ACDSee Pro 6

[binsurf]

I just purchased the full version of ACDSee Pro 6.0 a couple days ago after reviewing its demo and I must say I'm impressed. One thing I hate the most in my photos is noise. It destroys detail and flattens an image. ACDSee Pro seems to handle noise in a new way, that even Lightroom 4 can't do. I've compared them. That alone was the 90% deciding factor. Then it handled working with light in a superior way that made it easy to work with. It seems to know how to not overexpose colors and lights when adjusting. I highly recommend the program. They have made a superior product in my opinion. I'm not affiliated with them at all, I just think we should share what we've discovered in products.

ACDSee Pro 6

Image below taken with my Sony A330 at ISO 3200 and no flash! I know, right? Too awesome!



Source: http://www.acdseeonline.com/photo/bi...0288/#12160288

[Geoff F]

I did use an earlier version of ACDSee as an image viewer. I think it was the basic version 4.

It worked reasonably well but wouldn't handle Raw images so I had to shoot Raw+Jpeg to view the straight out of camera images for my initial 'cull'.

Does the latest model work with basic Raw files (ie the common Canon or Nikon formats)?

But after getting ACR, I found that Bridge could do more than my ACDSee software so I removed it.

[stuck]

...Does the latest model work with basic Raw files (ie the common Canon or Nikon formats)?...

Ask Google and you find:
http://www.acdsee.com/en/support/raw-formats

Ken

[binsurf]

I did use an earlier version of ACDSee as an image viewer. I think it was the basic version 4.

It worked reasonably well but wouldn't handle Raw images so I had to shoot Raw+Jpeg to view the straight out of camera images for my initial 'cull'.

Does the latest model work with basic Raw files (ie the common Canon or Nikon formats)?

But after getting ACR, I found that Bridge could do more than my ACDSee software so I removed it.

You're referring to the standard version. I'm talking about the Pro version that is more advanced than the standard version. Check out the website, and you'll see there are two versions. The Pro version is as advanced as Lightroom and handles most raw files.

[FootLoose]

I have been using ACDSee Pro 6 for a while now. It does handle RAW files -- unlike my old copy of PS CS3. It is very good, but it is no substitute for Photoshop. I haven't used Lightroom.

[binsurf]

That's true, it's no substitute for photoshop. It's more as a part of your workflow.

[davidedric]

Just a comment. I have ACDSee v. 14 (NOT Pro), which I bought a little while ago, when I was a bit ignorant

However, I do find it an excellent image viewer and sorter: it handles .cr2 RAW files with no problem at all.

I use LR4 for most PP work, and I don't like importing hundreds of images into LR, most of which I will never work on.

So my, perhaps slightly eccentric, workflow is to copy all images from OOC to a directory on an external HDD. I then use ACDSee to review (lots of viewing options) and decide which ones I think might be worth working on and copy these into my LR directory (on a different drive), which is a one-click process in ACDSee. Then I import them into my LR catalogue.

I don't think I would buy ACDSee just for this (obviously, it does a lot more too), but having got it it does work extremely well for me.