ACDSee Pro

Back to Topic OverviewPost New Reply

How can you live without stacking?

(12 posts)

  • moongate
    Moderator

    Hello Community,

    I just received me pre Christmas gift yesterday my new Canon 400D and I am already drowning in files.

    With my old Minolta I had to choose whether I wanted to shoot raw, tiff or jpeg and ended up with a single file per picture.

    Now that I have the Canon I surely selected to save as raw + jpeg because that sounded most convenient for me.

    So after importing a single picture into ACDsee I already have 2 files. Raw processing gives me the next one in form of an XMP sidecard file and saving the result gives me the next one (maybe a tiff because I can´t write to DNG with ACDsee). Let me count for quick - 4 files for a single picture minimum. I don´t want to come up with another set of 3 files (under, normal, over exposure) to feed a HDR converter program.

    I did not realize this before but how in the world are you guys dealing with this flood of images without stacking? </forums.acdsystems.com/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tongue.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":P" border="0" alt="tongue.gif" />

    Stacking already was a big want of mine to stack continuous shoots together but now I think I need it even more badly than before.

    I know that Marc will come up with his cleverly figured out file naming system (I´m already copying too much of your workflow anyway) but for real stacking really is a must have - ACDsee please release a "Stacking Christmas Special Plug-In" and I will pay you extra </forums.acdsystems.com/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":D" border="0" alt="biggrin.gif" />

    Mgt

    Posted On December 19, 2007 - 07:35 AM (1 year ago) (Permalink to this post)

  • pdefeo
    Member

    Same here. Stacking and versioning would be a great plus.

    Paul

    Posted On December 19, 2007 - 08:29 AM (1 year ago) (Permalink to this post)

  • Sam Dring
    Moderator

    I agree and would add metadata-cascade just in case it's not covered by the 2 mentioned terms.
    So after importing a single picture into ACDsee I already have 2 files. Raw processing gives me the next one in form of an XMP sidecard file and saving the result gives me the next one (maybe a tiff because I can´t write to DNG with ACDsee). Let me count for quick - 4 files for a single picture minimum. I don´t want to come up with another set of 3 files (under, normal, over exposure) to feed a HDR converter program.Couple of points:
    1. Why do you need the jpeg as well as the raw?
    2. Why do you think you cannot write to dng?
    3. My HDR converter works fine with dng or raw also

    Posted On December 19, 2007 - 08:44 AM (1 year ago) (Permalink to this post)

  • Marc Sabatella
    Moderator

    moongate said:

    Now that I have the Canon I surely selected to save as raw + jpeg because that sounded most convenient for me.

    As Sam suggests, I'd reconsider that assumption. One of the great things about ACDSee is that it doesn't require you to *ever* have JPEG copies of your files lying around. It lets you work in most ways directly from RAW (and will often make the conversions for you when necessary, such as when emailing). On the occasions when you actually *need* a JPEG file, you can certainly generate one, but depending on what you are generating it for, you may not need to have that file in the same folder as the original, nor do you necessarily need to preserve database information for it. So the JPEG can serve its purpose without ever getting in your way when browsing or search (see below).

    Raw processing gives me the next one in form of an XMP sidecard file and saving the result gives me the next one (maybe a tiff because I can´t write to DNG with ACDsee).

    I don't understand. If you convert your RAW files to DNG right off the bat, that is the *only* file you need to manage for this image. No JPEG, no sidecar, no TIFF. I think you may still be misunderstanding something about how RAW processing works if you are thinking in terms of trying to write to DNG or saving a TIFF. All RAW processing you do *is* saved to DNG, without you're ever having to press the "Save" button. The moment you hit "Done" from the RAW processor, your edits are automatically saved to the DNG file. So under normal circumstances, there is only one version of each image you should ever need: the DNG file.

    Said another way, what do you plan to do with that TIFF that you could not do with the DNG file?

    Now, I personally also do generate a lower-resolution JPEG for my highly rated images at the end of my workflow, so I can keep this on my laptop hard drive to access when away from the main external drive that contains the originals. And although these are obviously in a separate folder, I do wnt to preserve the db info so they show up in searches. So yeah, I'd love stacking or version control so I didn't have to see two versions of these images when doing a search. For now, I assign my proofs a category of "Proof", so I can easily filter on this or add it to my search criteria. It's kludgy, and I too hope ACDSee implements something in the next version. But you can definitely work far more efficiently than you are.

    Of course, I do also generate JPEG's for some images i plan to put on my web site or whatever. In generating these, I put them in their own folder that is excluded from the db (and/or I clear the "preserve database information" option when generating them). So once generated, I can browse to that folder to use them for whatever purpose I want to use them for, and afterward I can completely forget they are there.

    I don´t want to come up with another set of 3 files (under, normal, over exposure) to feed a HDR converter program.

    Here you're on your own. I'm assuming this isn't something you do to the bulk of your images, but just one certain ones you plan to sped time on. And yeah, if I did this regularly, I'd probably come up with a scheme that dealt with this, similar to what I described for JPEGs I generate to post on my web site. Like putting the HDR source images in their own folder that is excluded from the db, so they don't show up during ordinary browsing or searching.

    Posted On December 19, 2007 - 03:41 PM (1 year ago) (Permalink to this post)

  • moongate
    Moderator

    samdring said:

    I agree and would add metadata-cascade just in case it's not covered by the 2 mentioned terms.
    Couple of points:

    1. Why do you need the jpeg as well as the raw?
    Its because my camera supports it (raw + jpeg) and maybe its because you have a result for your shots without the *need* to do the raw processing in order to get something done. I can use the jpeg straight away while concentrating on the raw files later. It takes long time to load and even save an jpeg out of them. No for me I´m better of having the jpeg already.

    2. Why do you think you cannot write to dng?
    Marc and I always wondered that you can open a jpeg and when pressing "save as" you are presented with DNG as the possible formats to save to - as well as tiff and all the others. But when you try to save as DNG you will get an "error writing file". So we figured you cannot write DNG - only read (view). I also don´t know how I can write a precessed raw result back into a DNG file with ACDsee is that already possible?

    3. My HDR converter works fine with dng or raw also
    Which one are you using? Can it extract the needed different exposures right out of the raw?

    But even considering all of these options don´t you think stacking would be a great thing which is badly needed? It is already implemented in most DAM like products i.e. Photoshop Elements already has stacking support. Professional DAMs additionally have derivative versioning on top of it. I consider Lightroom, Idimager, Imatch and Iview as direct competitors and most of them have both functions.

    To me it sounds very easy in terms of improving your workflow. You build a stack for the one picture which exists in more than one file types raw, tiff, jpeg, xmp and have to keyword the stack only. In real life you would do the same - just *one* folder for all your visa invoices to not having them all fly around you.

    You can ask the question if I need all those files </forums.acdsystems.com/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":D" border="0" alt="biggrin.gif" /> But I will be asking back what I do if I just have all of them in ACDsee </forums.acdsystems.com/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tongue.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":P" border="0" alt="tongue.gif" />

    Mgt

    Posted On December 19, 2007 - 03:48 PM (1 year ago) (Permalink to this post)

  • Marc Sabatella
    Moderator

    Apologies in advance for the fact that this will probably be one of those argumentative-sounding posts :-)

    moongate said:

    Its because my camera supports it (raw + jpeg) and maybe its because you have a result for your shots without the *need* to do the raw processing in order to get something done. I can use the jpeg straight away while concentrating on the raw files later.

    The question is, in what way can you *not* use the RAW right away? If you have an embedded preview Iand I'm pretty sure your camera can create one), ACDSee should display that virtually as quickly as it can display a JPEG. If you try to print the file, the extra time it takes for it to internally convert to JPEG is only a fraction of the time your printer is going to take to produce the print; similarly for, say, trying to email the file to someone. What exactly takes longer to do with RAW than with JPEG, and is it really worth almost doubling the disk space requirements and the time it takes to download the images from the card? Even if ACDSee *did* support automatic stacking of RAW+JPEG, it still isn't clear to me where the win would be for most people - the advantages of RAW+JPEG are primarily for people who *don't* have programs that let you work directly with the RAW file. Yes, I can see the occasional case where someone needs to distribute JPEG's immediately but also have RAW files for further processing - professional event photography, for example. But it isn't clear where the win really is for *you*.

    But when you try to save as DNG you will get an "error writing file". So we figured you cannot write DNG - only read (view).

    I agree it is odd that ACDSee even provides that option, but that doesn't mean you cannot write DNG - just you cannot "Save" the results of RAW processing to DNG (see below - that phrase is actually meaningless). Metadata is the only thing that can ever be written to any RAW file ever invented, DNG included. And ACDSee *does* write metadata to DNG, but you don't need the "Save" command to do this with DNG any more than you need it with JPEG. The moment you write any value to an IPTC field, it goes straight to the file. So yes, you can write to DNG, in exactly the ways DNG was mean to be written to, but no you cannot "Save As" DNG, because that would make no sense.

    I also don´t know how I can write a precessed raw result back into a DNG file with ACDsee is that already possible?

    This is why I think you are still misunderstanding what RAW processing is. *Of course* you cannot write a processed raw result back into a DNG file - the processed result is, by definition, not RAW any more! No RAW converter in the world does this, and indeed, no RAW format has any means whatsoever that would allow this. *Except* that DNG does indeed allow an application to write a "preview" of the changes into the file, and while Adobe products can do this (and might be the only ones that can), ACDSee does not. I have been asking for this too, but I don't have a real *need* for that preview. And at this point, it isn't clear that you do either. If you really need another application to be able to show you a preview of the processing ACDSee did - the picture on the outside of the box (remember my do-it-yourself car kit analogy) - you are indeed out of luck. But really, there is no way that application was going to be able to do anything meaningful with that preview that ACDSee couldn't do better from the RAW data itself. So it just ins't clear to me what you are trying to accomplish when you wan to "Save As" DNG.

    But even considering all of these options don´t you think stacking would be a great thing which is badly needed?

    Of course. It just isn't needed quite as badly as it might seem, once you sort out how to minimize the need for it :-)

    But FWIW, as you indicate, stacking and version control are two different things. Stacking is not nearly as interesting to me as version control. Given the choice, I'd pick version control as more worth implementing for the next version. Although I can totally understand others feeling the opposite.

    Posted On December 19, 2007 - 09:43 PM (1 year ago) (Permalink to this post)

  • moongate
    Moderator

    Apologies in advance for the fact that this will probably be one of those argumentative-sounding posts :-)
    No problem I am used to it now and who wants those one post replies where you can´t add anything anymore anyway -anyhow no </forums.acdsystems.com/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":D" border="0" alt="biggrin.gif" />

    Yes, I can see the occasional case where someone needs to distribute JPEG's immediately but also have RAW files for further processing - professional event photography, for example. But it isn't clear where the win really is for *you*.
    For me the win would be with the series of pictures I´m taking.
    Looking at raw I will always have three files minimum - the raw the sidecard and maybe a resultfile.

    Other topic: I also thought about this and figured if it would be possible to save different precessing settings in the xmp I could always easily open a raw and get back to differently adjusted settings but atthe moment I can only save one *version* per file? So is that what you refer to as versioning or is it already possible to save different raw processing per file with ACDsee? This would eliminate the need of saving various resultfiles.

    So in any case stacking series together as well as ....and if it is even raw + corresponding xmp... would make it a need for me.

    *Of course* you cannot write a processed raw result back into a DNG file - the processed result is, by definition, not RAW any more! No RAW converter in the world does this, and indeed, no RAW format has any means whatsoever that would allow this. *Except* that DNG does indeed allow an application to write a "preview" of the changes into the file, and while Adobe products can do this (and might be the only ones that can), ACDSee does not. I have been asking for this too, but I don't have a real *need* for that preview. And at this point, it isn't clear that you do either. If you really need another application to be able to show you a preview of the processing ACDSee did - the picture on the outside of the box (remember my do-it-yourself car kit analogy) - you are indeed out of luck. But really, there is no way that application was going to be able to do anything meaningful with that preview that ACDSee couldn't do better from the RAW data itself. So it just ins't clear to me what you are trying to accomplish when you wan to "Save As" DNG.
    Of course. It just isn't needed quite as badly as it might seem, once you sort out how to minimize the need for it :-)
    I understand that the only thing you can write to raw is metadata.
    I understand that only Adobe can write a processed result as jpeg preview back to DNG that is maybe why I thought DNG is like a container format that can be used to collect the various files that go aside a raw file in one DNG.

    But FWIW, as you indicate, stacking and version control are two different things. Stacking is not nearly as interesting to me as version control. Given the choice, I'd pick version control as more worth implementing for the next version. Although I can totally understand others feeling the opposite.
    We both love ACDsee for several reasons and now where I have the canon and do real raw I even see the benefits of the raw processor.

    I can tell you that there really must be a problem with the mrw files of my Minolta. When I open them in raw processor and uncheck preprocess exposure the curve changes from this:

    </9928/82278600or3.jpg" border="0" class="linked-image" />

    to this:

    </937/59629572pw7.jpg" border="0" class="linked-image" />

    When I pressed reset then the cure went back to the straight line and the image changed to underexposed immediately. That is why I always had to use fill light 100% to get my pictures back to normal.

    Now with my Canon when I uncheck preprocess exposure nothing happens to the curve it stays straight on the line and I can´t notice any change to the picture.

    Anyway now using the raw processing is starting to make sense and I really like the ACDsee way of doing it. Before it was just all wrong.

    Mgt

    Posted On December 20, 2007 - 04:43 AM (1 year ago) (Permalink to this post)

  • Sam Dring
    Moderator

    I understand that only Adobe can write a processed result as jpeg preview back to DNGMore correctly put would be..'Pro2 cannot do this at the moment'. In other words updating the dng preview is not confined to Adobe.

    Posted On December 20, 2007 - 07:56 AM (1 year ago) (Permalink to this post)

  • John Radcliffe
    Member

    I do have, and need, a number of versions of each image, so stacking in ADCSee? Yes please!

    But while we wait, I'll outline the system I adopted (with some amendments along the way) in case it stimulates someone's thinking. I use the Rating codes (which have nice coloured icons) to mark my different version types. It's far from perfect (e.g. when I'm looking at just one version type I can't see what others exist for any particular image, and in some cases I will have multiple 3's and 4's) but I find it a lot better than nothing.

    Currently my version types are:

    1/Blue = Original: from the camera (in my case a Jpeg), just captioned and "catalogued".

    2/Green = Auto-processed: for viewing before I get around to manual editing (I run an ACDSee batch process just after cataloguing). I will delete this if it doesn't view better than the original.

    3/Yellow = "Enhanced" : manually processed in an editor (Adobe Elements and/or ACDSee) for exposure, contrast, shadows/highlights, white balance, straightening, cropping, etc).

    4/Orange = "Manipulated" : any image I've "done more to", such as distortion to "correct" for perspective, noise reduction, saturation, cloning things out, etc.

    5/Red = Resized: for use on my PPC.

    (The distinction between 3 and 4 is rather arbitrary, but it's a distinction I find useful.)

    I can then use, for example, Ratings in Organize / Selective Browsing if I just want to see certain versions. As my versions are also distinguished by suffixes to the file name, I can (1) easily re-Rate without depending on the database and (2) "filter" on the filename using the Organize pane.

    Posted On December 20, 2007 - 09:04 AM (1 year ago) (Permalink to this post)

  • Marc Sabatella
    Moderator

    John_R said:

    But while we wait, I'll outline the system I adopted (with some amendments along the way) in case it stimulates someone's thinking. I use the Rating codes (which have nice coloured icons) to mark my different version types. It's far from perfect (e.g. when I'm looking at just one version type I can't see what others exist for any particular image, and in some cases I will have multiple 3's and 4's) but I find it a lot better than nothing.

    It's other disadvantage, of course, is that it means you can't use ratigns for what they would normally be used for. But come to think of it, in practice, I use my ratings as a form of stacking, too. I normally apply ratings in such a way that my 3s are the images that would appear at the tops of my stacks if I were using stacks to group similar (but not different versions of the same) image together. That is, if I shot 7 pictures of a subject in a given setting, the best gets 3 or 4, the rest get 1s or 2s, and then I sort or group by rating, so I only normally look at my 3s and better.

    Once again, interesting to see different approaches to soling similar problems!

    Posted On December 20, 2007 - 02:48 PM (1 year ago) (Permalink to this post)

  • Sam Dring
    Moderator

    Marc
    and sometimes you need to generate a converted file in order to take advantage of editing features not available in RAW processingyou surprise me with that having not contributed to the 'change editing' thread.

    Posted On December 20, 2007 - 03:09 PM (1 year ago) (Permalink to this post)

  • Marc Sabatella
    Moderator

    samdring said:

    you surprise me with that having not contributed to the 'change editing' thread.

    </forums.acdsystems.com/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile.gif" /> You guys already made excellent points there, and I haven't given the matter enough thought to have anything to add.

    Posted On December 21, 2007 - 01:51 PM (1 year ago) (Permalink to this post)

Subscribe to this topic via RSS

Reply

You must log in to post.