Author Topic: Well, that is a positive sign  (Read 5048 times)

ColinG

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 145
Re: Well, that is a positive sign
« Reply #30 on: June 01, 2018, 04:21:25 pm »
ACDSee Photo Editor 10 is a far more capable Raw converter/image editor than PhotoLab - image quality is far superior, it has selective editing, layers, and PhotoShop plug-in compatibility, and it handles highlights infinitely better than the dismal DxO approach;
True for the Windows version, definitely not true for the Mac version which is really a poor cousin. ACDSee has re-written the Mac version and it is better than it was before, but it still is far less capable than the Windows version.


I tried ACDsee for Mac and thought it was going to be something I would love. It just did not do enough though. In retrospect, it might have made a good DAM but does it work well with external editors?
« Last Edit: June 01, 2018, 04:23:10 pm by ColinG »

MikeFromMesa

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 375
Re: Well, that is a positive sign
« Reply #31 on: June 01, 2018, 07:15:21 pm »
I tried ACDsee for Mac and thought it was going to be something I would love. It just did not do enough though. In retrospect, it might have made a good DAM but does it work well with external editors?
Well, yes and no.

If you are editing an image and are in the Develop module (with the Develop tab active) you can not send the image to an external editor. I have found no way to do that. However if you return to the Manage module you can then right-click and select "Open With" and it will send the photo to the editor you choose.

However this sends the image without any corrections to the external editor so, if you are editing a raw image, it will send the raw image. If you want to send the processed image you first have to save the edited image to a tiff or jpg, then return to the Manage Module, select the new image and then send that.

Personally I think it is all too much work. Why can you not tell the software to send a processed version of the image you are working on to the external editor as you can with most other software?

My history with ACDSee is long as I used to use the Windows version, and was fairly happy with it. When I moved to the Mac and tried to use the Mac version I found it was really buggy and it crashed frequently, the processing was poor and it was just not very satisfactory, and I moved on to other software (PhotoNinja as I recall). When I found they had re-written the Mac software I tried again, and even bought a license, but I have again given up on it.

But your mileage may differ ...

ColinG

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 145
Re: Well, that is a positive sign
« Reply #32 on: June 01, 2018, 11:43:18 pm »
I tried ACDsee for Mac and thought it was going to be something I would love. It just did not do enough though. In retrospect, it might have made a good DAM but does it work well with external editors?
Well, yes and no.

If you are editing an image and are in the Develop module (with the Develop tab active) you can not send the image to an external editor. I have found no way to do that. However if you return to the Manage module you can then right-click and select "Open With" and it will send the photo to the editor you choose.

However this sends the image without any corrections to the external editor so, if you are editing a raw image, it will send the raw image. If you want to send the processed image you first have to save the edited image to a tiff or jpg, then return to the Manage Module, select the new image and then send that.

Personally I think it is all too much work. Why can you not tell the software to send a processed version of the image you are working on to the external editor as you can with most other software?

My history with ACDSee is long as I used to use the Windows version, and was fairly happy with it. When I moved to the Mac and tried to use the Mac version I found it was really buggy and it crashed frequently, the processing was poor and it was just not very satisfactory, and I moved on to other software (PhotoNinja as I recall). When I found they had re-written the Mac software I tried again, and even bought a license, but I have again given up on it.

But your mileage may differ ...

Thanks. That is rather as ì saw it when I ran the trial so I am not missing much and it is a none starter. I am back to square one really. If ON1's next update is as good as they say then that is the way I will go. Failing that it is back to Adobe. All assumning DxO do not get their act together of course.

MikeFromMesa

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 375
Re: Well, that is a positive sign
« Reply #33 on: June 02, 2018, 03:11:23 am »
If ON1's next update is as good as they say then that is the way I will go.
Who is "they"? ON1?

I have not been particularly impressed with ON1. I tested the ability of the app to handle a blown-out photo (it is now my standard as to how well software can handle a bad image) and it did not do particularly well. Lightroom, CaptureOne and PhotoLab all did great jobs, PhotoNinja did OK and ON1 did poorly. Still, it is all a matter of personal opinion.

I did take the step of getting a CaptureOne upgrade at their 40% off price. I had stopped using it as more complex and tedious than I needed, but the uncertainty with PL has made me look for options.

ColinG

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 145
Re: Well, that is a positive sign
« Reply #34 on: June 02, 2018, 09:31:51 am »
If ON1's next update is as good as they say then that is the way I will go.
Who is "they"? ON1?

I have not been particularly impressed with ON1. I tested the ability of the app to handle a blown-out photo (it is now my standard as to how well software can handle a bad image) and it did not do particularly well. Lightroom, CaptureOne and PhotoLab all did great jobs, PhotoNinja did OK and ON1 did poorly. Still, it is all a matter of personal opinion.

I did take the step of getting a CaptureOne upgrade at their 40% off price. I had stopped using it as more complex and tedious than I needed, but the uncertainty with PL has made me look for options.

They is ON1 and some independent beta testers. Personally have not found blown out images to be an issue on ON1 - have found other issues in the past but not that. I guess it is all  based on what extremes we test the program at.

ColinG

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 145
Re: Well, that is a positive sign
« Reply #35 on: June 06, 2018, 05:34:54 pm »
Well the PL update is out, not fanfare or big announcement that I can see. A really quiet affair this :-)

Nik update also out and again pretty quiet, although the website has been updated.

But see - https://www.dpreview.com/news/4312085883/dxo-updates-nik-collection-releases-photolab-1-2-with-u-point-local-adjustments
« Last Edit: June 06, 2018, 05:45:20 pm by ColinG »

MikeFromMesa

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 375
Re: Well, that is a positive sign
« Reply #36 on: June 08, 2018, 12:06:36 am »
Well the PL update is out, not fanfare or big announcement that I can see. A really quiet affair this :-)

Nik update also out and again pretty quiet, although the website has been updated.

But see - https://www.dpreview.com/news/4312085883/dxo-updates-nik-collection-releases-photolab-1-2-with-u-point-local-adjustments
Yes. They seem to have added a considerable amount of new functionality to the local adjustments. What I have seen so far is very nice.

Still, it would be good if they issued some new release indicating what their current status is and what to expect in the near future. Googling "Dxo receivership" only brings up the same old stuff.
« Last Edit: June 08, 2018, 12:08:21 am by MikeFromMesa »

ColinG

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 145
Re: Well, that is a positive sign
« Reply #37 on: June 08, 2018, 02:21:16 pm »
Yes, the worry is that the "negotiations" might be hanging on income streams from Nik. Over on FB (horrible place) there is a lot of opinion that is against DxO charging for Nik. All based on the punters having paid for it once already. Some people just do not get it or do not want to!

MikeFromMesa

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 375
Re: Well, that is a positive sign
« Reply #38 on: June 08, 2018, 11:04:02 pm »
Over on FB (horrible place)
FB? What (or where) is that?

ColinG

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 145
Re: Well, that is a positive sign
« Reply #39 on: June 09, 2018, 11:35:16 am »
Facebook :-)

Incidentally, I wonder why DxO have not published an announcement on these forums?
« Last Edit: June 11, 2018, 09:14:01 am by ColinG »

Allsop

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 122
    • Andrew-Bede Allsop
Re: Well, that is a positive sign
« Reply #40 on: June 11, 2018, 06:03:59 am »
Facebook :-)

Incidentally, I wonder why DxO haver not published an announcement on these forums?
Because customer communications and support are way down on their list of priorities.
It is all part of the rich tapestry of life.

 

photography