About this time, last year (late 2012 – Early 2013), I thought I'd start to reconsider my options regarding my photographic tools. Of which, Lightroom had been probably the single most important tool I used. And for good reason, it works and it works well. But I had grown increasingly uncomfortable with how Lightroom was forcing me down the “Lightroom” way of doing things. I wanted to see if some of the options that are available would be useful to me.
I decided that I would evaluate ACDSee Pro 6. If you recall, a few years ago, Aperture, ACDSee Pro, and Lightroom were all announced within about a month of each other. Actually it may have been with in a week or so. I recall it happened fast.
Since I was using a PC, my only choice was Lightroom and ACDSee Pro. I liked Lightroom better and started to use it. I had upgraded Lightroom to Lr 3.6 but as I said, I was starting to feel uncomfortable with the Lightroom way of doing things. Upon testing, I found ACDSee pro to be very compatible with my desired post processing style, and I decided to switch to it. This article is an explanation of my logic.
First, let me tell you what I like, dislike, and am ambivalent about in Lightroom so you can get an idea of what I value in photo software.
True nondestructive editing across the entire process. I can revert back to the original source at any time. There is never a point at which I can't scrap what I'm doing and be made whole again as if I were starting the process over again.
DNG, I like not having to have separate sidecar files for each photo, all my nondestructive edits are stored in the dng file itself. It makes file management much simpler in my mind.
Virtual copies. I can explore wildly different ideas in how to use a photo with out having to keep track of different photo files. The database keeps track of all that for me.
Superb slider controls that make fine tuing effects and changes in real time pretty easy.
Presets, not just the presets themselves, but how Lr uses them. You can use them at import, at develop time at print time, it is almost never too late to implement a preset. They make getting a consistent look and feel to a single photo or a large batch of photos very easy.
Adjustment Brush I particularly liked Dodge and Burn. I've been doing photography for over 50 years. The user interface in general, uses terms and concepts that seem natural and correct to me.
The database, yes I know, it makes many of the things I like possible. But dealing with it is a major PITA in my mind. Importing, exporting, I just want to get my photos into a 'done' state as quickly and painlessly as possible. I've been a teradata DBA for the last half of my adult life(so far!), and if I hate dealing with the database, I can only imaging the level of frustration it must give to those unfamiliar with database concepts.
Speed, I have an i7 quad core 64 bit 8 gig of ram PC, and importing large batches of photos is a SLOW process. And the crazy thing is I'm using a 12 mp camera, my image files just aren't that large.
Dealing with a folder structue from within Lr. The folder structure in Lightroom is always a logical software construct, but it can also be a physical construct. In my mind, that complicates things immensely. I know it provides the maximum flexibility in how people can do things, but the user interface blurs the distinction bewteen the two, and I don't know how many times I've orphaned a tumbnail because I've moved the physical file outside of Lr and it can no longer find the file. Yes, it isn't that difficult to correct, but I hate having to do it.
Resizing. Yes you have a lot of control, but you can't SEE how the final output will look and there is always a difference, so it may take 2 – 3 passes to get it right. Other software packages do it much more simply. Even PSE makes it easier to do.
Slideshow Feature wise, it's a 'me too' package in a pretty wrapper. I also dislike that you can only export a slide show as a PDF or as an mp4. I still like the idea of having and option of creating an executable.
Printing It's OK, I've seen better. I don't print much any more, I've found that in the long run online printing services do just as well; better really, considering they can do sizes I can't do and their printers are considerably better than the consumer printer I have at home. And the services cost less when you factor in the waste. When I do print it is usually for sharing with family so I use an elderly copy of ACDSee fotoSlate 4, it's good enough for the happy snap printing I do, but I will print from Lr3 occasionally and I don't hate doing it.
Web I never use it, never needed it.
It's a very intuitive Image browser based system. It reads raw files just fine (including dng), and has decent and accurate color management. It has non destructive editing PLUS, it is REALLY REALLY fast compared to Lightroom, and while it has a database component, it doesn't require an import of the photo into the DB. Instead, it sort of populates the database on the fly. As you get to a point in the workflow where some of the info you would want to put into the DB is revealed by you, it stores it. This actually works pretty well.
I would say it is competent as a workflow tool, especially if you are coming to it from a more primitive organizational system. However, for a Lightroom user who is used to doing things a certain way (even if it is an unwilling comfort), it can feel odd at times.
You need to understand that it is not a database centric application the way Lightroom is. This gives ACDSee it's speed. But it also means that somethings have to be approached by the programmers differently than from Lightroom. I can see where a photographer is so heavily invested in the Lr way of doing could get frustrated and just give up on learning a different approach.
When I first booted ACDSee Pro 6, it immediately asked me to create a backup, and I attempted to do so, but it told me I didn't have enough space to back up everything in the "My Pictures" Folder. This surprised me, since Lr has always backed up just fine.
Upon investigation of the photo folders through ACDSee, I THOUGHT that the neat folder format I thought I had wasn't all that neat. I don't know if Lr has allowed me to get a little sloppy or if I'm basically just a pig by nature, but I somehow had an enormous number of duplicate photos, not just raw files but several copies of identical "done" Tiff and jpeg files that I just didn't need. Needless to say Lr has never backed THEM up, and some of these photos I needed to keep, though most of them were temporary files I no longer needed.
Well, as a more experienced user of ACDSee, I realize now that assumption on my part was also wrong. The backup that Lightroom does, is actually a back up of JUST the database information, NOT of the photos themselves. The ACDSee backup backs up both the database AND the photos.
There are 5 module tabs in ACDSee Pro7. They are:
In resolving the folder structure issue mentioned above, I was able to use simple drag and drop file management techniques from within ACDSee Pro 7 to delete and move photo files into a more logical and coherent file structure. I was impressed with how ACDSee not only warned me of duplicates and asked me what I wanted to do with them,but actually SHOWED me both images to help me decide.
Otherwise, the manage mode pretty much looks pretty much like the 'regular' ACDSee that has been around for 15-20 years or so, and not that different from other image browsers like Irfanview or FastStone. It has no major surprises for anyone who has used an organizer built around an image browser. It should be pretty intuitive.
Other useful tools that stand out are a find duplicates tool, batch capability - that also works in both Develop and Edit mode, and a pretty decent slide show creator.
You can right click on an image and send it to an external editor. A problem in my mind is that If you R-Click on a raw file, the raw file itself gets sent. But the changes you have made in Develop module do not go with it, even to ACDSee's standalone editor oddly (and confusingly) called ACDSee Photo Editor 6. And when you send a raw file to a different editor, say Corel Paint Shop Pro X6, PSP opens it first in its raw developer. Because its a raw file. Kind of defeats the purpose I think.
To send a “developed” but unedited raw photo to an external editor, you have to send a tif file just like Lightroom. However You can't just R-click on a raw file and send a tiff version with edits to the external editor.
When you R-click on the photo, you can save to Tif there, but you need to remember to do it manually, the “send to editor” menu selection won't do it. That is more complicated than it needs to be, but once you get used to it, it isn't a significant workflow interruption, but still, I think it should be changed.
In ACDSee Pro 6, there are 2 photo processing modes:
Develop Module:
“Develop”, which is non destructive. This is where the raw processing and the raw related Development takes place. It is a VERY good raw developer, and I am very pleased with my raw output from this module. A major upgrade from Pro 6, is the enhanced Develop brushes.
You can define up to 7 different brushes for a single photo or work session. Essentially, they are masking brushes. Also, gradient masking is pretty nice, You can quickly and easily select, say, the sky or ground in a photo or a section of the photo and quickly make changes to just that area without affecting the rest of the photo.
Edit Module:
The other Processing mode is "Edit". This module appears to be a pretty good but basic bit mapped editor so any rawfile that gets sent to it gets converted to a 16 bit, bit-mapped image. At this point, any pretense to non destructive editing stops. You can crop, burn dodge, sharpen adjust colors and levels apply curves, the usual stuff, but no layers. When you exit this mode you either have to save as a bitmapped file (i.e tif or jpg, or the others) or cancel the edit completely which destroys the bit mapped image leaving the raw alone.
The big addition to the bit mapped editing area, for me, are the "Tilt-Shift" Tool and the ability to use a brush to selectively sharpen or blur sections of the photo.
I have always associated the term "Tilt-Shift" with perspective control, but ACDSee has had that need covered for quite some time. Instead, ACDSee uses it to describe the ability to retro actively "Tilt and Shift the image's plane of focus to emulate a view camera user's ability to tilt and shift the back panel of a view camera.. It's a pretty complex tool and will take time to learn to use it effectively and subtly.
MUCH easier to use is the Edit tab's 'Selective Detail' brush. With it, you can 'paint' an area that needs to be selectively sharpened or softened. It's pretty easy to use and I like it very much. Attached is a photo that was pretty sharp overall, but I used to soften the focus of the man in the background and the focus of the suitcase.
It does a very good job on raw development and on Bitmapped editing. Image quality is VERY high and the color is accurate. ProPhoto color space is well supported. Virtually everything that can be done in Develop mode, has an equivalent in the edit mode. And almost everything that can be done in Edit mode has an equivalent in Develop. I have found the Develop mode brushes are quite useful as I find the selection tools in Edit mode to be pretty good.
This is a usable alternative to Lightroom. Is it perfect? Absolutely NOT! I had to relearn a lot of things, but I did it, and it wasn't too bad. I wouldn't go back to Lightroom, though I DO miss virtual copies. In spite of the pretty good bit mapped editor in Pro 7, I suspect you will also need to buy a separate standalone editor for those time where you will need layers and as a platform to support photoshop plug-ins. I selected Paint Shop Pro X6. I think few photographers will NEED more than that, and quite a few could get by with much less.
ACDSee Pro 7 suits me, I think. I feel I have great control of my workflow and of the quality of my photos. That's what this sort of tool should be all about.
I decided that I would evaluate ACDSee Pro 6. If you recall, a few years ago, Aperture, ACDSee Pro, and Lightroom were all announced within about a month of each other. Actually it may have been with in a week or so. I recall it happened fast.
Since I was using a PC, my only choice was Lightroom and ACDSee Pro. I liked Lightroom better and started to use it. I had upgraded Lightroom to Lr 3.6 but as I said, I was starting to feel uncomfortable with the Lightroom way of doing things. Upon testing, I found ACDSee pro to be very compatible with my desired post processing style, and I decided to switch to it. This article is an explanation of my logic.
First, let me tell you what I like, dislike, and am ambivalent about in Lightroom so you can get an idea of what I value in photo software.
Lightroom Likes:
True nondestructive editing across the entire process. I can revert back to the original source at any time. There is never a point at which I can't scrap what I'm doing and be made whole again as if I were starting the process over again.
DNG, I like not having to have separate sidecar files for each photo, all my nondestructive edits are stored in the dng file itself. It makes file management much simpler in my mind.
Virtual copies. I can explore wildly different ideas in how to use a photo with out having to keep track of different photo files. The database keeps track of all that for me.
Superb slider controls that make fine tuing effects and changes in real time pretty easy.
Presets, not just the presets themselves, but how Lr uses them. You can use them at import, at develop time at print time, it is almost never too late to implement a preset. They make getting a consistent look and feel to a single photo or a large batch of photos very easy.
Adjustment Brush I particularly liked Dodge and Burn. I've been doing photography for over 50 years. The user interface in general, uses terms and concepts that seem natural and correct to me.
Lightroom Dislikes:
The database, yes I know, it makes many of the things I like possible. But dealing with it is a major PITA in my mind. Importing, exporting, I just want to get my photos into a 'done' state as quickly and painlessly as possible. I've been a teradata DBA for the last half of my adult life(so far!), and if I hate dealing with the database, I can only imaging the level of frustration it must give to those unfamiliar with database concepts.
Speed, I have an i7 quad core 64 bit 8 gig of ram PC, and importing large batches of photos is a SLOW process. And the crazy thing is I'm using a 12 mp camera, my image files just aren't that large.
Dealing with a folder structue from within Lr. The folder structure in Lightroom is always a logical software construct, but it can also be a physical construct. In my mind, that complicates things immensely. I know it provides the maximum flexibility in how people can do things, but the user interface blurs the distinction bewteen the two, and I don't know how many times I've orphaned a tumbnail because I've moved the physical file outside of Lr and it can no longer find the file. Yes, it isn't that difficult to correct, but I hate having to do it.
Resizing. Yes you have a lot of control, but you can't SEE how the final output will look and there is always a difference, so it may take 2 – 3 passes to get it right. Other software packages do it much more simply. Even PSE makes it easier to do.
Slideshow Feature wise, it's a 'me too' package in a pretty wrapper. I also dislike that you can only export a slide show as a PDF or as an mp4. I still like the idea of having and option of creating an executable.
Ambivalent
Printing It's OK, I've seen better. I don't print much any more, I've found that in the long run online printing services do just as well; better really, considering they can do sizes I can't do and their printers are considerably better than the consumer printer I have at home. And the services cost less when you factor in the waste. When I do print it is usually for sharing with family so I use an elderly copy of ACDSee fotoSlate 4, it's good enough for the happy snap printing I do, but I will print from Lr3 occasionally and I don't hate doing it.
Web I never use it, never needed it.
General Impressions of ACDSee Pro
It's a very intuitive Image browser based system. It reads raw files just fine (including dng), and has decent and accurate color management. It has non destructive editing PLUS, it is REALLY REALLY fast compared to Lightroom, and while it has a database component, it doesn't require an import of the photo into the DB. Instead, it sort of populates the database on the fly. As you get to a point in the workflow where some of the info you would want to put into the DB is revealed by you, it stores it. This actually works pretty well.
I would say it is competent as a workflow tool, especially if you are coming to it from a more primitive organizational system. However, for a Lightroom user who is used to doing things a certain way (even if it is an unwilling comfort), it can feel odd at times.
You need to understand that it is not a database centric application the way Lightroom is. This gives ACDSee it's speed. But it also means that somethings have to be approached by the programmers differently than from Lightroom. I can see where a photographer is so heavily invested in the Lr way of doing could get frustrated and just give up on learning a different approach.
Initial Boot
When I first booted ACDSee Pro 6, it immediately asked me to create a backup, and I attempted to do so, but it told me I didn't have enough space to back up everything in the "My Pictures" Folder. This surprised me, since Lr has always backed up just fine.
Upon investigation of the photo folders through ACDSee, I THOUGHT that the neat folder format I thought I had wasn't all that neat. I don't know if Lr has allowed me to get a little sloppy or if I'm basically just a pig by nature, but I somehow had an enormous number of duplicate photos, not just raw files but several copies of identical "done" Tiff and jpeg files that I just didn't need. Needless to say Lr has never backed THEM up, and some of these photos I needed to keep, though most of them were temporary files I no longer needed.
Well, as a more experienced user of ACDSee, I realize now that assumption on my part was also wrong. The backup that Lightroom does, is actually a back up of JUST the database information, NOT of the photos themselves. The ACDSee backup backs up both the database AND the photos.
Functionality Tabs
There are 5 module tabs in ACDSee Pro7. They are:
- Manage - the Organizer portion of Pro 7
- View - a photo viewer
- Develop - The non destructive Raw development 'editor' not unlike the Develop tab in Lr. Like Lr, it can also be used with non raw images.
- Edit - A pretty decent conventional bit mapped editor. It doesn't do layers nor can it use Photoshop Plug-ins. But otherwise, a pretty good editor. I find myself using it more than I expected to.
- 365 - This is an integrated portal to ACDSee365. ACDSee365 is a separate product, that is a cross between DropBox and Flickr. It isn't enough for me to switch from Box.com
Manage Module:
In resolving the folder structure issue mentioned above, I was able to use simple drag and drop file management techniques from within ACDSee Pro 7 to delete and move photo files into a more logical and coherent file structure. I was impressed with how ACDSee not only warned me of duplicates and asked me what I wanted to do with them,but actually SHOWED me both images to help me decide.
Otherwise, the manage mode pretty much looks pretty much like the 'regular' ACDSee that has been around for 15-20 years or so, and not that different from other image browsers like Irfanview or FastStone. It has no major surprises for anyone who has used an organizer built around an image browser. It should be pretty intuitive.
Other useful tools that stand out are a find duplicates tool, batch capability - that also works in both Develop and Edit mode, and a pretty decent slide show creator.
You can right click on an image and send it to an external editor. A problem in my mind is that If you R-Click on a raw file, the raw file itself gets sent. But the changes you have made in Develop module do not go with it, even to ACDSee's standalone editor oddly (and confusingly) called ACDSee Photo Editor 6. And when you send a raw file to a different editor, say Corel Paint Shop Pro X6, PSP opens it first in its raw developer. Because its a raw file. Kind of defeats the purpose I think.
To send a “developed” but unedited raw photo to an external editor, you have to send a tif file just like Lightroom. However You can't just R-click on a raw file and send a tiff version with edits to the external editor.
When you R-click on the photo, you can save to Tif there, but you need to remember to do it manually, the “send to editor” menu selection won't do it. That is more complicated than it needs to be, but once you get used to it, it isn't a significant workflow interruption, but still, I think it should be changed.
Processing Modules:
In ACDSee Pro 6, there are 2 photo processing modes:
Develop Module:
“Develop”, which is non destructive. This is where the raw processing and the raw related Development takes place. It is a VERY good raw developer, and I am very pleased with my raw output from this module. A major upgrade from Pro 6, is the enhanced Develop brushes.
You can define up to 7 different brushes for a single photo or work session. Essentially, they are masking brushes. Also, gradient masking is pretty nice, You can quickly and easily select, say, the sky or ground in a photo or a section of the photo and quickly make changes to just that area without affecting the rest of the photo.
Edit Module:
The other Processing mode is "Edit". This module appears to be a pretty good but basic bit mapped editor so any rawfile that gets sent to it gets converted to a 16 bit, bit-mapped image. At this point, any pretense to non destructive editing stops. You can crop, burn dodge, sharpen adjust colors and levels apply curves, the usual stuff, but no layers. When you exit this mode you either have to save as a bitmapped file (i.e tif or jpg, or the others) or cancel the edit completely which destroys the bit mapped image leaving the raw alone.
The big addition to the bit mapped editing area, for me, are the "Tilt-Shift" Tool and the ability to use a brush to selectively sharpen or blur sections of the photo.
I have always associated the term "Tilt-Shift" with perspective control, but ACDSee has had that need covered for quite some time. Instead, ACDSee uses it to describe the ability to retro actively "Tilt and Shift the image's plane of focus to emulate a view camera user's ability to tilt and shift the back panel of a view camera.. It's a pretty complex tool and will take time to learn to use it effectively and subtly.
MUCH easier to use is the Edit tab's 'Selective Detail' brush. With it, you can 'paint' an area that needs to be selectively sharpened or softened. It's pretty easy to use and I like it very much. Attached is a photo that was pretty sharp overall, but I used to soften the focus of the man in the background and the focus of the suitcase.
Processing Comments:
It does a very good job on raw development and on Bitmapped editing. Image quality is VERY high and the color is accurate. ProPhoto color space is well supported. Virtually everything that can be done in Develop mode, has an equivalent in the edit mode. And almost everything that can be done in Edit mode has an equivalent in Develop. I have found the Develop mode brushes are quite useful as I find the selection tools in Edit mode to be pretty good.
General Comments
This is a usable alternative to Lightroom. Is it perfect? Absolutely NOT! I had to relearn a lot of things, but I did it, and it wasn't too bad. I wouldn't go back to Lightroom, though I DO miss virtual copies. In spite of the pretty good bit mapped editor in Pro 7, I suspect you will also need to buy a separate standalone editor for those time where you will need layers and as a platform to support photoshop plug-ins. I selected Paint Shop Pro X6. I think few photographers will NEED more than that, and quite a few could get by with much less.
ACDSee Pro 7 suits me, I think. I feel I have great control of my workflow and of the quality of my photos. That's what this sort of tool should be all about.
I am an ACDSee aficionado, since the release of Pro 5. I always wanted to know that whether a Lightroom-user had permanently shifted to ACDSee, and now I know of another one. :-)
ReplyDeleteThat's two of us we know of! I bet there's more!
ReplyDeleteGee. There are a whole three of us. Love the workflow compared to LR, but annoyed at the lack of tutorials. Oh, and no support for Sony ILCA-77M2 ARW files (have to use Adobe DNG Converter). Sokay - I can't get any more out of a RAW file that the camera generated JPG. I though I'd made a mistake after about six months, so I tried the LR trial again. With the same conclusion, again. Why anyone uses LR is beyond me...
ReplyDeleteOh, new problem. Ever tried to Export files with metadata included? EXIF is exported but not IPTC data like, oh, DESCRIPTION. What the focus?
I'm also a ACD See Pro fan. I use it to manage all my photos. Usually I edit my photos in Capture NX2. OK, I know it is now desupported. But it is the best tool I can find for Nikon owners. I can save every edit in the original NEF files.
ReplyDeleteI never saw or used LR 3 or v4 so cannot comment.
ReplyDeleteI have been a ACDSee user since V2. V6 was excellent and probably their best release. V7 was OK but start of the problems. ACDSee database is very poor and very slow and when you come to do any maintenance, put aside half a day. Interesting you dislike the LR database? LR database has never corrupted on me, has gone from v5 to v6 painlessly - searches are 100% accurate and fast. To me there is no comparison.
Non-destructive edit - I got very tired of the 'originals' folder & copy of the same file. If I was in any prog other than ACDSee I could never see my original pic.
The Organizer section of ACDSee is great.Best part of the app.
Program loading time in V7 and V8 was just too slow. To me, V8 was just a big turn off - the new folder or tree structure it presents is from another world. Never seen so much confusion. If my memory is correct, 'Favorites' changes their name... I just found it most strange and unnecessary.
LR's folder structure is what you want it to be.
Syching between machines/locations is relatively easy
Mobile apps are ok.
Presets are many and good - wish they allows sub-folders though.
Addons are just great - like from http://www.photographers-toolbox.com/index.php. I use about three from these guys - they are outstanding.
Publish direct to Facebook, Flickr etc. I recall ACDSee required you to first publish to their cloud and them to Facebook etc. and wit no resizing. Weak.
Export pre-sets are very versatile.
So I have got from ACDSee to LR and will never return - probably because now we run a photographic business and have made our own post production work-flows and processes.
Updates - another sore point they way the held back RAW updates, gave us all BS and the released new versions. Now I pay $100 pa for both PS and LR on 2 machines, instead of something like $99 for just one program that at bets might do updates once or twice a year. I'll always have a soft spot for ACDSee but firmly believe they shot themselves in the foot with some bad markeing decisions.
C'est la vie
That's OK to like and use something else. We all need to use the tools that speak to us. Lr never 'spoke 'to me in any meaningful way. The truth is, I think the quality of my work went up when I left Lr.
ReplyDeleteYour send to facebook method is not how I have ever sent anything to Facebook. A photo must meet Facebook's requirements for photos including size, or Facebook will reject, but my photos go directly to FB from within ACDSee Ultimate 8, and 9. And worked the same way with Pro 6 & 7.
If you feel strongly about this and have more to offer the community of Lightroom users, maybe you should start a blog.
I have been using LR for about 2 years. I have just ran the trial version of ACDsee. I am shocked to find that I don't think it is faster than LR. In fact, when I am in develop mode after I select done, I am forced to save an image each time before I move on. In LR you make all your edits, review then export. I am not sure that saves time over the import process in LR. Am I missing something in ACDsee? I really really wanted to like it.
ReplyDeletePeggy, if you go to the menu option of "Tools|Options|Develop Mode", you will see a pop-up window that contains the two user configurable options for Develop Mode management. Make sure the "Autosave all develop mode adjustments" is selected.
DeleteACDSee has an enormous selection of user configurable options, unfortunately it is easy to get lost in the options and overlook some important ones. Hope this helps
Hello, I think I went through the same discovery as you did when I switched to ACDsee. The first few weeks felt remarkable odd and I kept thinking I had mad a mistake in doing the switch, but then the penny dropped. Or more accurately many pennies started to drop. The ACDsee database provides an excellent tool for finding and organising my images but it is just one tool. ACDsee made me put more effort into organising my directories and actually deciding what I really wanted and where. I have now set up separate databases for each decade of photos. As more functionality is added it should only get better. There are a few functions in Edit that I would like to see in Develop, but these things will happen over time. For now I'm happy to be free from the LR way of doing things.
ReplyDeleteHi, Adam! Changing the way you do things is always stressful. But I think the ACDSee way of doing things allows us to do those things the way WE want, and not the way Adobe wants us to do them.
DeleteGlen,
ReplyDeleteSince you used Lr previously. You may be able to answer my questions:
1. I use a rather sophisticated workflow originally based on the following blog: http://www.beardsworth.co.uk/lightroom/workflow-smart-collections/
Can this be done with ACD?
2. I make extensive use of a keyword hierarchy, does ACD support it?
3. What about HDR and Pano stiching?
4. Facial tagging and geolocation data? Any support in ACD?
Thanks,
Tim
Tim, the current versions of ACDSee have smart collections, you'd have to test it yourself to see if your workflow is possible.
DeleteACDSee has a hierarchical keywording and categorization mechanism.
ACDSee does not have HDR or Panorama stitching, nor does it have facial tagging. It does support geolocation tagging.
I am another refugee from Lightroom who has ended up at ACDSee. It was the Lightroom 'Classic' nonsense that was the last straw for me. I have been playing around for weeks with ON1, Capture One and ACDSee before settling on the latter. They all seem to be perfectly good RAW editors and to tell the truth, if I do a cruddy edit it's because I haven't got my eye in that day, not because of any software shortcoming. ACDSee was by far the best image manager and I love being able to undock the panels and sprawl across my two screens - Lightroom feels cramped as a closet when I return to it.
ReplyDeleteWhile I am quickly getting used to it, I will say though that ACDSee feels a bit like it has stuff bolted on all over the place at times - maybe that's in part because it has been around for so long.
Things I miss about Lightroom are the history panel (I use that a lot - the ACDSee snapshots are good, but don't allow me to jump around as fast); the very nifty map module (maps in ACDSee doesn't work as well); and being able to create a hierarchical keyword system that feeds directly in to the IPTC metadata. With ACDSee I often find myself double handling - adding info to both IPTC and the ACDSee metadata panel - in fact, that was almost a deal breaker for me.
What I don't miss about Lightroom - the database. I got used to it, but I do a lot of Digital Art and was constantly saving stuff created in Photoshop, which would then have to be imported in to Lightroom or it wouldn't show up. A pain in the neck and the number of times I had to go on a file hunt! Oh, and those dopey little brush and gradient tool pins - I hate those!