunately, it sees my typing a new word and things I want to autocomplete *that*, so I end up with "John Sam Williams" after typing that "S", meaning I have to type out the whole name John Smith" after all.

    Posted On October 9, 2009 - 05:33 PM (1 month ago) (Permalink to this post)

Subscribe to this topic via RSS

Reply

You must log in to post.