ACDSee Pro 2 and 2.5

Back to Topic Overview Post New Reply

where can i download 2.5 - because i hate 3.0

(13 posts)

Started by greyalofus
Started on October 28, 2009 - 10:29 PM (3 weeks ago)
Latest reply from Marc Sabatella (2 weeks ago)

greyalofus
Member

right at the time 3.0 came out - i had a hard drive failure - so in bringing things back up - acdsee of course, is first on my list. BUT i noticed the upgrade...so i bought it - can't stand it - can't find my old 2.5 installation...wahhhh can anyone help?

Posted On October 28, 2009 - 10:29 PM (3 weeks ago) (Permalink to this post)
don_1953
Member

Curious to know why you can't stand it, I'm wanting to upgrade to Windows 7 and I think that 3.0 could be the only one compatible..... I'm a 2.5 user

Posted On October 29, 2009 - 01:51 AM (3 weeks ago) (Permalink to this post)
LV_Bill
Member

Greyalofus - You can get downloads from the link below:

http://acdsystems.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/acdsystems.cfg/php/enduser/std_adp.php?p_faqid=1&p_created=1214418025&p_sid=WcZ_WXIj&p_accessibility=0&p_redirect=&p_lva=1111&p_sp=cF9zcmNoPTEmcF9zb3J0X2J5PSZwX2dyaWRzb3J0PSZwX3Jvd19jbnQ9MjYsMjYmcF9wcm9kcz04JnBfY2F0cz0mcF9wdj0xLjgmcF9jdj0mcF9zZWFyY2hfdHlwZT1hbnN3ZXJzLnNlYXJjaF9ubCZwX3BhZ2U9MSZwX3NlYXJjaF90ZXh0PWRvd25sb2FkIDIuMA

Don_1953 - My testing shows that both Pro 2.5 and Pro3 run on Windows 7 (x32 Build 7100). There is a discussion in another thread about a possible search issue with Win7. I haven't seen that problem myself.

Posted On October 29, 2009 - 04:41 PM (3 weeks ago) (Permalink to this post)
Marc Sabatella
Moderator

I would suggest spending more time with 3.0 though. The interface is different, and change can be hard at first, but it really does represent a huge improvement in virtually every way, except perhaps in that the color scheme is no longer customizable, so if you happen to dislike the one chosen, that can be hard to deal with. I much prefer the 3.0 color scheme over that of any other similar product I've ever used, but recognize that not everyone likes it. But when it comes to actual functionality. the cataloging has basically not changed at all, but the new Develop mode is just orders of magnitude beyond what had ever been offered before.

Posted On October 30, 2009 - 03:07 AM (3 weeks ago) (Permalink to this post)
safetysteve
Member

Unfortunately the cataloguing has lost several of its best features. ACDSee started life as a catalogue programme (I still use it for my cataloguing vector clipart as well as photos) and has moved into head-on competition with Lightroom and Photoshop. ACDSee 2.5 + Lightroom wins against ACDSee 3 alone, but the opinions of people with both these programs are a minority.

I can understand why ACDSee ignored the (considerable) feedback about the downgraded cataogue function in order to move more squarely into the photo-editing market. Cataloguing graphics is pretty geeky really, let's face it!

Posted On October 30, 2009 - 09:01 AM (3 weeks ago) (Permalink to this post)
BrettB
Member

the cataloging has basically not changed at all

the cataloguing has lost several of its best features

I haven't noticed any changes in the cataloguing - or perhaps they're things I didn't use. I was hoping that development in 3.0 would include improvements in the cataloguing, but in truth I don't know what they would be.

Perhaps I'm not geeky enough ;-)

Seriously, though, as it stands it is the cataloguing that keeps me with ACDSee and the the improvements in the processing are a bonus that have improved my workflow - I still use Photoshop along side it but have stopped using Capture One for RAW processing.

Steve, could you explain the features that have been lost in cataloguing?

If they're useful it's worth making feelings known to the development team - I for one would be very concerned if the cataloguing were downgraded or did not keep up.

Posted On October 30, 2009 - 10:01 AM (3 weeks ago) (Permalink to this post)
brufair
Member

Can someone please explain, in an easy and concise way, what is going on under the hood with the extra "organize" and "develop" folders that appear everywhere. What is stored there and what do they do...?

I am an old-school guy that has no problem understanding the difference between saving the original file versus saving over it, versus saving a new version of it.

Also... what is the difference between "develop" function and the "edit" function...

Again, I know this is all very "Lightroomish"... but I go back to a time where I knew enough to save originals versus updated versions...

Posted On October 30, 2009 - 04:32 PM (3 weeks ago) (Permalink to this post)
LV_Bill
Member

Brufair - As one old-school guy to another.........

EDIT is all of the original classic ACDSee editing functions which require a Save, or Save As to take effect - now referred to as "destructive editing".

DEVELOP is the new editing process which saves the edit settings as parameters in an XMP file - no Save or Save As required. With Pro3, you can Develop both Raw and Non-Raw image formats (Jpeg, Png, Tiff, etc.). The beauty of the "non-destructive editing" approach is that you can return to Develop as many times as you wish to do additional work on the same image. You can also copy settings from one image and "Batch Develop" a whole group of similar images. This all adds up to a huge boost in your overall image editing productivity.

The [Developed] sub-folder is strictly associated with Raw images. Once you Develop a Raw image, Pro3 creates a "preview" Jpeg version of your edited output in the [Developed] sub-folder. Its sole purpose is to speed-up subsequent viewing. For Raw processing, the original image and the XMP file of edit settings remain in the initial folder.

The [Originals] sub-folder is strictly associated with Non-Raw images (Jpeg, Png, etc.). When you Develop Jpegs for instance, Pro3's visible behavior in Develop will look the same as Raw, however, the file handling "under the hood" is much different. After Developing a Jpeg image, an XMP file of the edit settings is created just as with Raw. Here's the big difference. Both the original Jpeg image and its XMP file are moved to the [Originals] subfolder, and a new full-quality output image is created in the initial folder. The new output image will always be of the same file type as the original.

Hope this helps.

Posted On October 30, 2009 - 05:45 PM (3 weeks ago) (Permalink to this post)
brufair
Member

Very helpful, thanks.

So now here's the thing... I work with mostly JPGs, so the developed folder isn't going to be an issue. Now, let's say I have a Folder of JPGs, and I go through and non-destructively edit them. I use ACDSee 3.0 to browse back through that folder of JPGs, and I see them (either thumbnail or full sized) as I have edited them... Excellent.

Now let's say I browse that same folder of JPGs, and I use my Windows explorer. Based on your description from above, then the ouput JPGs in the actual FOLDER have the new, edited and saved JPGS. The [Originals] folder has the XML file and the original (non edited) JPG file.

So if I am uploading the JPGs to a customer web gallery for viewing... I go to the actual output FOLDER, and get the output image.. right?

Doesn't this double up all the files on your machine and make for one heck of a memory drain?

I would think this process might be good in the initial workflow of your image processing... but once they are taken and its time to archive... Now this creates a whole new option. What files do you archive?

Posted On October 30, 2009 - 11:33 PM (3 weeks ago) (Permalink to this post)
LV_Bill
Member

So if I am uploading the JPGs to a customer web gallery for viewing... I go to the actual output FOLDER, and get the output image.. right?

Correct. You have the file flow down.

Doesn't this double up all the files on your machine and make for one heck of a memory drain?

Not really. After editing the old way, you would save your changes with a Save As (I'm presuming you don't save directly over your originals). So, having one original and one output file seems like a toss-up to me. And, once you're committed to the new output files, you actually can delete the [Originals] data, or the whole sub-folder. Obviously, that would lock-in your changes.

The ability to turn off [Originals], and work more like Raw processing is a hotly debated subject. If you're really interested in getting seriously into this subject, you can read the thread called "Report on [Originals] -- Test Results and Workflow Options".

Posted On October 31, 2009 - 12:30 AM (3 weeks ago) (Permalink to this post)
brufair
Member

Great info... Thanks for helping me get my head around it!

Posted On October 31, 2009 - 12:07 PM (3 weeks ago) (Permalink to this post)
brufair
Member

OH... And I have to admit, I am an "icons" kinda guy... (Aren't most photographers "visual" anyway?)

With 3.0 I miss all the icons and the ability to arrange them in a way that works with the editing tasks I do most.

Posted On October 31, 2009 - 12:11 PM (3 weeks ago) (Permalink to this post)
Marc Sabatella
Moderator

Bill did a good job of explaining what's going on. I'd just emphasize that the "non-destructive" aspect of Develop mode being able to revisit a file and finding all your settings right where you left them, and also the ability to copy settings from file to file, to easily create and apply presets, etc - this all makes Develop *far* more pwoerful than simply not saving over your original.

As for cataloging features lost since 2.5, there's only one actual feature I can think of: the way previous version could display on the Organize window when an image was in a subcategory of a category that is collapsed in the category tree listing. I personally never used that feature, since I use the organize pane only very rarely and briefly to select which images I display in the browser window - I use the *Properties* window all the time to tell me things about my files. And it always shows me an actual list of the categories my images belong to, which I find far more useful than the colored indicators in the Organize window. But anyhow, that's the one cataloging-related feature I can think of that was actually removed. Aside from that, the only differences are cosmetic - icons for category names, change in colors, etc. Or else they are actually improvements, like the way the Easy Select buttons work. Or, more significantly, in the way you can easily select or identify images to embed database information for.

But for the most part, I'd say it's basically a non-change from 2.5 to 3.0 in the cataloging department.

Posted On November 2, 2009 - 05:27 PM (2 weeks ago) (Permalink to this post)