ACDSee 4

md2008

md2008

Established
Local time
9:48 AM
Joined
Feb 23, 2008
Messages
171
Hi,

The new version of ACDSee Pro - 4, has been out now for over a month and I've yet to see any real reviews of this software as searched on Google. I'm currently using Pro 3 and was wondering if any other users had upgraded and whether it is a worthy upgrade or a pass? How is the raw processing vs Pro 3?
 
I plan to in the near future, I like the added CA controls, and a few other tweaks, Still using ACDSee Pro 3 for now.
 
I remember using with some prehistoric version at the dawn of Internet, late -90's. then Photoshop stole the show. it was neat little program, intuitive and powerful. perhaps should try again.
 
I like and use 3. I find it very well organised with an easy to learn interface and although lightroom is more powerful it's not as intuative IMO.

If I have one criticism it would be that they are slow in getting compliant with new raw formats and it took them ages to get on board with the Leica M8's DNGs. If they don't drag the chain with the new X100 RAFs I'll definitely be sticking with it and probably moving to 4. Currently I use Silky Pix to convert the RAFs to tifs then move them straight across to ACDSee Pro 3.

Over all it has some really great features and I seriously wonder why more people aren't familiar with it. Adobe are robbers IMO.
 
Wow, I haven't heard that name in many years. I didn't even know there was still an ACDSee until I saw this thread. I always liked their product, back in the day, before PS took over the image market. ACDSee, Paintshop Pro, and similar products had some great ideas and wonderful interfaces, compared to PS. Unfortunately, they simply didn't have the marketing bucks.

I got off that train, though. I do my photo editing with the Gimp and ImageMagick, and use Bibble to read my Olympus RAW files and output them as tiffs (it does a better job of it than the Gimp). 90% of what I do is just color correction and cropping anyway.
 
I've been using ACDSee Pro since v2.0 or something, it's, indeed, a cheaper, simpler solution than the Adobe options. It does pretty much everything I want to do with my pictures, so I don't need more.

Differences I've noticed in 4 over 3 are the aformentioned CA and defringe correction.
They also made a lot more things `non-destructive', so you can experiment more without having to save working versions. I especially like the last bit.

I am however quite pissed that I upgraded in the first week at full price, and 2 days later got an offer for a cheaper upgrade as a loyal customer. I sent them an email about that, and never got a reply.
 
If they support the X100 before August I'll grab a copy for my trips abroad, to run on my baby PC laptop. It's too small to run Lightroom I think, or maybe not. It's roughly the size of a postage stap ;)
 
Double Negative said:
ACDSee strikes me as a bit of a "Lightroom/Aperture wannabe" but in a much, much simpler application (granted ACDSee has been around longer than both). If you want to do basic management, viewing and processing it seems okay. I think you're better off with LR/A for that kind of money though.

Then again, I'm not a fan of these "all-in-one" processing/management type apps. I prefer the "old school" method of Adobe Bridge and Photoshop, working directly with the filesystem rather than libraries, etc.
Click to expand...

ACDSee does not use liberties... that is an Adobe nightmare!
 
I've been using ACDSee since Pro 3 became available for evaluation. I've had an evaluation version of Pro 4 on my computer for about the last six months--which reminds me that it expires sometime this month so I'm going to have to pony up some money to buy it.

Can't say I've seen any major changes between 3 and 4, just some nice little tweaks and it seems to be a bit faster and more stable. ACDSee is the only program I use and it does everything I need. Well worth the money in my view...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom