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)

« Previous 1 2 3 Next »

noam
Focus Group

I usually hate this kind of argument threads, especially those about love/hate a product.

But for some reason I just can't help myself adding my "vote" to this thread... :-P

I am certainly no "fanboi" and I also have my share of criticism about ACDSee. Nonetheless, I purchased ACDSee 2.0 after trying the demo (as well as several other software programs). I was actually very surprised at the quality and versatility of the RAW Processing mode, especially the unique and effective Light EQ. For me, initially, the whole DAM thing was just a bonus, and the various destructive editing features (healing, framing etc.) and extensive batch capabilities were the icing on the cake.

Someone said above that there is no need for another Lightroom. I disagree. ACDSee Pro faces the challenge of providing a do-it-all workflow software for photographers admirably, and it does so with an amazing value ($130 before any coupons or specials!), considerably cheaper than Lightroom. While LR is highly regarded, it doesn't mean that there is no room for other players in this category. Moreover, ACDSee actually has some nice tricks in its sleeve that LR doesn't have. Each program has its advantages and disadvantages.

Sure, ACDSee's UI is still a little rough, but 3.0 is actually a significant step in the right direction IMHO.

The non-destructive/destructive mode duality is indeed confusing at first, and one does wonder why this duality needs to exist in the first place. After all, programs like LR and Lightzone are purely non-destructive. Well, I think that the reason is mainly technical. Supporting all current editing functionality in a non-destructive framework is much more complicated and costly in performance (P.S. I nearly died of old age trying to process an image in LZ). I think the current solution is a fairly nice compromise: Do 95% of your usual tweaking and processing of an image in a nice and swift non-destructive mode with a fixed optimized pipeline that contains all important operations and then some. Later, if you need to, perform specific operation on the image in the destructive mode.

Cheers

Noam

Posted On June 10, 2009 - 07:53 AM (5 months ago) (Permalink to this post)
Captured Exposure
Member

Hi,

Thought I would give my 2 cents worth. Today I trialled CaptureOne, DxO, Lightroom and Acdsee 3 beta.

I terms of ease of use I much prefer acdsee, it took to long to get the colours I was after and make the alteration in the other applications.

I like the way this software is heading and found it very easy to use and suits me to a tee. I only hope the price does not go up on release.

Posted On June 12, 2009 - 06:29 AM (5 months ago) (Permalink to this post)
older mann
Member

My first impression of the new approach was not very positive ...

I felt sort of lost.. having left the accustomed path..

It felt more like when my wife came home from the Hairdressers .. with a NEW hair style.. different clothes... and a shopping bag from a store I didn't know...

but after a while I got used to the changed optics ... and had discovered some of which could be considered an improvement ...

I feel I'll have to change my routine ... leave the path learnt ... and learn a new approach... (actually not a bad idea.. even if I'm 70years

still there is much I don't fully understand.. and I'm not sure if I'm doing it right.. I have a feeling I get lost in some dark alley... and grope for the light switch...

I'm sure I'll prevail ... slowly slowly

Posted On June 20, 2009 - 09:24 AM (5 months ago) (Permalink to this post)
NA
Inactive
Captured Exposure said:

...I trialled CaptureOne, DxO, Lightroom and Acdsee 3 beta.

My personal favourite when it comes to raw conversion is DxO Optics Pro - much better colours in the shadow areas than my second choice: Nikon Capture NX 2.

Bottom of the list: ACDSee. Here's a clip showing why:

Attached Image:

Notice the blotchy sky in the ACDSee version. Also DxO Optics Pro does a better job of handling chromatic aberrations (the blue and purple outlines. In both applications all options re. processing were set to "no action".

You'll notice that the clip says "2.5". Pro 2.5 and 3.0 both crashed from the effort of saving to a tiff, the resulting tiff from Pro 3.0 not readable, hence "2.5".

Is DxO Optics Pro a better imaging application than Pro 3?

In terms of raw conversion it would certainly seem to be the case.

But anyone finding that the can do all the processing they need within Pro 3.0 will like conclude that overall Pro 3.0 is the better choice.

Dxo Optics Pro is more limited in its scope and will likely require you to employ other imaging software in addition.
Attached Files
1. acdsee25raw.JPG
Posted On June 20, 2009 - 01:58 PM (5 months ago) (Permalink to this post)
Picture Man Photography
Member

chromatic aberrations

Found this topic by searching the tag dxo since nothing else would work.

I went to the DxO web site, downloaded the trial versions (I'll install later) and then proceed to look through their web site. I found a page where they say what cameras they support. There is no support for the 4/3 format. I suspect the reason why is because the 4/3 format is so much better then any of the other camera manufactures' feeble attempt at duplicating the 35mm film process. The 4/3 format (Olympus, Kodak, Panasonic, and a slew of others handles the chromatic aberrations automatically. In other words, there is no chromatic aberrations.

I'm thinking that if you switch your equipment to one of the 4/3 brands, you'll be much happier with the RAW processing in ACD Pro 3. Actually, I think you'll find the same thing I have found that your imaging/photography will improve significantly; plus you won't have to deal with the chromatic aberrations ever again.

Posted On June 20, 2009 - 04:20 PM (5 months ago) (Permalink to this post)
Picture Man Photography
Member

photomarketingusa said:

chromatic aberrations

By the way, I'm pushing 66 so that no one thinks I don't know what I'm speaking about. I've been doing photography for over 55-years. I was weaned on the 35 mm and 120 format cameras and have some really nice Canon film cameras in my tool box. I also have a number of Olympus digital cameras in that same tool box including a DSLR. For my next Olympus camera, I'll be leap frogging about 3 generations and can't wait.

Posted On June 20, 2009 - 04:24 PM (5 months ago) (Permalink to this post)
NA
Inactive

photomarketingusa said:

I suspect the reason why is because the 4/3 format is so much better then any of the other camera manufactures' feeble attempt at duplicating the 35mm film process.

If that was true I'd expect 4/3 cameras to dominate the DxOMark Sensor tests, to be found at:

http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/eng/DxOMark-Sensor

They do not!

photomarketingusa said:

I'm thinking that if you switch your equipment to one of the 4/3 brands, you'll be much happier with the RAW processing in ACD Pro 3.

To me that would seem like the tail wagging the dog.

Posted On June 20, 2009 - 09:05 PM (5 months ago) (Permalink to this post)
Picture Man Photography
Member

lmogens said:

photomarketingusa said:

I suspect the reason why is because the 4/3 format is so much better then any of the other camera manufactures' feeble attempt at duplicating the 35mm film process.

If that was true I'd expect 4/3 cameras to dominate the DxOMark Sensor tests, to be found at:

http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/eng/DxOMark-Sensor

They do not!

I've read many a report attempting to compare the 4/3 format behavior based on the sensor size to that of the 35 mm equivalents also based on sensor size.

The problem here is like attempting to compare an M40 tank to a Sherman tank. Impossible although they are both tanks. Or another comparison between a Howitzer and a 44-caliber pistol. Again, both shoot a shell but their differences end there because there is no way to compare all the other differences as each has its own place.

The 4/3 format technology was brought forth by Olympus only a few years ago. They are up against an entrenchment of folks who think the 35 mm standard is the one to follow. They are also up against scientists who think bigger is better for the sensor size.

Now, if you compare a Canon sensor to a Nikon sensor, that would be a fair comparison because you are comparing apples to apples, rather then apples to grapes.

Olympus stood in its 4/3 field, alone, for a few years. Within the last two years, several other manufacturers have taken note of what the features for the 4/3 provide, including low battery life, and elimination of the chromatic aberrations. There are nuances, of course, in that the 33 mm format lenses will not work with the 4/3 format camera bodies/sensors. Another interesting oddity is that you don't need to build into the 4/3 lenses all that junk that needs to be built into the 35 mm format lenses - like image stability shift. All that and more are in the electronics within the camera.

Give the 4/3 format technology time and you'll see the big boys - Canon, Nikon, Sony - switching to the 4/3 format because 4/3 is designed for digital photography from the ground up.

Posted On June 20, 2009 - 09:37 PM (5 months ago) (Permalink to this post)
Picture Man Photography
Member

Oops, what I meant by "low battery life" is to mean the batteries last much longer because the voltage/amperage requirements are much lower to operate the electronics.

Posted On June 20, 2009 - 09:40 PM (5 months ago) (Permalink to this post)
BrettB
Member

Imogens said

Is DxO Optics Pro a better imaging application than Pro 3?

I can't comment on that, although I use Capture One and have used Canon's DPP. I have recently started using ACDsee Pro 2.5 as I have found I can get a more effective dynamic range out of the processing (almost as much as using HDR with more 'realistic' results).

I have not noticed a problem with chromatic aberration. I will try some files to compare with these and Pro 3, but in making these comparisons I have always found it difficult to make sure I am not creating a problem by processing differently.

In Imogens' example, for instance, I would expect the depth of blue in the ACDSee example to create more noise and aberration.

Posted On June 21, 2009 - 12:01 PM (5 months ago) (Permalink to this post)
BrettB
Member

Having tried a file in Capture One, DPP, ACDSee 2.5 and 3.0 I found that Capture One gave the least fringing and colour aberration (bare branches against the sky), and the initial display of the image was more neutral. The ACDSee images were similar to each other and started off more contrasty.

DPP gave some fringing and was less flexible in balancing the overall picture - a lot of fine work with the curves needed.

None were as extreme as Imogens' example and none produced any aberration in the sky.

The real advantage of ACDSee was the bringing out the shadow detail using the Light EQ - the dynamic range possible is exceptional.

I think that playing with the initial recipe may have some effect on the colour fringing, but I do think it's something the developers could be investigating.

From my point of view ACDSee processing has advantages as I mainly work in Black & White and the range I get from the files suits my purpose.

(I use Silver Efex Pro for the B&W conversion so I can't rely on ACDSee alone as it doesn't accept Photoshop compatible plug-ins.)

Posted On June 21, 2009 - 07:52 PM (5 months ago) (Permalink to this post)
r10k
Member

I just tried the v3 beta, and coming from Pro 1, I expected it to be a clunky disaster based on a few of the comments in this thread. But, it's almost exactly the same, except for being an improvement in pretty much every way. I don't get what the big deal is. It's just as light, and the UI hasn't changed that much at all.

All I can say is: sold. (but please, an upgrade deal for Pro 1 users please! :))

On a side note: this forum really is borderline unusable with the Opera browser.

Posted On June 24, 2009 - 05:58 AM (4 months ago) (Permalink to this post)
Melanie Wood
Community Manager

r10k said:

I just tried the v3 beta, and coming from Pro 1, I expected it to be a clunky disaster based on a few of the comments in this thread. But, it's almost exactly the same, except for being an improvement in pretty much every way. I don't get what the big deal is. It's just as light, and the UI hasn't changed that much at all.

All I can say is: sold. (but please, an upgrade deal for Pro 1 users please! :))

On a side note: this forum really is borderline unusable with the Opera browser.

Glad you're pleased with Pro 3 and yes, upgrade pricing will apply.

About the forums, I have Opera 9.64 and the forums look the way they do in any other browser.

-Melanie

Posted On June 24, 2009 - 05:30 PM (4 months ago) (Permalink to this post)
Derzog
Member

OK, I've just had a play with Lightroom and now I see where all this new direction is coming from. Clearly you are copying that application as far as your legal advice will allow.

Look, Lightroom is a nice app and very successful in the market place, but that doesn't mean ACDSee will sell more units by imitating it.

- Firstly, you can't do it as well as Adobe because that would infringe their copyright.

- Secondly, copying someone else's scheme means that you lose your own character and unique place in the market and you wreck what was good about your own product in the first place.

- Thirdly, there are plenty of short comings with Lightroom, it's perfectly possible to produce a better work flow solution than that.

In my opinion you should follow your own direction, not copy the execrable Adobe. I can tell you what is required, but first you need to drop this imitation policy.

Posted On June 30, 2009 - 12:17 PM (4 months ago) (Permalink to this post)
r10k
Member

Derzog, what's with the negative attitude? You sound silly as someone who, "just had a play with Lightroom" and yet is able to advise Acdsee on the best course to take in development. I'll speak for myself by saying- you don't speak for me, so quit harping on as if you do. There are lots of other options out there, so if you don't like the direction Acdsee are taking, find something that matches what you're looking for. No one has a gun to your head, forcing you to change Acdsee or die. This, "My way or the highway" attitude singles you out as a seriously unprofessional character.

Is the program perfect? No. Is any program? Of course not. You should get used to that fact. Developers copy each other and try and go with the popular choice, because sometimes that's how they stay in business (assuming you're correct that Acdsee V3 is a Lightroom copy). If you want to blaze a path a set a new standard for everyone else to follow, scratch up on those good ol' programming skills and write something yourself. What do you not do however is jump onto a beta forum and whine about the good ol' days and start dictating to the company how they should take your precious advice. That's the kind of action I'd expect from an immature teenager.

If you are a professional, start acting like one. It's cool you put forward your opinion (and I personally have no issue with people reminding Acdsee to keep it simple), but leave it at that, if that's all you have to offer.

Posted On July 1, 2009 - 05:33 AM (4 months ago) (Permalink to this post)
Picture Man Photography
Member

Time for me to jump in here. At first I was unsure whether I would like or dislike the ver 3 make over. I voiced my opinion in that regard. Then, after having played with it - oops - no, used it in all my editing, I find it very easy to use, complimentary to what I've been looking for in the way of processing work flow, and just darn right a very good improvement. Will I go back to Ver 2? No, because I've learned Ver 3 and Ver 2 is old school.

Do I like any of the Adobe products? Sure but not to where they bust my budget.

There is no panacea for what we all need in our tool boxes. Thus, we'll always have many different tools which work better then some and less then others, depending on our needs for that particular work flow. Just as a painter has many different brushes or a carpenter has many different hammers or the chef with many different pans and pots.

Posted On July 1, 2009 - 02:18 PM (4 months ago) (Permalink to this post)
r10k
Member

Well said, photomarketingusa.

Posted On July 1, 2009 - 03:44 PM (4 months ago) (Permalink to this post)
Derzog
Member

r10k, Fanboi for ACDSee Systems.

You just keep churning out those second rate photos, fanboi, doesn't worry me.

Posted On July 2, 2009 - 02:03 PM (4 months ago) (Permalink to this post)
r10k
Member

Wow, nice retort. Let me write that down so I can earn some respect on teh intarwebs, because that's like, amazing stuff.

Posted On July 2, 2009 - 02:18 PM (4 months ago) (Permalink to this post)
Melanie Wood
Community Manager

Dezog, please let's try to remain civil. All opinions are welcome here and there's no need for name calling.

-Melanie

Posted On July 2, 2009 - 04:10 PM (4 months ago) (Permalink to this post)