ACDSee Pro 3 Beta - General Discussion

Back to Topic Overview Post New Reply

V3 is a dud! (and other points of view)

[closed] (53 posts)

Started by Derzog
Started on May 28, 2009 - 02:22 PM (5 months ago)
Latest reply from Picture Man Photography (2 months ago)

1 2 3 Next »

Derzog
Member

You are not going to like hearing this, but in my opinion you are going the wrong way. You have produced a product that is chock full of gimmicks, buttons and colours. It is gaudy, confusing and inefficient. I HATE IT!

What WAS great about ACDSee Pro was that it was SIMPLE! Photoshop is a pain in the arse to deal with and ACDSee Pro 8 just ran rings around it by providing an efficient, intuitive interface, and tools that worked well. The truth is that you really didn't need to alter it at all, and there was little you could add that was needed.

It looks to me like management have decided that major upgrades must be produced regularly to boost the revenue stream whether they are needed or not, and the user must be presented with something different, just to justify the upgrade cost. Unnecessary new features and menus must also be rammed down the user's throat for the same reason.

The best products are designed and built by people who have a dream of a product, not people who have a dream about money. Unfortunately it would appear that your company has gone from the one to the other. It's too late for you guys to stop v3, but I won't be using it. If you want me to buy another ACDSee Pro you need to go back to v8 and keep it simple.

The only things missing from v2.5 are really useable, non destructive RAW edits. You MUST match the manufacturer's RAW editing software. If you can't there is no point in pretending to offer it. I want exposure, white balance, dynamic range processing etc that really works. I also want built in lens profiles so that I don't have to set the lens correction parameters myself. Canon & Nikon offer this stuff, and it works. I will continue to use their products for RAW processing until someone can do it better than them.

Posted On May 28, 2009 - 02:22 PM (5 months ago) (Permalink to this post)
Marc Sabatella
Moderator

I'm sorry you feel that way. But I would just like to add that I disagree 100% with virtually everything you say here. I don't work for ACD, so I have nothing invested in this personally, but to my eyes, Pro 3 is exactly the *right* direction for ACDSee to be moving: a tool that provides non-destructive editing facilities for all formats, not just RAW. With the existence of applications like Lightroom, Aperture, and Lightzone that do this, I don't think a program like the original Pro would have much appeal at all in today's market - it is far too primitive and slow. From where I sit, 3.0 is not about gimmicks - it's about meeting the needs and desires of photographers. The improvements from classic ACDSee to Pro, from Pro to Pro 2, and then to 2.5, and now to 3.0 are *exactly* the sort of things that I as a photographer have been wishing for all along. Of course, not all photographers have the same needs and desires, so it doesn't surprise me that that some would not find these features useful, but I do think you need to consider the possibiltiy that others really do value these things. If they didn't, people wouldn't be buying Lightroom.

As for matching the camera manufacturer's RAW processing, yeah, I know that's important to some, so I do support that idea in principle, at least as an option. I actually prefer software try to get the *best* possible results, not match the quirks of some other software. But more improtantly than how the defaults happen to come out, I want tools that allow me to easily get the results *I* want, not necessarily the results that someone else tells me I should wnt. Sure, I want the defaults to be reasonable, in case I don't feel like messing with them, but I certainly don't think that what the camera might have produced represents the One True Standard for how an image should look.

Posted On May 28, 2009 - 08:56 PM (5 months ago) (Permalink to this post)
psphoto
Member

My initial reaction was similar to Derzog's--who needs another Lightroom. When a program is as useful and familiar as ACDSee, seeing a changed version is like having your wife come home from plastic surgery. But it is worth spending an hour or two to get familiar with the new format. I now like it very much, though I don't yet understand it all.

I'm not clear on why there are two process programs. What is the practical difference between develop and edit, which perform similar tasks? I will follow the forums in hope of learning more.

Posted On May 28, 2009 - 10:16 PM (5 months ago) (Permalink to this post)
Chippy
Moderator

psphoto said:

I'm not clear on why there are two process programs. What is the practical difference between develop and edit, which perform similar tasks? I will follow the forums in hope of learning more.

Glad you are liking the new version,and yes, it will take some learning to find out where everything is located in the interface.

To find out more about the Develop and Edit modes,just open Help, from the toolbar,or search the forum for more information.

Also from the help file

"Now in Pro 3, you can take any file format (RAW, JPEG), and perform all of your non-destructive developing in Process mode."

"Perform all image adjustments in Process mode. The Process mode has two panes: Develop and Edit. Use the Develop pane for non-destructive editing on RAW, JPEG and other supported file types. Use tools in Develop to adjust an image's exposure, white balance, color profile, sharpen, and much more. Use Edit to fine tune your image using pixel-based editing tools such as red eye removal."

Posted On May 28, 2009 - 10:42 PM (5 months ago) (Permalink to this post)
tve1964
Member

I too disagree strongly on this negative comment about Pro3 (although I understand it).

Whether one likes this Pro3 or doesn't is obviously a matter of personal opinion and there is nothing wrong about having this opinion and expressing it. But there are a couple of points that are not really a matter of opinion but rather expressed as very strong statements which I'd like to argue against: the fact that the company is only interested in money is the first one.

I think as a user, it is very positive (in a long term perspective) that my supplier of choice makes decisions that will allow it to make money and be profitable. I doubt the staff works for free and how would the product continue to evolve if there aren't any new users and if existing ones pay $139 once in a lifetime? Pro2 is one of the apps I use most and if I pay a fraction of that every year for a decent upgrade, I think this is a win/win. Just have a look at the mobile phone costs most of us pay every month; how much money is it costing us? For those who use less frequently this kind of software, there are free solutions out there, and if you don't want to upgrade, you don't have to. So how could it be better? Free choice with alternatives.

2) Change: I know change is difficult to accept for a lot of people and for others they think that something is better just because it is new. I personnally think that balance is what it's all about. In case of Pro 3 I think ACDSee has done extremely well in this regard. YEs, the UI changed (and goes in a direction set by competition), but just spend a bit of time and you'll quickly find out thatan existing user rapidly understands it and that, in reality, the changes are evolutionary and not revolutionary. Well done ACDSee!

I hope existing users can refrain from throwing the baby with the bath water and use Pro3 for some little while before commenting too strongly (see another post above along this line). I hope they can also understand that a product must appeal to new users too otherwise it will disappear eventually which is not good.

My only disappointment is that, in new version, details that are no big deals are seldom addressed because they don't really make big marketing headlines and hence don't help sell more. For instance, many of us have asked for some minor improvements in the renaming functionality at import (search and replace for instance) and it is not included. However since I am working in the SW industry, I know the difficulty of getting everything that everyone wishes into new versions so this is a minor complaint. I do think though that listening well to even minor user request is in the long run a very profitable strategy because it builds very strong customer loyalty, which is a strong asset for a software company.

Posted On May 29, 2009 - 07:49 AM (5 months ago) (Permalink to this post)
Marc Sabatella
Moderator

psphoto said:

I'm not clear on why there are two process programs. What is the practical difference between develop and edit, which perform similar tasks? I will follow the forums in hope of learning more.

Here's my cut at a short explanation:

Edit mode works the way it always has. Make changes, when done, hit Save to overwrite your original or Save As to make a copy.

Develop works "non-destructively". The changes you make there can be reversed or updated at any time and do not destroy the original data. You don't even have to "save" the changes you make here - simply hitting "Done* automatically applies your changes while preserving the original image.

Now, since 2.5 added a "save originals" feature to Edit mode, it might seems there is little distinction. But there is very big one. With 2.5's Edit mode (and I guess 3.0 too), you can have ACDSee preserve your original for you when. But if you then want to revisit you edits, you have to start over again with either the edited or original version. You can't simply go back to the editor and find all your settings exactly where you left them, thus allowing you to leave some settings alone while fiddling wih others. Develop mode does exactly that, though - re-enteting Develop mode on an already-developed image brings it back with all settings exactly where you left them the previous time you worked on that file, and you can pick right up where you left off. It's as if you had never left.

Develop mode also gives you all sorts of cool batch operations - like the ability to copy settings from one file to a group of others. And then still go in to each file after applying those copied setting to tweak them further individually if you like.

Anyhow, another aside for the OP: I apologize if my tone came off as argumentative. I do understand that different people have different needs, and if the sort of improvements found in Pro 3 don't appeal to you personally, that's fine by me. I just take issue with the implication that *no one* would want these things, or that ACD had any motivation other than wanting to serve the needs of the many photographers who *do* want these things. Do they want to make a profit? Of course - so does everyone. And as far as I can tell, they are going about it exactly the right way: by producing products that serve the needs of a lot of people.

Posted On May 29, 2009 - 09:55 PM (5 months ago) (Permalink to this post)
wotan_odyn
Moderator

Nope, I don't get it. Why have some (most) features from Develop doubled in Edit while using entirely different GUI for the same thing.

While testing I got used to Processing quite fast (having processed most my images from RAW in 2.5). But when I clicked to the Edit tab, I went WTF 0_0

Just a (way too) long colmun of text to read with no visual aid (icons or something) to help me. It looks like the Process and Edit part of the program were developed seperately by two different teams and just put together. And I have a feeling the guy who created Effects in 2.5 was in charge of Edit in 3.0 (long colmun of text is the hint).

Posted On May 30, 2009 - 12:59 PM (5 months ago) (Permalink to this post)
Picture Man Photography
Member

It seems to me that screen resolution has a lot to do with whether you like the new product or feel challenged because of it. If you have a low screen resolution, 800x600 or smaller, the side bar menus are a chore for you.

Also, generally speaking, people don't like change which challenges preconceived notions about intuitive assumptions. Yes, there are some issues with 3.0. However, once a person finds what they are seeking, reverting to the old structures in 2.5 will be difficult at best - such as the comparison for the Model T or Mode A Ford and the new Fusion Hybrid - simple to complex.

Intuitively, 3.0 is a better interface if that is the way you do your work-flow. For those of us that do not use the traditional work-flow methods, we will have our challenges with 3.0, at least until we learn to do it right I have challenges with the 3.0 interface because it is requiring that I do more mouse clicks then necessary to get to the functions I use most. 2.5 and earlier versions allowed me to create custom tool bars. This beta version of 3.0 does not, and that is a challenge I have when editing large libraries of images. For me, I would like to see 3.0 offering the ability to customize further then what it does based on what I am use to doing in 2.5 and earlier versions. That premise may go away as soon as I fully understand all the nuances of 3.0 and, eventually, find better ways to process large quantities of images.

To those who tend to chop down the first release of the Beta version, I suggest you be patient and learn how the new tool behaves. If you do not like it, then you have the choice of using what you are happy with, even if over time it becomes a vintage tool.

Posted On May 31, 2009 - 04:55 AM (5 months ago) (Permalink to this post)
andrew.james.heard
Member

My use of ACDSee Pro primarily revolves around the “manage” set of features, rather than editing/ processing features. Most of the pro 3 beta discussion seems to revolving around the deveop/ edit features. After using beta Pro 3 for a while I can see little if any substantial change in “manage” features over what 2.5 was providing. I have over 1,000 keywords, and can see no change or improvement in keyword/ property/ meta-data management from 2.5. As tve1964 above has said, there are a heap of small improvements that could have been made for little programming time (I'm a programmer too). The master keyword edit window is still a small fixed size, still tedious to use, still can’t rename or delete keywords that are currently assigned etc. I’ve resorted to writing my own application to manage keywords then paste composed keyword list into the “ctrl+k” keyword textbox. Categories are still extremely slow if a large number are created so I more or less gave up using categories as keywords essentially serve the same purpose but without hierarchy. Although I was eagerly waiting for the beta to see whether features I heavily use had been improved or bugs fixed, unfortunately I can’t see much or any reason to upgrade when the final release comes out. The help file has a page “What’s new in pro 3” but there is very little mentioned as changed in manage mode. I see the same database backend is being used. It will be interesting to see whether its stability has been improved.

Posted On May 31, 2009 - 10:49 PM (5 months ago) (Permalink to this post)
wotan_odyn
Moderator

"To those who tend to chop down the first release of the Beta version, I suggest you be patient and learn how the new tool behaves. If you do not like it, then you have the choice of using what you are happy with, even if over time it becomes a vintage tool."

Well I've been making suggestions, feature requests, ... all the time. I kind of believe it's my duty to chop down BETAs. I believe that's what beta testing is all about. To test new features, find new bugs, give 'like/no like' feedback to developers.

To me most new features are 'like very much', some gui inconsistencies are 'minor not like' but will mention them so they get fixed by the time final products come out. But huge differences between Process and Edit mode are a 'major not like' to me so I hope it's just work in progress.

Posted On June 1, 2009 - 09:20 AM (5 months ago) (Permalink to this post)
Marc Sabatella
Moderator

wotan_odyn said:

Nope, I don't get it. Why have some (most) features from Develop doubled in Edit while using entirely different GUI for the same thing.

The explanation that was given earlier is that it is hoped one can do most of what one ants from Develop. But if you do need to go to Edit mode to do something - heal/clone or whatever - and then realize you forgot to crop or do something else that could have been done in Develop mode, they didn't want to force you to switch back to Develop mode to accomplish this, since that would mean either throwing away your changes made in Edit mode or else explictly saving them first.

So the intended workflow is, do everything you can in Develop, and then if there is something else you need to do, go ahead and switch to Edit to do that. If after switching to Edit you need to do something else that could have been done in develop mode, its easier to just do it in Edit rather than switch back, so they didn't bother removing the duplicated tools. To me, that sort of make sense, but to the extent that none of this is obvious, I'd say it is going to be confusing at first, and could probably be designed differently.

Just a (way too) long colmun of text to read with no visual aid (icons or something) to help me. It looks like the Process and Edit part of the program were developed seperately by two different teams and just put together.

Considering that Edit comes from the non-Pro versions and has been around quite a while but Develop is clearly based on RAW Processing from Pro which has only been around a few years, I'm guessing you are right!

BTW, Andrew: I would say your assessment looks to be on the money. Pro 3 - at least what we are seeing of it in this beta - is almost entirely about improvements to the imge processing workflow. The cataloging features look to be largely unchanged. I have no idea what improvements (if any) are planned between now and release, but my hope would be to see at least the most obvious bugs fixed, maybe a few highly-requested enhancements added too, but then see Pro 4 really focus on *serious* improvements to cataloging workflow in the same way that Pro 3 focused on image processing workflow.

Posted On June 1, 2009 - 05:16 PM (5 months ago) (Permalink to this post)
wotan_odyn
Moderator

Marc Sabatella said:

So the intended workflow is, do everything you can in Develop, and then if there is something else you need to do, go ahead and switch to Edit to do that. If after switching to Edit you need to do something else that could have been done in develop mode, its easier to just do it in Edit rather than switch back, so they didn't bother removing the duplicated tools. To me, that sort of make sense, but to the extent that none of this is obvious, I'd say it is going to be confusing at first, and could probably be designed differently.

Well, it does make sense. It's quite the same as my workflow before - first RAW processing then editing with nonreversable tools. Only it can be made with any image type. And now that I think about it I guess jumping back and forth between Process and Edit would be confusing while having destructive and nondestructive tools in the same part of program would be dangerous (one could quickly forget which tools not to touch).

Still, the main point of my rant was why the GUI for the same tool (once in process and once in edit) is often different (was in 2.5 too). And the user experience in the two parts of program is quite different too.

But I guess the most confusing thing for me is Rotate vs. Straighten. It's the same thing?

Posted On June 1, 2009 - 09:52 PM (5 months ago) (Permalink to this post)
btray
Member

I completely agree with original poster: version 3 is a disaster similar to Vista. Too many not needed changes. It's always been very intuitive and easy to use program. This is how I know it since many years ago. Not anymore. v3 is just ... a freak. Please, pardon my French, guys. But you are going in wrong direction.

I have both, LR2 and ACDsee 2.5. Never used LR2, because to my taste it is (sorry, WAS) overloaded. But now I see LR2 as an example of elegancy. I can't even discuss what specifically is wrong with v3, because everything (I mean it) is wrong. It is maybe me, but overall look and feel causes idiosyncrasy, preventing from trying.

I hope ACDSee's Product Managers are reading these forums.

Posted On June 2, 2009 - 01:55 AM (5 months ago) (Permalink to this post)
Derzog
Member

Well btray can see it, but as for the rest of you fanbois: you can keep it!

Non destructive edits should be the go for ALL editing tasks. In an ideal product you should be able to produce a jpg from a whole sequence of reversible tasks all the way from RAW. Unfortunately ACDSee Pro 3 cannot do that. It can't even get exposure and white balance adjustments right so there is no point using it!!!

If you can't get it right you might as well drop the whole RAW pretence and stay where you are. ACDSee is (or was), the best viewing program, it was also the best format conversion program and was handy for destructive edits like rotate, red eye and effects. This is where it's strength lay, not in RAW processing.

I'm gonna continue to use v2.5 for these features and I will continue to use ViewNX and DPP for my RAW developing tasks. If you fanbois want to produce sub-standard pics with bad colour, exposure and too many mouse clicks, that's your call. I'm shooting for realism and efficiency.

Posted On June 2, 2009 - 07:37 AM (5 months ago) (Permalink to this post)
wotan_odyn
Moderator

"Non destructive edits should be the go for ALL editing tasks. In an ideal product you should be able to produce a jpg from a whole sequence of reversible tasks all the way from RAW."

I'd love that but I don't think it's possible. It'd just require too much processing for each change (since all the previous changes should be taken into account too).

Otherwise I like ACDSee's RAW processing. Had some nice tricks in the sleeve in 2.5 and improved on them in 3.0.

Posted On June 2, 2009 - 11:53 AM (5 months ago) (Permalink to this post)
sales@scalesusa.com
Member

I use lightroom, and really don't need a clone. I really liked ver 2.5 for its easy use, but it does have a lack of features.

I'm still learning to use the beta, but the cr2 files I tried to edit were hosed and will no longer open, I'll have to take some more test photos to see if it repeats, I don't want to lose my good ones.

I'd really like to have all the commonly used tools close at hand in the develop module, but didn't find a sharpen tool, which is always required when editing raw images. Same with noise.

I also found that I when I clicked on a box like the slider for exposure, the slider jumped to where I clicked. Having to put the mouse pointer exactly on that small point is difficult at best when trying to rapidly adjust a photo.

I certainly would not call it a dud, but it has a lot of tweaking needed to make it easier to use, and damaging photo files is a concern. I opened the files successfully in lightroom, but now in ACDSee, it just initially shows the jpeg and then a white screen with a source file unrecognized. Photos that I did not edit are fine in raw format.

I need to use it for a while as well, anything new has a learning curve, I need to discover how it was intended to be used and stop my plodding around just trying tools.

Posted On June 3, 2009 - 01:35 AM (5 months ago) (Permalink to this post)
NA
Inactive

It is worth noting that one major difference between the "Develop" and "Edit" modes is that in the latter you can apply a number of alterations selectively, e.g. lightning, colour, sharpening, wheras in "Develop" mode changes are applied globally.

This is a mirror image of Nikon Capture NX 2 with its "Develop" and "Adjust" modes. Other imaging applications may do likewise.

Posted On June 3, 2009 - 03:56 PM (5 months ago) (Permalink to this post)
fonebone
Member

lmogens said:

It is worth noting that one major difference between the "Develop" and "Edit" modes is that in the latter you can apply a number of alterations selectively, e.g. lightning, colour, sharpening, wheras in "Develop" mode changes are applied globally.

This is a mirror image of Nikon Capture NX 2 with its "Develop" and "Adjust" modes. Other imaging applications may do likewise.

....and this is really a strength that was added to Pro3, I love it!

but, risking to repeat myself, the newly introduced need to switch between the mode manage, view and process, Ithin k is unnecessary and is seen by me as a weakness in Pro3 compared to earlier versions.

Posted On June 3, 2009 - 05:18 PM (5 months ago) (Permalink to this post)
Marc Sabatella
Moderator

It should go without saying that not all tools are going to be what all people want. I have no use for a mitre saw, but I'm not going to criticize companies for producing them, because I recognize they serve an important function for those who use such thing. Similarly, some might not have a need for tools like Pro 3, and that's fine too. But I don't see the need to criticize a company for producing tools that are useful to those of us who *do* want such tools. Nor do I see a need to insult those who do want these kinds of tools.

As for getting exposure and white balance "right", can you post a specific image and describe a specific problem you are having? I am not seeing any particular issues with adjusting exposure or white balance.

Posted On June 4, 2009 - 03:22 PM (5 months ago) (Permalink to this post)
sales@scalesusa.com
Member

I spent a few more minutes this morning with a couple of 5D II raw images. Once again, it did something that caused me to lose one of the images when I tried to access the edit mode. The other one edited fine with no problems.

One feature that lightroom has, is that you can stretch the side bar, and the sliders stretch with it so you have much finer control. We can stretch the sidebar, but the sliders do not stretch so we don't gain finer control.

It also works very slowly compared to lightroom. I have a fast pc I'm using, but not superfast. (Dell XPS 420 quad Core). I'll try installing it on my image editing machine, a 64 bit i7 with 12 GB, and raid 0 and see how the speed improves.

I have used it 3 times now less than 2 hours total, and already I like it a lot more. Knowing how to use lightroom really helps, since the interface is similar and most of the edit functions are similar as well.

I prefer the windows file tree to the lightroom file management arrangement, but this is likely because I have not entered proper key words in my thousands of photos to allow them to be searched by key word.

I'll keep on trying to find a hour each day. I also want to be able to determine how I managed to hose image files. I don't know if the files are actually damaged, or if the edit information related to the file is corrupted. I did a total uninstall, deleted all the Pro directories including database and re-installed, but the files still will not read in pro 3 or in pro 2.5. The open and edit in Lightroom just fine.

Posted On June 4, 2009 - 04:18 PM (5 months ago) (Permalink to this post)