![]() I have tried other tools, and while they might be more automated in some ways, I know I can't get anywhere close to my vision of what my photos should look like with them. I like ACDSee Ultimate 2021, quite a bit, and I would never go back to Lightroom. Very cool, and it works with almost every tool in the editor. mask drawing tool that allows the user to describe the sort of pixels you want to target and see the mask being drawn as you describe it. It also has Light EQ and Color EQ but more importantly, it has Pixel Targeting. I use the Topaz and Nik tools with it on a regular basis. It does layers (with Adjustment Layers), history, and can use most modern *.8bf photoshop plugins. The editor is a full featured 16 bit color depth bit mapped editor. It really helps the user to capture as much of the dynamic range his or her camera can capture.Ĭolor EQ is similar, but it allows the User to adjust the Saturation, Brightness, Hue, and contrast for each of 8 colors.Īlso Note the additional options below the Color EQ Light EQ allows the user to divide up the image into as many as 9 lighting zones and individually adjust each zone separately. Plus, it has two features you won't find anywhere else, Light EQ, and Color EQ. It has history, live histograms, and a full set of both global and masking tools. It does allow for presets and "Snapshots" which are similar to virtual images, and it allows you to create and use existing presets. SeeDrive is ACDSee's own cloud photo/video storage service It connects and interacts VERY well with Both SeeDrive and Microsoft OneDrive. It supports virtually all camera raw files, and all the major bit mapped photo files like jpg, Tiff, etc. Search capabilities are strong, but its hierarchal database make Not logic complex. So it is possible to do many searches without having to figure out a complex 'not logic' for the search. It has a high degree of batch automation capabilities, and for keywording, there are actually TWO database files One for categories, and one for keywords proper. This is not something I personally worry about. Fortunately, ACDSee as a DAM tool has been around since the 1990s, and as a result, it DAM is extremely complete and stable. This means that any new features in the future will be slower to reach the market. The downside is that the ACDSee computer programmers have to take longer and plan out their database changes a bit more carefully than the Lightroom programmers. Hierarchical databases are inherently faster than Relational databases, so you would likely see some improvement in overall responsiveness and would also likely see significantly more photo storage capacity before it bogs down from too many photos. This is because it uses a hierarchal database as opposed to a relational database. It does everything Lightroom does though oftentimes it does it in a different way from that of Lightroom. It's probably the most complete consumer-oriented DAM on the market. Most people adopt ACDSee for its DAM features first and foremost, but overall I am quite fond of its photo editing capability in spite of a few shortfalls, but no application has it all and none does all it does best either so you have to see if what it does well meets your needs. With ACDSee, one can master most of its functions fairly quickly, which strike a good balance between functionality and complexity. DxO isn't particularly friendly when it comes to maintenance updades, and might find yourself obliged to buy an (not so inexpensive) update just because you got a new camera or lens that isn't supported in your current version. Although I am considering getting DxO as well, I'd say that its greedy ness is a little concerning. As for DxO, it ain't inexpensive either, especially if you need (who doesn't) perspective correction and DeePRIME NR, which aren't included with the basic package, and which brings the total cost closer to $300USD. For heavy lifting, PS is still the way to go but has a huge learning curve and is way more expensive. As a RAW editor, it doesn't do as well as DxO's (don't know how it would compare to Lightroom) especially when it comes to lens correction (relying on the Lensfun database as the source of corrections and not embedded metadata) and NR, but has excellent pixel level editing and selecting features and good basic layer editing capabilities, which will meet the vast majority of photo editing needs especially colorimetric functions. I don't know Lightroom but many refer to ACDSee Ultimate as Photoshop Light.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |