An Experienced User's Notes on ACDSee Photo Studio Ultimate 2018

ACDSee can carry a BIG load!

There's a LOT to like about this new version of ACDSee, and overall, it is a worthy upgrade I think.

Let's first discuss the elephant in the room, the name change.  The next version coming after ACDSee Ultimate 10 is now called "ACDSee Photo Studio Ultimate 2018".  I understand why they did this, the various ACDSee still photo products were getting seriously out of sync in terms of version numbers.

The original ACDSee browser/viewer/Dam product, which all subsequent still photo products are built around is on on version 21.  ACDSee Pro is on version 11, and even though it used the same naming convention as ACDSee Pro, ACDSee Ultimate was really only on version 3.  It was getting confusing to new users, some were thinking one product was "older" than the other when in fact, they were a part of the same generation and build of software.  I know I frequently fielded questions from confused users.

By calling the product line "ACDSee Photo Studio {year}and then either Pro or Ultimate, I think it will be clearer, in the long run at least, that all three products share the same generation of programming and only differ in the extras each title provides.

The New products are:

1. ACDSee Photo Studio 2018 - the Basic DAM tool and browser/viewer
2. ACDSee Photo Studio Pro 2018 - The same as ACDSee Photo Studio 2018 with the addition of a first class raw development tool.
3. ACDSee Photo Studio Ultimate 2018 - The same as ACDSee Photo Studio Pro 2018 with the addition of a layers capable bit mapped editor which supports Photoshop plugins.

One of the strong features of the ACDSee line has always been that it is possible to upgrade to a more extensive ACDSee title without having to relearn the things you already know, or reconfigure the DAM database since all 3 products use the same catalog and database system.

The New Features

Most of these tools are in both ACDSee Photo Studio Pro 2018 and in ACDSee Photo Studio Ultimate 2018.  My comments are intentionally directed towards Ultimate 2018, since that is the program that does the most.

Smart Erase

This "Edit Tab" tool allows the user to quickly delete objects based on the ACDSee masking brush technology.  Basically to use Smart Erase, you click on the Smart Erase Tool button in the "Edit Tab" toolbar, or press Ctrl-E, adjust the size of the brush to your satisfaction, and draw a mask on the object to be erased.  Then the tool tries to figure out the best place in the photo to automatically clone data from, and replaces it with that data.

Removing these power lines were problematic with
Smart Erase.

It works better on some photos than on others.  I've found that powerlines that cross a variety of trees, and other highly detailed background can confuse it a bit.  The places where it works best is erasing an object against a plain background like the sky, a wall, or a beach.

I've discovered that brush size and magnification size of the photo, can make a big difference in how well Smart Erase works. I think repeated passes can also make the erasure more natural looking.  Some erasures will still need to be done, or at least supplemented, with a manual clone.  Even so, it can make the old tedious methods of erasure much faster and easier.

Liquify

Liquify is a distortion filter capable of great subtlety, or over the top effects.  I haven't played with it much, as I am mostly a landscape and nature photographer, but I found it pretty capable.  For instance one can make a child's eyes just a bit larger than they actually are, or make the brim of a hat just a bit larger or smaller.

There are four types of distortion tools, Shift, Pinch, Bulge, and Restore.

Shift moves the point represented by the center of the brush in or out of its normal position.

Pinch creates a 4 sided pincushion effect from the center of the brush.

Bulge creates a 4 sided barrel distortion from the center of the brush.

Restore is NOT a traditional 'undo' feature!  Instead, it appears to allow the user to 'walk back' the strength of the other 3 distortions so that the optimum distortion effect is achieved.

Frequency Separation

This is an automated layers based function that is particularly useful for portraiture and other photos where minimization of blemishes is desirable.  It creates a high pass and a low pass version of the photo.

High Frequency contains all the texture information, while Low Frequency contains the tones colors and shadows.   This allows the user to adjust them separately and then merge them into a useful combination. 

Actions Browser

This is a pretty useful enhancement to the recorded action scripting tool.  It allows you to record a series of actions and more easily select those action scripts and apply them to photos either one at a time or in batch mode.  There are 125 pre recorded scripts that come with the tool.  Don't confuse Action scripts with presets, these are two different things.  Presets are tool specific, while action scripts cross the boundaries of the various tools.

Keyboard Shortcuts

Shortcuts have been created for virtually every function within ACDSee, so for the power users, it is possible to control your workflow without searching with your mouse to find the proper icon to "click on".  This should speed things up significantly.

Mobile Sync

This tool, along with the previously released root level support for Microsoft OneDrive, in my eyes, indicates strongly that ACDSee Systems is thinking about the future of photography and the growing importance of mobile photography to photography as a whole.

As a reminder, root level support for OneDrive means that managing and incorporating photos uploaded to Microsoft OneDrive can be treated by ACDSee like just another folder on your internal hard drive.  You don't need the sync folder or store the images to OneDrive in the sync folder.  Instead you just navigate to OneDrive and manage the photos you find there just as if they were in your "pictures" folder on your HD.  I can't begin to tell you just how much easier it is to manage remotely stored photos now.  I was so impressed, I paid for the 1 Terabyte OneDrive upgrade.

Mobile Sync is fast and EASY!

Mobile Sync is an alternative way of getting your photos from your Android or iOS device to your hard drive where ACDSee resides.  What it does, is connect your phone to the WiFi router that your PC is on, and sends the photos you select from your device and imports them into the mobile sync folder inside of the ACDSee database.  Both the PC and the mobile device must be on the same network, and the mobile device must have the Mobile Sync app installed and running.

You might ask, "Why can't I just connect the phone by wire to my PC and drag and drop the photos into whatever folder I want?"  Well you can, but this is much easier.  It's easy to set up, and very easy to use day to day and I think a bit faster overall.

You also might ask, "Why can't I setup my mobile device to automatically upload my photos to my online storage and download the photos I want to ACDSee?"  Again, you can do that.  But that eats up your mobile GB upload limits, and that makes it impractical on an ongoing basis.

Besides, with root level support of MS OneDrive, I find I'm now only loading new photos to my hard drive, and once they are "done", I am moving the source files and the "Done" photos to OneDrive.  ACDSee is making that easy to do, my photos are backed up to OneDrive and the only photos I have at risk of an HD failure are the most recent which are protected by a conventional back up.

I'm not a huge mobile photography fan, but there are times when all I have is my mobile phone, and I want to take some serious photos.  And these products are a BIG time saver in my mind.

A LOT of other, more subtle changes as well.

ACDSee claims a lot of improvements in performance, lens correction, selection,  Pixel targeting, and split tone layers.  so my advice is to schedule your free trial download for a time when you can devote a thorough test of this product.

My Conclusions

On the whole, if you are interested in only the DAM portion of the ACDSee tools, there probably isn't a strong reason to upgrade from an earlier version.  The DAM tools are mature and there probably isn't a lot of room for improvement in what is probably the strongest Digital Asset Management tool on the market.  (Though there is always SOME room for improvement!)

However, if your intentions are to rely more heavily on the bit mapped editor tools, either to replace or supplement another editor like Photoshop or PaintShop Pro, then an upgrade to either Ultimate or Pro makes a great deal of sense, in my mind.

New Video on The Histogram

This is my first attempt at a Video Tutorial.  Feedback on overall watchability would be greatly appreciated.

The General Controls - Getting the basics right.

These “General” controls are the single most important segment of raw development.  Often times called the exposure controls, they deal most directly with the information stored in the raw file.  They control how much of the captured data we have available to work with, they are an important influence on how we perceive our photos overall. Getting this section "Right" ultimately controls just how successful your photo will be.

I will discuss the controls From the top of the controls window to the bottom. Note this is part 2 of an ongoing series of articles. This article will cover only what ACDSee calls the "General" controls and White Balance.  The rest of the Raw development tools will be covered in subsequent articles.

Color and Black and White Sub Tabs

These tabbed controls don’t really do all that much other than desaturate or re-saturate the image with whatever color controls were current at the time the B&W tab was activated. Getting Killer B&W Photos with ACDSee

Curiously though, I have found this tab useful for luminance noise control. I suggest you review my article entitled "A Quick and Easy Noise Reduction Technique"

Exposure

We all understand this control brightens and darkens a photo, but what this slider control actually does is allow you to adjust exposure to as much as an EV of -2 of under exposure, to an EV of +2 on an over exposure. The value settings on this control appear to be a 1:1 comparison of the EV numbers, though ACDSee never says that directly. In my tests, sliding the control to the left to a - .5 corresponds to setting an EV of -5 on the camera that the difference is irrelevant in my eyes.

Two points you need to remember regarding the exposure control.

If you need more than an EV spread of -2 to a +2, your ability to set your camera accurately for your desired effect must be questioned. If you are THAT far off on your exposure you have done something wrong, or your camera is broken.

If you find yourself setting this control consistently to, say, an EV of -.5 (or whatever value), then maybe you should consider adjusting your camera to always underexpose to a value of -.5. Getting it right at capture time is always better than adjusting it later.

Yes we understand that it makes the photo brighter, but what does Exposure actually DO to the photo? 
Try an experiment look at this Histogram of our test photo.  I refer you to the first article in this series for an explanation of the Histogram

NOTE: With all photos, just click on them to see larger versions

Examine the histogram of the photo we are working with. Note how the shadows mostly reside about 20% to the right of the far left, and that the highlights, while fewer (curve is shorter), also reside about 20% to the LEFT of the far right.  This indicates that there are few shadows and highlights that are so dark or light that there is no detail showing in them.  And it is a well exposed photo with not much contrast to it.

Now, slide the Exposure control to the right, note that everything the curve represents slides to the right, and what appears to be the left most anchor point for the start of the shadows also moves to the right. If you move the slider to the left, everything moves to the left, including the shadow anchor point.

Highlight Enhancement - This control is somewhat misunderstood. What it does, is darken the highlights while ignoring the mid-tones and shadows. It allows you to set the exposure control properly for the shadows and mid-tones and then selectively darken the highlights only so that you don’t lose the detail in them.

Try a little experiment. Take a photo that you want to work with, and move the EXPOSURE control a bit too far to the right. Notice how the brightest highlights start to go completely white. Also take note of the Histogram. Note how the curves are sort of pushed to the right. The part of the curves that represent shadow (the left side) in the histogram stay about as tall as ever while the mid-tone curves get a bit shorter. But in both cases, the shadow and highlight portion of the curve gets “fatter”as it slides to the right. Also note how the highlight portion of the curve not only is pushed too far to the right, but that portion of the curve gets skinnier and taller.

What you are seeing is ACDSee trying to brighten the shadows and mid-tones by pushing them to the right of the histogram, Naturally, since we are using the overall exposure control this forces the highlights to an ever brighter position. Leave the Exposure control at the ‘too far to the right’ position you have selected.

Now, let’s look at the Highlight Enhancement control. By sliding the control to the right, the highlights start to darken a bit, though the shadows and mid-tones don’t change all that much. In the Histogram, notice that the portion of the curve on the far right starts to get shorter and fatter as it moves back to the left. But curiously, while the shadow and mid-tones portion of the curve change shape a little bit, the ‘anchor point’ on the left where the shadow portion of the curve starts to take shape doesn’t move at all. Basic black is already set and isn’t going to change. Any changes to the photo will have to work around that anchor point for the shadows.

So, what we have demonstrated is that Highlight Enhancement tries to shift the Histogram BACK to the left without adjusting the left most anchor point, and the net effect is that the shadows and mid-tones are affected less by this adjustment than are the highlights.



Fill Light Control - Oddly, this control is very similar to the exposure control, BUT what it does is respect the shadow anchor point as set by the exposure control. So in other words, the leftmost anchor point as set by the exposure control never changes as you slide the Fill light control to the right, everything else is pushed to the right.

Contrast Control - This is an interesting control from a Histogram perspective. What it does when you slide the control to the right (i.e. increase contrast) is squeeze the middle portions of the curve down and push the extreme left and right sections of the curve to their respective edges of the histogram. In other words, it decreases the intensity of the mid-tones and increases the intensity of the shadows and highlights.

When you slide the control to the left (i.e. Decrease contrast), what occurs is that the intensity of the shadows and highlights decreases and the intensity of the mid-tones increases.



Saturation Control - This control is similar to brightness but deals with color purity, instead. When you slide the control to the left, the color seems to go away, when you slide the control to the right, the color becomes deeper. In a photo there are 3 colors that combine to make all the other colors. Red, Green, and Blue. if there are a lot of pixels in a given primary color, that curve will be tall. Each color has a value from -100 to +100 with the default of zero (0) .

A value of +100 for a given color means that as much of that color has been added as possible, and the curve for that color gets fatter.

A value of -100 means the all the color for a given color has been reduced to nothing, so the color channel curves start to merge with the overall luminance curve set by the exposure control. As a result, the photo now appears to be black and white.

When set to -100, the curve doesn’t go away, because the pixels set to zero are still designated as belonging to one of the 3 primary colors. they just happen to be set to -100 and all that remains is the relative luminance.

Changing the saturation value of a primary color won’t change the number of pixels assigned to a given color, it will just change the level of saturation, so the height and width of each color channel moves closer or further away from the curve representing Luminance.



Vibrance Control - The ACDSee Pro help file claims that Vibrance adjusts the intensity of the colors in the same way as saturation, but that skin tones are less affected. The text doesn't really mention other already lightly saturated objects though many people have always assumed it worked equally well on any lightly saturated object.

It does seem to protect skin better than non skin objects in a photo, but I'm not sure if that is some sort of illusion. Logic tells me it should work equally for any lightly saturated object, but I just don't know for sure, since the difference is most noticeable for protecting skin when increasing saturation overall.

Vibrancy seems to work LESS, on less saturated colors, but the effect is much less noticeable when moving the slider to the left (DE-saturating) than it is moving to the right (adding saturation). Its effect is SO much less noticeable when de-saturating that it fooled me into thinking it wasn't working. If I were to want to de-saturate more than just a VERY tiny bit and still prevent significant change to skin tones, I might consider using a development brush to protect the skin tones completely.

I tested the Vibrance control on a series of photos where the range of skin tones was very wide, from the palest 'white', to the darkest 'black', and everything in between. Apparently, even the darkest skin isn't all that saturated overall, because I felt Vibrance protected very dark skin about as well as the lightest skin. But again, when de-saturating the protection effect was minimal

The effects of the Vibrance control is VERY subtle. You will want to be very careful and selective in its use.

Clarity Control - This is both a useful tool and an incredibly sweet confection! What Clarity does is add or remove contrast to the mid-tones only, leaving the highlights and shadows alone.

Many people think of it as a sharpening control. I know this because when I was writing about sharpening earlier, LOTS of people wrote me asking why I didn’t include Clarity in the discussion.

True, Clarity can increase the illusion of sharpness, but so can contrast in general. In fact Sharpening is really no more than the technique of adding contrast to the edges of the objects. So why ISN’T clarity considered a sharpening tool instead of a general or exposure tool? Primarily, in my eyes, that is because it simply doesn’t care about the edges of objects. It will increase or decrease contrast to every mid tone it sees, edge or not.

Let’s take another look at our sample photo and its histogram:




Note how there aren’t a lot of highlights or shadows in the photo. It is mostly mid tones. Now look at the histogram, almost nothing of the curves actually reach the extreme left or right of the chart. The area of the most shadow is roughly 20% closer to the right edge of the chart than the left. And it seems the highlights don’t really even make it to the right edge! They stop about 80% of the way from the left edge to the right. I would say, that for the most part, this is a photo with very little washed out highlights or solid blacks. Just about everything resides in the mid tones area.

Just for fun, try a little experiment. With your favorite photo, invoke the clipping view (That little triangle icon just above the Histogram and below the word “Tune”) and slide the Clarity tool all the way to the right. Notice you won’t see much clipping, if any. (In my sample photo I don’t see any.), Now reset the Clarity slider and move the Contrast slider all the way to the right.

There’s a huge difference, isn’t there? What is happening is that by concentrating on just the mid-tones, very little of those mid-tones are forced into either the highlights or shadows. And THAT is what makes Clarity such an important and useful tool. We can either add or remove contrast in just those tones that carry most of the photo’s information.

HDR Utilities Compared

Photomatix Pro 5.1 vs Affinity HDR vs PSP X8 HDR

Produced with Photomatix Pro 5.1
This looks very much how I remember the scene.
click on the image to see a larger version

There is an inherent unfairness in these sort of 'shootout' type articles that I don't really know how to overcome completely.  

• The person doing the comparisons, generally knows one product better than the others, so the final product of the less well known products always suffer.
• The person doing the comparisons, generally has one of the products successfully incorporated into their post production workflow, and runs the risk of just complaining that the other products aren't the favored products.  I've seen it happen in other reviews, and I really hate that!
• The person doing the comparisons, generally brings a whole host of other unstated assumptions and prejudices to the table that can complicate and shade his or her evaluation, but that the reader can only guess at.

Be advised that I am aware of these shortcomings in myself and have worked hard to overcome them.  While I can't get rid of them completely, I think I have kept them under some level of control!

My favorite HDR photos are the more subtle more naturalistic photos, and not the 'over the top' tonemapped photos.  Don't get me wrong, I do the other sort too; but I think modern HDR software makes it so easy to get those sort of Dramatic, 'kitschy' photos, that I think a test to produce more natural looking photos gives the HDR software a more thorough work out.  I TRIED to get the final output from all three to look as much alike as I could.  I was only modestly successful

Photomatix Pro 5.1

A screen shot of Photomatix 5.1
click on the image to see a larger version

To be honest this was, and is still, my favorite.  I love the level of control it offers and it allows me to produce almost any sort of HDR photo I want.  But most importantly, it fits into my ACDSee centric PP workflow almost seamlessly.

All three HDR utilities will work with raw images, but Photomatix 5.1 also allows me to select a series of exposures in ACDSee, right click on the group and send them to Photomatix 5.1 for processing.  This alone is a time saver for me.  I will explain how the other two don't work as well in their respective sections.

It has a high degree of control in how it processes raw, a high degree of control in how it processes the merged photos, and a nice selection of color, tonality, and sharpening tools after the merged photo has been finalized.  It is frequently possible to get to a finished product with JUST Photomatix 5.1 without any further editing in ACDSee Ultimate 10 or any other bit mapped editor.

Photomatix 5.1 comes with canned presets and allows the user to create his or her own presets as well.

The sample finished photo looks pretty much how I remember the scene when I took it.

Corel PaintShop Pro X8 HDR Utility

Produced with PaintShop Pro X8 HDR Utility.
I particularly liked how the water looks in this version.
click on the image to see a larger version

This was my first HDR utility, and it is surprisingly good. It's biggest drawback for me is that while I can select a series of exposures for processing and send them to PSP from ACDSee, I can't send them to the HDR utility.  

I end up sending them to the Corel Raw Lab utility (the PSP Raw developer) if they are raw images, or to the PSP editor directly if they are tif or jpg images.  To use the Corel PSP HDR utility, I have to find and select the images from the very basic, built in, PSP organizer.

A screen shot of PSP X8's HDR Utility
Click on the image to see a larger version.

I think if Corel wants to remain competitive with PSP, one of the things it needs to do is alter their HDR utility to accept raw images from any source, not just the PSP organizer or Aftershot Pro, which I believe also comes with the HDR Utility.  

Software publishers seem to be terribly short sighted when it comes to doing things that might attract new users, so I don't expect this to happen!  But hey! you never know with certainty!

What I like about PSP's HDR utility is that it sort of shows you what it is doing every step of the way and allows you some input in how each step occurs.  The other two products, in an effort to make thing easy, kind of take automation further and you don't really get to see the 'sausage being made'!

It comes with a few standard presets and allows you to create your own.  But when I upgraded from PSP X6 to X8, I don't recall any effort to bring my saved presets over from X6.  (I haven't upgraded the other two to a new version, so I don't know if they are any better in that regard.)

Single Raw Photo, produced with
PaintShop Pro X6 HDR Utility
click on the image to see a larger version

Another thing I REALLY like, is the Single Raw Photo option in the PSP X8 HDR utility.  It literally creates 3 separate exposures from a single raw photo, and merges them as if they came from a series of three separate photos.  As near as I can tell, Photomatix 5.1 just does tone mapping to a single raw image, I don't think it is creating multiple exposures from the raw and merging them.  

The increased tonality capability of PSP's Single Raw Photo HDR utility is pretty amazing, and can match, if not occasionally, beat, ACDSee's Light EQ tool for squeezing out all the dynamic range a raw photo can offer.  

Yes, the user interface can be a bit intimidating, especially to a newbie, there are a lot of options you won't see in other HDR utilities.  But it isn't something the reasonably intelligent digital photographer can't get comfortable with in an hour's worth of practice.  I consider it a useful tool in my toolbox.

Affinity HDR Utility

Affinity is getting all the buzz and chatter right now, especially since, from what I've read, the OnOne raw product seems somewhat disappointing to many people who were looking forward to seeing the production version (at least the buzz and chatter seems more negative, I haven't tried it), and everyone always seems to want to take Adobe Photoshop down a bit.  

Affinity's raw development leaves a lot to be desired, but it's bit mapped editor is fairly good, though still a bit buggy.  The Affinity HDR module which needs elements of both seems to reflect this disjointed level of completeness, in my mind.

In many ways Affinity gets many HDR things right, and certainly, it is the only HDR utility of the three that offers a Curves tool for controlling tonality.  

It's a pretty automated process, and that makes it VERY easy to create HDR photos.  It also has the ability to use and create presets.

The problem is, I can't tell if the controls are a part of the post merge, pre finalization step or are just the standard bit mapped controls showing up to do THEIR thing!

It also can't accept a series of raw files from ACDSee and process them as HDR.  They go automatically to the raw develop persona as multiple instances of the persona, and I can't figure out how to get them to the HDR input window without going through the very primitive, standard Windows open file popup window.

Produced with Affinity Photo's HDR Utility
click on the image to see a larger version

To the good, once you get past the Windows selection popup window, creating HDRs is incredibly easy, and the output looks pretty good.  I don't think it is as good as Photomatix or Paintshop pro, but it is a whole lot easier to produce.

My suspicion is that Serif (the software developer and publisher of Affinity photo), sees the HDR utility as something that is designed to produce a fairly decent HDR exposure that you can finish up in the Affinity Photo bit mapped editor.  That is as valid an approach as Photomatix's "do as much as possible inside Photomatix" approach, I think since the Affinity Photo bit mapped editor is so complete. But I do think it complicates things for people trying to do product comparisons!

My Conclusions

I would rate the output of this test to be:

1. Photomatix Pro 5.1
2. Corel PaintShop Pro X8
3. Serif's Affinity Photo 1.5

Photomatix Pro 5.1 works well for me and fits well within my normal workflow. I can do HDR quickly and easily with an ACDSee/Photomatix combination.  PSP X8's HDR utility while not as convenient to use as Photomatix, offers me a different approach to HDR that I like to have available.

Affinity's HDR module is not likely something I will use much.  While it is really easy to use, and produces fairly good results, I don't think it offers me, who is about to make the transition from a beginner HDR creator to an intermediate HDR creator, much that the other two products don't offer in better, more efficient ways.  It would be good for people who want to explore HDR without spending much money though.

I don't see this as a negative about Affinity Photo, overall.  It is a remarkable product in many ways, though it has a long way to go before it can offer PSP or Photoshop any serious competition.  I'm glad I purchased Affinity Photo, and I look forward to using its non HDR functions in the future, especially as Serif brings it up to a tested ready state.

Win 10 Alternatives to ExifToolGui

[UPDATE12/2/2016]  I have to withdraw my support for PhotoME and instead will now use ExifPilot for my Gui based exif editing.  I have discovered, one day after publishing this article that I am unable to export data from my ORF files  to other files.  The export/import capabilities of PhotoME are primitive and incomplete at best.  I have changed this article to reflect this. My apologies to any who this inconvenienced. [END UPDATE]

Embedded metadata in a photo is pretty important.  Most people want, at the very least, their name and copyright information embedded in the photo.  They want the camera, lens, and exposure information embedded within the photo.

Many photo managers, like ACDSee and Lightroom, allow one to search on that information, so it makes finding very specific types of photos pretty easy.

The problem is, many photo editors strip all or some of the exif data from the photos when they save it. This is particularly true when you send photos to the editor on a 'round trip' from a photo manager.  (Yeah, I'm looking at YOU PaintShop Pro!).

So a very common need is to copy the metadata found in the source photo (such as the raw or the Out of camera jpg) to the completed photo that comes back from the editor.

And that's where ExifTool comes in.  It is an Open Source library of  commands written by Phil Harvey, that allow other programs to manipulate, add, change, and delete embedded metadata such as the Exif and IPTC data that the file format you are using allows.  You can learn more and download Exiftool at this website: http://owl.phy.queensu.ca/~phil/exiftool/

The problem is, its own interface that everyday users can access is pretty primitive, it is a command line interface.

That means one needs to know how to invoke the command line interface of your operating system, and then enter a command similar to this one:

exiftool -artist=”Glen Barrington” StAugustine001.jpg StAugustine002.jpg StAugustine003.jpg

The line above inserts the name "Glen Barrington" into the metadata field callled "artist" in the three jpg photos called StAugustine001, StAugustine002, and StAugustine003.

To me, the command line is only a viable solution if I have a batch of photos to alter.  I want an easier, quicker way to modify the metadata, especially if it is only one photo at a time.  It is very powerful in that a command line interface allows for many subtle changes on a batch of photos.  BUT, that can be a lot of typing!

I personally found it to be a pain in the neck for one photo at a time.  I wanted a point and click type of user interface.

That's when I discovered ExifToolGUI written by Bogdan Hrastnik.  You can read about it here: http://u88.n24.queensu.ca/~bogdan/

It was great! It allowed for that point and click user interface and even allowed one to access the command line interface of ExifTool directly from within ExifToolGUI itself!

Exif Tool works with Win 10, but ExifToolGui does not, though some claim to have gotten it to work.  At least I haven't been able to get it to work in spite of following the directions of people who have gotten it working.

I'm not entirely certain if it is an ExifToolGui issue or a Windows 10 issue. I've seen odd issues with Win10 and other software that make no sense to me.  At any rate, I've given up on ever getting it to work and set about finding something that DOES work for me.

I have found two products that work reasonably well for me on Win 10.  They are ExifPilot and PhotoMe.  I will discuss them in sequence.

ExifPilot

ExifPilot is a free, but commercial, product published by TwoPilots Software. You can find it here: http://www.colorpilot.com/exif.html

I like this product very much.

To see a larger image, click on the photo.

For free, it will edit metadata on a single photo.  If you want to add batch processing, they charge $79.95 USD.  To me, that seems kind of pricy.  I might consider a $25 price to upgrade but not at $80.  I can't help but wonder if they would make more money on this product with a lower upgrade price, but I'm sure they have had someone run the numbers for them for optimal pricing.

While batch metadata processing is a great convenience, I only need batch processing outside of what ACDSee provides, maybe 2 or 3 times a year.  For that sort of money I will use the command line interface of ExifTool.  But ultimately, that is a decision only you can make for yourself.

It's a pretty straightforward user interface consisting of 3 columns with your folder hierarchy on the left, the file selection column in the middle and the column on the right, stacks the thumbnail image above the metadata display column.

Usage is pretty intuitive. You launch the program, and the last folder you were in is the default, and if you want another folder, you have to wait until that folder is fully displayed before you can switch.

After that, the operation of the program is straightforward.  The only surprise, which made sense after thought about it, was that one can't click on the field in the right hand column to change the field being displayed.  

Instead, the user has to click a button at the bottom of the column to bring up a change window.  (see screen print with superimposed arrow)  This is a good thing in that the user can't accidentally click on a field and change a field without meaning to.  The user has to make a conscious decision to change a field.

I tried to set it up as an external editor from within ACDSee Ultimate 10, that didn't work so well.  While I could select a photo from within ACDSee, and right click on it, Exif Pilot would launch, but it did not take the photo.  Instead, it opened the last folder used the previous time you used it.

Things I wish Exif Pilot would Fix/Change

• Allow ExifPilot to function as an external editor for photo managers
• Allow the user to control what default photo folder to open the program in.
• Change presets would be great, one could create a preset and apply it to as many photos as we want.
• As I said earlier, I like this software very much, but the $79.95 upgrade price for batch processing is simply too high for me to pay. (It costs more than ACDSee 20 which will do batch metadata editing on SOME metadata, but not all) 

But if you are content with single photo metadata editing with a standalone editor, it is an excellent product.

PhotoME

I found this to be an odd and interesting application.  https://www.photome.de/

It is a free program, the web page doesn't say anywhere that I could find that it is open source, just that it is freeware.

It has some great ideas that I wish were incorporated into other exif editors.  However it has serious flaws that make it unacceptable for any but the most primitive metadata editing.

Click on the image to see a larger version

PhotoMe will display a miniature icon in the upper right hand corner of the window, of any OTHER applications that are identified as the default program for that file type.

It does not do batch editing, however it can be set up as an external editor from within ACDSee (and I assume other file managers) so incorporating it into my workflow is very easy.  If I can't make a particular metadata change from within ACDSee itself, I can just right click a photo and send it to PhotoMe directly.  Unfortunately, it still only works on one photo at a time, and if you try to send more than one photo to PhotoMe, it won't load ANY photos.  However for one photo at a time editing, it is convenient to launch as an external editor from within ACDSee. 

It seems to display all the Exif tags and fields even the ones that it can't edit.  The great thing is, it identifies the official tag ids, which can be useful at times since not all applications that display metadata use the official names that the tag id represents.  To learn more about EXIF tags, go here: http://www.exiv2.org/tags.html

It also groups the Exif data by its function, and has navigation tabs to facilitate the user editing the exact data that he or she wants to edit.  I think this makes great sense, when we think of a photo's exposure information, we don't think about it's tag ID or its storage location in the metadata portion of the file format, we think about "exposure info" and we are going to want to make sure that all the exposure info is correct.  PhotoME's method makes the sort of data you are looking at very clear and obvious.

The fields that it can change are highlighted in blue, one just clicks on the content column where the content is blue.  If the field is blank, you won't know if the field is editable until you click on it.  if it is editable, an edit window will appear, if it isn't, nothing happens.  I think the field name, the Tag ID should also be highlighted as well as the content field for easy identification.

PhotoMe doesn't support IPTC data, but I don't personally use that info very much, and I can change most of that from within ACDSee anyway (and in batch mode)

PhotoMe's support for raw is in need of an update.  To edit a raw image, you open the standard Windows 10 "Open File" window and select an image.  

However, while open file dialog window will display ORF files from my E500 and my E30 cameras, it will not display ORF files from my newer E-M10 (which is about 3 years old).  However, once either set of raw files are opened, both display for editing.  I have current Windows codecs installed, so it isn't a codec issue.  If I use ACDSee as a front end for PhotoME, this won't be a big issue since I can use ACDSee to view and select files for editing in PhotoME.

I have found it impossible to Export metadata from a photo to an intermediate file for import into another photo.  Right now it's pretty useless.  I can't export or import ANY info from a raw file, and while I can export from jpg or tif files, I can't import the exported files.  This is VERY problematic for me.

This is completely unacceptable in my eyes.  The ability to edit ONLY the data that PhotoME finds in a given photo makes the application completely unusable to repair metadata issues where that data has been stripped from an image.

The things I wish PhotoMe would fix/change.

• Finish the metadata import/export functionality
• The raw files discrepancy.
• Add support for IPTC and XML data
• Add batch capability.
• Add the capability to accept multiple instances of selected photos from ACDSee or other photo managers, and either go into batch mode, or even just open multiple instances of PhotoME.
• Change presets would be great. one could create a preset and apply it to as many photos as we want.

My Conclusions

ExifPilot seems more complete and less . . . tenuous.  While PhotoME offers the PROMISE of integrating into my ACDSee based workflow better, it simply is not in a tested ready state I expect.

With an ACDSee/PhotoMe combination, I could do much of my batch EXIF/IPTC editing needs from within ACDSee itself.  Then for photos that require editing ACDSee can't do, select photos for a round trip to PhotoME for individual attention.

But at the current state of affairs, PhotoME is all promise and no delivery.  I will likely use ExifPilot.  

I would have no problem paying $25 - $30 USD for the perfect Exif editor.  But so far, the perfect Exif editor doesn't exist.  At least not for Windows 10.

ACDSee Ultimate 10

 A Quick Review from an Experienced User

As I write this, ACDSee Systems has released, just today, ACDSee Ultimate 10, ACDSee Pro 10, and ACDSee 20.  (Click HERE for a brief explanation of the 3 different products, and a quick review of ACDSee Ultimate 9)

Please note that this is a review of ACDSee Ultimate 10, I have not had time to examine Pro 10 or ACDSee 20.  While I am reasonably confident that shared features between the 3 products will be roughly similar, if not identical, I can not guarantee that will always be the case.  If one of the other two products interest you, please download the trial version for that product and verify it meets your needs before purchasing.  It's the smart thing to do!


 I like this version, and I believe that someone who is looking for a tool to manage raw development, and bit mapped editing will find this a worthy new purchase or upgrade.  However, for existing ACDSee users, who are primarily interested in the rich media management environment that ACDSee already offers, the need to upgrade is less immediate. V9 was already a very good media  manager, and V10 is pretty much the same media manager.

I think the addition of the ACDSee Dashboard and the Smart Brush technology, strongly indicates that the level of aggressive creativity that ACDSee Systems has demonstrated over the last 3 or 4 years, has not diminished.

I also think that the addition of enhanced noise control via the new Preserve Detail sliders also illustrates ACDSee's commitment to making solid enhancements to the existing infrastructure.

The noteworthy changes in my mind are as follows:

• In the Selections menu there is now a "Delete Selected Pixels" item. This will set selected pixels transparent if the currently selected image is a layer image, or set mask pixels black if a mask is currently selected. A convenient feature, in my mind.
• The blend modes now work with actions. I haven't tested this as yet, frankly, I don't use actions much; but this should enhance the ability to more completely automate the editing process.
• Enhanced Noise Control with the addition of the Preserve Detail sliders. This is a much needed enhancement, and it increases the quality of native Noise control in ACDSee.
• Smart Brush technology shows up in both the Develop tab and in the Edit tab. It seems to show up in the masking tools and in the selection tools. I found this technology to show great promise in improving the speed and convenience of selective editing in ACDSee Ultimate 10.
• The ACDSee Dashboard - There is a lot of useful information stored within your ACDSee database that you can use to help you make decisions in your photographic practice. This is designed to help you more easily access this information.

I will discuss the last three points in some detail below:

Enhanced Noise Control

ACDSee has never been famous for its noise control. It isn't BAD noise control, but up til now, it has been pretty basic, not really capable of any subtlety in its noise control efforts.

The net result is that long time users might be willing to use ACDSee for the really EASY noise control but then would use a third party noise control tool like Topaz Denoise for the more challenging stuff.

However the addition of the Preserve Detail slider and the Preserve Detail Threshold slider allows one to fine tune the noise control efforts a bit.

This addition does NOT make ACDSee as good as Topaz Denoise, but it does change the point a bit where where one would feel the need to use a third party tool. 

I can only applaud this effort and want it to continue.

Smart Brush Technology

I LIKE the tools that use this technology!  This might be the single most important addition to ACDSee series 10 versions.  The smart brush is added to the Develop Brush Drop Down Panel and in the Brush selection tool for the Edit tab.

My comments below, specifically address the implementation found in the Development (i.e Raw development) tab.

Smart Brush Panel in action.
Click on this photo to make it larger.

There are 4 smart brush algorithms that you can choose from.

1. None - essentially the "off" mode.
2. Color - Appears to lay down the mask according to color differences.
3. Brightness - Appears to lay down the mask according to brightness level differences.
4. Magic - Appears to be some sort of proprietary selection algorithm.

There is also a "Tolerance" Slider that can vary from 1 to 100. I suspect in time we will learn to value this slider very much. It seems to be the secret to successfully using this new selective edit tool. What I THINK is occurring (based on my observed behavior of the tool, no special information on my part. So I could be wrong!) is that a value level is determined by the initial Nib width size of the brush. And this value is the comparison value of the smart brush technology.

A slider value of '1' means there is very little tolerance for differences. 

What appears to be happening is, that when the brush lands on a new area of the photo, it compares the value of the new area to the original comparison value. Essentially, with a slider value of '1' there can be no differences in the comparison values for the mask to be applied to the photo at that location.

A slider value of '100' seems to mean that the comparison differences to have the mask applied to the new area of the photo is VERY broad. In effect, it practically turns the Smart brushing off and allows almost everything to be applied to the Develop brush.

The user can adjust the brush size at any point.

So far, My testing of this tool is VERY preliminary. These are my initial notes on this tool.

• Set your Develop Brush size before entering Smart Brush mode
• Only then, move then move the Smart brush algorithm from 'None' to one of the other 3 algorithms. If you are in doubt as to which to use, start with 'Magic' it works pretty well as a general purpose selection tool, I think.
• Set your tolerance (I suggest starting at about 20). You can change the tolerance in the middle of mask selection, but it won't reconfigure those parts of the selection mask already applied, only the future selections. I suggest if you think your tolerances are too high or too low, that you back out, and start over.

The Edit Tab's Brush Selection Tool
Click on this photo to make it larger.

ACDSee Dashboard

Essentially this is a database statistics tool It provides information both statistically and graphically. There are 4 sub-tabs within dashboard.

Overview - This gives you a summary of the information found in the other 3 sub-tabs.
Database - This gives you information like Database size, Last backup, File information, Folder Info, Number of orphaned files, and thumbnail information.
Cameras - Information on the cameras you use, graphics and and statistics on ISO photos are shot with.
Files - Statistics and graphics on number of images and videos, the file formats and the image resolution.

Dashboard's Camera Summary
Click on photo to make it larger.

This is a VERY important new tool, I think. However there is plenty of room for improvement. For instance, I'd like to see information on the focal lengths used. And maybe in a future version there could be a way to add a limited number of user defined statistics.

But overall, this is a really useful new feature in my mind.

Big Shots

I was visiting Lincoln Memorial Gardens just outside of Springfield, Illinois this morning. It is the place I go to whenever suburban life and the smell of mown grass and heavy automobile traffic becomes too much for me to bear. Its efforts to recreate the woods and grass prairies of Illinois offers a wonderful renewal of the soul.

It is, of course, a great place to take a camera. I came across a man who must have been lugging what had to have been 30 pounds of weight in the form two cameras, big white lenses, tripods a couple of camera bags and what looked like an ammo belt peppered with what looked like lens pouches around his waist. His wife was struggling to carry a suitcase sized and shaped aluminum camera case. (I assume it was his wife, she had that bored, resigned look mixed with repressed anger on her face that I associate with women married to photographers).

I was equipped with what I consider my 'heavy' gear. My OMD E-M10 with my old Olympus 14-54 mm zoom lens with adapter.

We nodded as we passed, I got the impression that he was wondering HOW I could take pictures with that gear. I know I was wondering that about him!

NIK and Topaz Tools Strange Color Shift!

I've discovered an anomaly when using NIK Color Efex Pro 4 quite by accident. It's not restricted to just NIK tools, as I've also seen it In Topaz Detail 3 and Topaz Adjust 5. I have NOT seen it in Topaz Denoise 6, But to be fair, Denoise underwent a major rewrite lately and I wonder if that is why it doesn't exhibit this flaw.

Let me give you some history.

When I installed the NIK tools in ACDSee Ultimate 9, I noticed that color and tonality from within NIK Color Efex was different from the color and tonality of the photo I sent to NIK Color Efex from ACDSee Ultimate 9.  It was driving me crazy!

Note the Sample Image Below:

The comparison between ACDSee Ultimate 9 and NIK Color Efex.  The difference is quite noticable.  Click on any photo to see it larger.

I discovered that if the photo's color profile was set to Pro Photo RGB then the color difference between the version displayed in ACDSee and the version displayed in NIK Color Efex was quite pronounced.

So I tried to invoke Color Efex from Corel PSP X8, and the colors were the same! At first, I was calling ACDSee all sorts of names, but then I noticed that PSP was ALWAYS converting the ProPhoto version to SRGB upon receiving the photo. (I checked and apparently PSP X8 doesn't support Pro Photo and defaults to SRGB!)

So I converted the Pro Photo color profile for my test photo to ARGB and to SRGB, and then invoked NIK Color EFEX 4 from ACDSee Ultimate 9 as a plugin.

All three color profiles look roughly the same When displayed in ACDSee Ultimate 9.  Click on any photo to see it larger

ARGB in NIK was very close but not identical to the sent ARGB version. 

I don't know if this screen print shows this, but there is a slightly extra amount of yellow in the NIK version, though I doubt the color shift is enough to make the NIK version unreliable, or even noticeable in most cases.  Click on any photo to see it larger.

The SRGB in NIK was virtually identical. 

Click on any photo to see it larger.

I brought this up on a popular photo forum, and another user reported the same behavior on Affinity Photo.  So, apparently this goes beyond ACDSee and Windows.

I'm not sure what the right thing would be for ACDSee to do in this case (if ANYTHING, is this really their problem?)   But if you are experiencing this odd color shift with NIK or other plugins, you might want to look into this possible cause!

More on the importance of the Hasselblad X1D . . .

Will ALL current cameras become museum pieces?

I've owned and operated many Medium Format cameras over the years.  I've owned Bronicas, Mamiyas, and I still have a much loved Yashica Mat 124G.  What can I say about that last one?  Some cameras just speak to you, regardless of comparative quality. 

The dialog around the X1D is starting to separate out into two camps.  Those who see the X1D as an expensive, and conspicuous show of wealth, with no real impact on photography, and those who see the X1D as something that is inherently a game changer and a threat to the FF DSLR.  I am in the second camp.

Modern photography is now very much a part of the consumer economy.  The X1D isn't important because it is a good camera, indeed, it may or may not be a successful new camera introduction, the results are not in on that.   There are many reasons why a given camera may succeed or fail.

The X1D is important because of what it means for the future of photography.   What we are seeing is that sensor/film size no longer has as direct a correspondence to camera size and usability that it used to have.

The X1D is only a tiny bit larger and a tiny bit heavier than the Sony A7RII.  And as much as I love my m43s E-M10, the X1D isn't THAT much bigger and heavier than the larger m43s camera bodies.  The gap between 'big' and 'small' is narrowing.

It may be too early to tell until we get the camera into hands of the early adopters, but It seems that it is not just 'reasonably hand-holdable', it is VERY hand-holdable!  We've all seen MF SLRs, they are NOT ideal hand held devices.  People use them for the image quality, and NOT for how convenient they are.  Hasselblad seems to be trying to develop a convenient MF camera.

Is the X1D a threat to the current crop of FF DSLRs?  Probably not, at least at list prices.  But I remind you it uses a SONY sensor.  What if Sony decides there is a market for a lower priced MF mirrorless camera similar to the X1D? It would seem a 'doable' project for Sony if the design and build costs work out.

What if Olympus decides the "M" in m43s should actually stand for "Medium"?  

I think the need to differentiate the quality found in dedicated cameras from the cameras found in smartphones may force manufacturers to seriously consider upsizing their sensors, and when/if that occurs, the mirrorbox will be discovered to add a lot of size, weight, and mirror flop tortion for no good reason.

What we are seeing is a result of the success of the smartphone as a "go everywhere" camera.  The recent smartphone offerings are getting pretty good, and no one thinks the image quality of the smart phone cameras will stop getting better.  

Hasselblad has given us a possible way to keep the stand alone dedicated camera a viable photographic tool.  I think the other manufacturers would be foolish to ignore it.

Does the Hasselblad X1D Change Things?

Do you remember in the absolute very first Star Wars movie, when Han, Luke, and Leia are in the garbage pit of the Battle Star, and the walls start closing in?  I imagine that must be how Canon and Nikon feel.

Is how we will come to think about the DSLR?

My very first reaction when I saw pictures of the camera, was a yawn.  So it was a big version of what I already had with my Olympus E-M10!  Big deal! Yeah it was a much bigger sensor, but it WAS essentially a 4:3 sensor, and I DID have a better selection of lenses.  And the price, while something of a bargain, considering the format and manufacturer, is so far out of my financial capabilities that I saw the thing as irrelevant to my life and my photography.

However, once I started thinking about what the X1D actually meant to photography and photographers, in general, I realized that this just might actually BE the game changer, we all like to  talk about but never really see!

Click to go to Hasselblad Web site.

A medium format mirrorless camera that weighs only a small bit more than the Sony A7RII is a very remarkable thing.  And while the price is high, it is priced low enough that it will undoubtedly draw some sales away from many FF DSLR cameras particularly those higher cost, and presumably higher margin camera bodies. Particularly so for those who are interested in studio work, or possibly, landscape photography.

I think Nikon and Canon have to start thinking about what this means for the DSLR camera format.  Is it SO absurd to think that DXO/Mamiya, Pentax, Sony, or even possibly Olympus could produce a similar camera at a lower price?  A price that skirts dangerously close to the upper end DSLRs?

Canon and Nikon MUST see that the walls are starting to move.  The area in which they are free to operate just got smaller, and once some manufacturer recognizes that there is a market for a less costly camera, their ability to move freely will be even further restricted.

I would remind you that our Star Wars heros, ultimately got out of their shrinking prison, but they found it a rather unpleasant escape.  Will Canon and Nikon escape their newly encountered situation?

I don't know, but I do believe this is one more nail in the coffin of the DSLR.  the DSLR isn't going away for a while yet, but I believe the handwriting is on the wall.  And that wall is moving towards Canon and Nikon, it is their actions that will determine how well they survive.

Psychological and Attitudinal Implications of Photographic Gear Choice

During a conversation I had with a new adopter to m43s from a FF system, he mentioned that he felt that his photos were different from the photos he had been taking, and when he made a conscious decision to shoot his "old style", he felt the composition and overall quality of the photos were not as good as they had been.  Overall, he felt a bit dissatisfied with his change to the new m43s system.

I wasn't sure how to respond to his complaint immediately, so I let the comment slide past me.  However, it kept nagging at me, and this post, however inadequate, is an attempt to respond to his complaints.

In looking back at my photos taken over the years with other cameras and other formats, I see a significant difference in the type of photos I take with 4/3s and m43s cameras than I did with 35 mm cameras and other cameras with other aspect ratios.

The photos taken with 4/3s and m43s cameras all seem to be more, "intimate" in nature than do the photos taken with other cameras.  Those photos, the ones not taken with 4/3s of some sort, all tend to be more 'sweeping' in nature.  I acknowledge that the terms "intimate" and "sweeping" are rather indistinct and not defined by me, but those are the feelings the various photos evoke in me.

However, I first adopted 4/3s roughly at a time when I was

1. Acknowledging that I was not, and never would be, the next Ansel Adams.  
2. Concerned that maybe I was using photography to separate myself from my life.  That maybe that viewfinder was a convenient tool to prevent me from experiencing my life, so I could just watch it like a CinemaScope movie.

With the 4/3s formats, I tend to create a lot of square format photos and do a lot of close ups, both of which, in my mind at least, are features of a photographer trying to connect with his subject.  And my landscape photos seem to be less sweeping and more focused on the details of the natural world.  Even my 'sweeping' landscapes tend to have little details in them than really only get noticed on close examination, and they are frequently stitched panoramas since I don't associate 4/3s with 'big sky'. 

In Memoriam

I think I have grown as a photographer since I switched to the 4/3s formats. I can't say, if that growth would have occurred anyway, or if my adoption of 4/3s accelerated that growth, but I do know they are connected in time. 

My point is, I think I unconsciously selected 4/3s because I associated it with the qualities I wanted to develop as a photographer.  Whether 4/3s actually has those qualities or not is almost irrelevant.  In my mind they did, and still do have those qualities.  M43s helps me SEE the photos I want, and it helps me create the photos I want.

I think our choice in hardware is far more complex than we want to acknowledge. And I bet that photographer I mentioned in the first paragraph isn't having problems with the format, as such, so much as he is in reconciling his attitudes about the gear and what he expects from himself.

The Inevitability of Change

On a forum I frequently visit, I asked a question about wireless charging of our cameras.  I like the idea of wireless charging.  I have it on my smartphone and on my smart watch, and it is VERY convenient.  

The way I use my camera, is that there are weeks of idleness, that are punctuated by a few days of frenzied photographic activity.  Then more idleness as I sit down and try to figure out what I want to DO with the photos I have taken.

The problem I face is that the batteries in my idle Olympus cameras gradually fade until they are empty.  And I run the risk, at some point, where my custom settings cease to be.  When the capacitor that holds a small charge to keep the camera functional when the batteries are removed, also fades away.

A wireless charging system would keep the batteries topped off and eliminate the need for me changing the idle battery  for a fresh battery once a week or so.  This isn't a major problem for me, but it WOULD be a minor convenience that I would like to have.

Naturally, in that forum, I got all sorts of detailed explanations of why such a thing would never come to pass, why it was impractical, that the the technological differences between cameras and smartphones are too great, and why the manufacturers would never be so stupid as to even try such a thing.  I also got a lot of suggestions that I should just shut up and continue to rotate batteries the way God intended.

It is my belief that anything that sells cameras is good for digital photography in general.   We no longer have consumables that can drive the ongoing profitability of companies involved with photography.  We don't have film, or developing chemicals, for example.  We do have printer ink and printing paper, but in this online age of photo sharing, their value is greatly diminished.

All the photo industry has for ongoing profitability is new technology and gear churn, and that is why we see annual model changes in camera model lines.  This isn't greed or venality on the part of the photo industry, it is basic survival.

As a result, I think wireless charging is an inevitable feature in the quality cameras aimed at the consumer and professional users in spite of all the very valid and technological reasons as to why (some people think) it will never happen.

Perceived convenience on the part of the consumer is really all the justification that is needed for offering this feature and making an investment in the R&D.   I suspect that the minute it becomes do-able, or even kinda/sorta do-able, it's going to happen. 

The early models will no doubt be of marginal value, and all the nay-sayers will say, "See! I told you so!" But if there's any merit to the idea, and in this case, merit, means an affirmative answer to the question, "Will it SELL more gear if we make a few tweaks?", then the second and third generation devices will be produced and improved.

This is the same path that smart watches have taken. And is the path that Smartphones took from the original Palm Pilot, to the Apple Newton, to the Treo, to the iPhone, to the Samsung G7 which DOES have wireless charging, btw.  Please forgive the missing steps in smartphone development, but you get the idea, I hope!

It is also the path that Auto exposure, Auto focus, and image stabilization took within the camera industry.  I was there, back in the days of the dinosaurs.  There were people back then who also gave detailed and very well reasoned explanations as to why those things would never work either!

I believe that ultimately, the need to sell me, and you, new gear will overpower any technological reasons of why "it can't be done."  As a result, we will not only have wireless charging in the near future, but several new convenience features we haven't even thought of.

I don't care all that much what sort of engineering and technical design issues the Camera manufacturers face, so long as they give me the convenience I seek.   We are long past having to worry about basic image quality in cameras,  even the cameras with one inch sensors produce pretty good images, and the 4/3s and APS cameras produce downright outstanding images.

The future for photographers is going to be great and more convenient, I think!