ACDSee Pro 3

Back to Topic OverviewPost New Reply

Is there a 2.5 Pro "classic view" with icons in 3.0?

(22 posts)
1 2

  • kentdavis@gmail.com
    Member

    This is my first big problem with the 3.0 interface...too many options and too hard to track them all down going from tab to tab. In 2.5 Pro I had a nice icon bar on the left...I could INSTANTLY do ANYTHING to a photo with one click.

    In 3.0 I'm running all over the place...Develop or Edit? Tune? Geometry? Detail? And all the commands in tiny little letters (old guy speaking here!) with no simple graphic icons that indicate functions. (I bet people who don't speak English perfectly really hate this new version)

    So, is there a way to show icons for functions like you had?

    Thanks!

     

     

     

    Posted On October 25, 2009 - 03:38 PM (3 weeks ago) (Permalink to this post)

  • wotan_odyn
    Moderator

    I don't think so. Sorry. Personaly I don't miss icons in Develop mode. In Edit however...

    Posted On October 25, 2009 - 08:56 PM (3 weeks ago) (Permalink to this post)

  • Marc Sabatella
    Moderator

    I'd start with the assumption that you can do all editing you need to in Develop mode, and once you get used to the notion of non-destructive / parametric editing and the powerful features for working in batches and copy settings from file to file, you won't ever won't to go back to old style one-image-at-a-time editing.

    But no, I don't know a way to get more icons.

    Posted On October 30, 2009 - 04:22 AM (3 weeks ago) (Permalink to this post)

  • claybear
    Member

    Marc, hate to disagree, but there is something major you CANNOT do in Develop mode -- SELECTIONS.
    This is the biggest thing holding ACDSee back -- NO LAYERS. I absolutely HATE Photoshop, and I'd like to abandon it altogether... if ACDSee would just come up with a decent way to handle selections or dodging or painting-in effects. This is a program for PHOTOGRAPHERS, isn't it??

    OK, I hear you about the Develop mode, and I've switched my modus operandi, and I really like the new Advanced Color selective saturation, etc. But I still miss a lot from 2.5, which was much faster. What I miss the most is the intuitive working of the interface. I loved the ICONS and think they should have been kept in 3.0. WHY CHANGE IT? Now, whenever you do change to EDIT mode, it's very non-intuitive, with a list of WORDS, not symbols, for a VISUAL program. Not nice. Are they just trying to FORCE you to drop EDIT mode? They might just be losing customers instead.

    I'm a die-hard ACDSee fan, and I keep promoting it, but I was hoping 3.0 would be a step forward, not back, in the areas it already did well. Hmmm. I wonder if I should just install 2.5 as my external editor...?...

    Posted On October 31, 2009 - 09:45 PM (2 weeks ago) (Permalink to this post)

  • BrettB
    Member

    Are they just trying to FORCE you to drop EDIT mode?

    I can see where you are coming from in your general comments, but I don't think they are trying to force anyone into anything. I do think they are just trying to keep the program moving forward and the non-destructive editing for files other than RAW is a key feature of this - the edit mode still has its place.

    As for replacing Photoshop entirely, I doubt that that is a target - when you start to add the complexity of effects that Photoshop has you have an entirely different (and much more expensive) program.

    I would say that for many photographers wanting to manage and process large numbers of files in batches ACDSee would do a fantastic job.

    I can see that the loss of icons is significant, and initially my reaction was much like yours, however having spent time on the program I really like it now and it has enabled me to do more in ACDSee more quickly and more effectively and only go to Photoshop for the layers, some of the filters and printing. (My one real bugbear with ACDSee is the poor colour management when it comes to printing.)

    I remember trying to get to grips with 2.5 - it took some time before it became 'intuitive'.

    I doubt that any company is pleased at the prospect of losing customers, but they I expect will judge the commercial success on whether they gain significantly more than they lose!

    Posted On November 1, 2009 - 08:41 AM (2 weeks ago) (Permalink to this post)

  • Marc Sabatella
    Moderator

    claybear said:

    Marc, hate to disagree, but there is something major you CANNOT do in Develop mode -- SELECTIONS.

    I agree.  I said, start with the "assumption" you'd be using Develop mode, but of course, if it turns out not to be true, then you go to Plan B.  Some photographers use operations on selections (and/or layers in other applications) all the time; others do only very rarely.  If you're in the latter category, like me, it makes sense to use Develop mode first, and in the rare cases where you need an operation on a selection, go to Edit mode.  If on the other hand you tend to make heavy use of operations on selections, it might make more sense to perform those *first*, in Edit mode, save the results as a new file, and then go to Develop on that.  This seems to be the best compromise I know, and at least one contributor to this forum (Bill) seems to be making good use of that sort of workflow - although there are, to be sure, some enhancements ACD could make that would help a lot.

    Posted On November 2, 2009 - 05:08 PM (2 weeks ago) (Permalink to this post)

  • emem
    Member

    You're not the only one who misses 2.5 --- Sorry folks, but version 3.0 is a crock of you know what. It seems to me that ACDSee has thrown out the baby with the bathwater. Haven't any of these programmers heard of or seen (never mind used) Rawshooter? I don't want to batch process images. Very rarely are the lighting situations and exposures the same for two images (unless you're shooting in a studio). I want to apply corrections and "develop" my images one at a time, but simply and quickly. ACDSee 2.5 was (IS!!) a great programme, it just needed to be streamlined a bit and introduce ND processing. I'm suspicious ACDSee has employed some of Adobe's programmers who specialise in bloatware. So much of 2.5 was great to use, simple to access. Why change it for the sake of it? I'll be waiting for version 3.5 I think. Very, very, very disappointing.

    Posted On November 4, 2009 - 08:21 AM (2 weeks ago) (Permalink to this post)

  • carson
    Member

    I haven't been  using 3.0 very long but I agree with emem, I don't like 3.0 very much except that it doesn't tend to hang up as often. The changes in 3.0 in my opinion have not been for the best.

    Posted On November 6, 2009 - 02:09 AM (2 weeks ago) (Permalink to this post)

  • Steku
    Member

    carson said:

    I haven't been  using 3.0 very long but I agree with emem, I don't like 3.0 very much except that it doesn't tend to hang up as often. The changes in 3.0 in my opinion have not been for the best.

     

    My Opinion too!!!

    Give us ACDSee 2.5 without the bugs. 3.0 is very disappointing!

    Posted On November 6, 2009 - 12:47 PM (2 weeks ago) (Permalink to this post)

  • wotan_odyn
    Moderator

    emem said:

    You're not the only one who misses 2.5 --- Sorry folks, but version 3.0 is a crock of you know what. It seems to me that ACDSee has thrown out the baby with the bathwater. Haven't any of these programmers heard of or seen (never mind used) Rawshooter? I don't want to batch process images. Very rarely are the lighting situations and exposures the same for two images (unless you're shooting in a studio). I want to apply corrections and "develop" my images one at a time, but simply and quickly. ACDSee 2.5 was (IS!!) a great programme, it just needed to be streamlined a bit and introduce ND processing. I'm suspicious ACDSee has employed some of Adobe's programmers who specialise in bloatware. So much of 2.5 was great to use, simple to access. Why change it for the sake of it? I'll be waiting for version 3.5 I think. Very, very, very disappointing.

    But you don't have to do batch processing. In fact I never do. I apply corrections and develop my images one at a time very simply and quickly. Actually I find working in 3.0 much faster than in 2.5. Took me a day or two to get to know new GUI, but for the most part I'd say the new gui is much more efficient and flexible. Most functions are the same or improved a bit.

    Posted On November 6, 2009 - 05:03 PM (2 weeks ago) (Permalink to this post)

  • scarefishcrow
    Member

    I have to agree with comments regarding the faults in version 3.  Version upgrades are supposed to IMPROVE and ADD features not DISABLE and REMOVE them.  I know of no software company that would do what you have done by removing many of the icons from the "Customize Toolbars" command so that what you end up with is a bunch of absolutely JUNK and USELESS text on the toolbars.  The irony is you found it appropriate to leave in the options tab for toolbars whether to turn off text or not.  l

    What's the point of leaving that in since there are so few features that are supplied with icons!!!   Give us our icons back and don't continue to try and make it look like the users are stupid and you don't understand their problems. 

    I have used ACDSee since it was a freeware/shareware product and purchased almost every upgrade and add on you ever produced.  So please don't tell me I don't understand a product I have used for years (probably since before you were even able to type on a keyboard).  Remember Bitnet and Gophers, I do!!!

    You and Photodex's Compupic/Compupic Pro were battling for years to this market segment.  You seem to have won (although the old Compupic Pro still does some things better than ACDSee!).  Now that you don't have reduced competition you seem to think you can just crusise along on your past success.

    I have been using thse product for a single day and already find it is fatally flawed in the current  incarnation.  \

    If you don't understand some of the questions that I have seen in a number of threads that were OBVIOUSLY CLEAR and anyone familiar with the product should be able to answer then I don't understad why you are a moderator!

    I don't mean to sound offensive, but trying to defend "carefully crafted design changes that the users simply did not realize are really what the wanted"  (otherwise known as FLAWS)  is a sad way to treat customers. 

    This is my first and I expect final post to this "community".  Photodex, where are you when you are really needed??

     

     

    Posted On November 7, 2009 - 04:00 AM (2 weeks ago) (Permalink to this post)

  • BrettB
    Member

    I don't mean to sound offensive

    In that case you have failed with your intention.

    Expressing your view forcefully, even expressing your anger at the way the product has changed, is valuable to us all.

    Hopefully we can have an influence on the future product and see something that has all the improvements in Pro 3 (and I do think they are there) with the legacy items that we think would make the product far better - such as icons.

    Attacking another member of the forum, which is all a moderator is (true of most forums - moderators are usually volunteers and not employees of the company) is unhelpful.

    Posted On November 7, 2009 - 08:18 AM (2 weeks ago) (Permalink to this post)

  • Toaster
    Member

    Also agree with emem, no way is this version 3 faster than 2.5 (lets not forget speed of use was ACDSee's USP). The program takes longer to open and is positively sluggish (almost as tardy as an Adobe app) on my 4 year old PC. To do simple edits on individual photos is now a time consuming cumbersome task, and anyone who claims otherwise is either deluded, didn't use 2.5 or in the pay of ACDSee.

    Posted On November 7, 2009 - 02:34 PM (2 weeks ago) (Permalink to this post)

  • Marc Sabatella
    Moderator

    Toaster said:

    Also agree with emem, no way is this version 3 faster than 2.5 (lets not forget speed of use was ACDSee's USP). The program takes longer to open and is positively sluggish (almost as tardy as an Adobe app) on my 4 year old PC. To do simple edits on individual photos is now a time consuming cumbersome task

    I find 3.0 loads *much* faster on my system than 2.5 did (probably 5 times faster or so).  As for edits, can you describe which specific editing tasks you are finding sluggish?  I used 2.5 quite extensively, and find 3.0 to be *huge* improvement in all all respects.

    Posted On November 7, 2009 - 05:17 PM (2 weeks ago) (Permalink to this post)

  • Marc Sabatella
    Moderator

    emem said:

    I don't want to batch process images. Very rarely are the lighting situations and exposures the same for two images (unless you're shooting in a studio).

    The beauty of batch processing in a program like Pro 3, though, is that batch processing does *not* require you to apply the exact same settings to all images.  You can, for example, apply a basic WB adjustment to a set of 10 images shot under the same light, then apply a basic NR setting to a set of 20 images all shot at ISO 1600, then apply +0.5 EV exposure adjustment to a set of images that were underexposed by about that the same amount - and *still* go in and tweak each one fuirther. This is a huge time saver even when otherwise wanting to perform some customizations on a per image basis.  It also allows you to concentrate your effort on your highest rated images, then quick copy those settings to simialr but not-as-important images so you can have at least presentable "proofs" of them.

    Anyhow, perhaps you could be more specific about what changes for the worse you are seeing in 3.0.  Lack of icons - yes, I can see for some, this would be a step backwards.  It's the opposite for me - I much prefer text labels - but choice would indeed be nice.

    Posted On November 7, 2009 - 05:22 PM (2 weeks ago) (Permalink to this post)

  • Marc Sabatella
    Moderator

    scarefishcrow said:

    So please don't tell me I don't understand a product I have used for years

    I assume you are directing your comments at me.  I'd just observe that non-destructive editing for JPEG is a very new new thing.  It really doesn't matter how much prior experience you have with other more traditional types of editing software.  So I would encourage you to explore the new features before writing them off.{.P BTW, yes, I remember when BITNET and gopher both were first introduced.

    I have been using thse product for a single day and already find it is fatally flawed in the current  incarnation.

    Could you be more specific about which of the new features you are finding flawed?  And again, since nondestructive editing is a totally new paradigm for many people, don't assume that because you've used other programs, that you automatically assume how Develop mode works.  Don't expect that a day will be enough to fully appreciate the power of this new facility.

    If you don't understand some of the questions that I have seen in a number of threads that were OBVIOUSLY CLEAR and anyone familiar with the product should be able to answer then I don't understad why you are a moderator!

    For one thing, being a moderator doesn't require knowledge of the product - it requires knowledge of the forum, and tact in dealing with people who can occasionally become offensive.  But FWIW, if there is something you think is clear that I said I didn't understand, I do hope you will help out by explaining.  That's what these forums are for - users (such as myself) helping each other out.  I think you are confusing being forum moderator - just a volunteer "position" shared by several other users who have an interest in helping out here in the user forums - with someone who actually works for ACD, perhaps in "customer support".  Moderators do not work for ACD, nor as are customer support.  We're just here to keep the user forums running smoothly.

    Posted On November 7, 2009 - 05:34 PM (2 weeks ago) (Permalink to this post)

  • Toaster
    Member

    Marc Sabatella said:

    Toaster said:

    Also agree with emem, no way is this version 3 faster than 2.5 (lets not forget speed of use was ACDSee's USP). The program takes longer to open and is positively sluggish (almost as tardy as an Adobe app) on my 4 year old PC. To do simple edits on individual photos is now a time consuming cumbersome task

    I find 3.0 loads *much* faster on my system than 2.5 did (probably 5 times faster or so).  As for edits, can you describe which specific editing tasks you are finding sluggish?  I used 2.5 quite extensively, and find 3.0 to be *huge* improvement in all all respects.

     

     

    I have just done some rather unscientific speed tests with the two applications, ACDSee 3 is on a pc with a 3.2GHZ P4 and version 2.5 pro is on a Prescott 3.4ghz pc.

    Time taken for app to load from clicking icon:

    2.5 Pro =  3.73 secs

    3 pro    =  9    secs

     

    Time taken to do an identical crop on the same image and save:

    2.5 Pro =  6 secs

    3 Pro  =   16 sec

     

    I'll try and do a video screen cap to illustrate these times and upload on youtube.

     

    Posted On November 7, 2009 - 06:18 PM (2 weeks ago) (Permalink to this post)

  • Marc Sabatella
    Moderator

    I wonder if the difference in startup time relates to the folder yoi are starting up in, or the size or state of the database you are using?  Anyhow, not much else I can say about that except it's the other way around for me.

    But I'll be curious to see what you are referring to with crop.  One of the major advantages of the new Develop mode in pro 3 is that, for example, you don't need to ever hit Save.  And that you can easily copy settings from image to image, and other do operations in batches, and easily move directly from image to image while in Develop mode, allowing you to save *enormous* amounts of time when dealing with large numbers of images.

    Posted On November 7, 2009 - 09:24 PM (1 week ago) (Permalink to this post)

  • scarefishcrow
    Member

    Marc Sabatella said:

    scarefishcrow said:

    !

    For one thing, being a moderator doesn't require knowledge of the product - it requires knowledge of the forum, and tact in dealing with people who can occasionally become offensive.  But FWIW, if there is something you think is clear that I said I didn't understand, I do hope you will help out by explaining.  That's what these forums are for - users (such as myself) helping each other out.  I think you are confusing being forum moderator - just a volunteer "position" shared by several other users who have an interest in helping out here in the user forums - with someone who actually works for ACD, perhaps in "customer support".  Moderators do not work for ACD, nor as are customer support.  We're just here to keep the user forums running smoothly.

     You are correct, Marc, and please believe me I do understand the role of moderators in forums and I apologize for being so dogmatic in my statements and implying you could fix or change things.  I hope you will accept my apologies for expressing frustrations (which is really the problem) by directing them at you. 

    You score well on the tact scale, and I need to go back and read some of my own sermons about that in other forums!

    Having had considerable technical problems in getting the download to work did not help my frame of mind.

    After considering the situation more calmly, IMHO much of the frustration, including my own, can be traced to the magnitude of the changes that have been implemented, while not retaining some features (like icons and toolbars) that had become conerstones of many peoples way of working.  (Which is not always necessarily logical to others and not always the most efficient way to do things but  it happens to be "their" way). 

    It was the radicalness of the change in user interface that initially frustrated me as ACDSee has been an essential element of working with images on a daily basis. As someone that not only embraced digital imaging in its infancy, but became almost manic about it, I realized early on that the massive number of images I was generating created a need for some way to easily browse, if not "manage" them.  In a way, I have grown with ACDSee and actually rarely even find it necessary to use my other image editors for  all but the most difficult editing tasks. 

    I will conclue my "mea culpa" by simply saying that I still think that it would have been helpful for the company to have kept the ability to switch to a more "classic" mode for users that prefered that even if it might not be logical to others. 

    I hope that clarifies my comments.

     

     

    Posted On November 7, 2009 - 11:10 PM (1 week ago) (Permalink to this post)

  • Marc Sabatella
    Moderator

    Thanks for posting this!  Apology accepted, and I look forward to your continued contributions to these forums!

    Posted On November 8, 2009 - 06:45 PM (1 week ago) (Permalink to this post)

Subscribe to this topic via RSS

1 2

Reply »

You must log in to post.