ACDSee Pro 2 approaching release

[Marc Sabatella]

ACDSee Pro 2 is starting to take pre-orders from participants in the public beta program and is scheduled for release in mid-September.  I have been one of the more active participants of the beta program and a moderator of their forum (but am not affiliated with the company in any way).  I have also been one of the more vocal proponents of "The DAM Book" in the ACDSee world.  I thought I would give a brief update on my experience.

First, ACDSee has come a *long* way in the last couple of years.  Pro 2 provides an all-in-one browsing, RAW processing, cataloging, and editing environment not unlike Lightroom or Aperture (although it is PC only).  For those interested in a relatively inexpensive (ie, less than Lightroom) integrated solution, I think this should be on your list.  To address some long-standing concerns, I can confirm that the released version of Pro 2 *will* support writing of IPTC information to DNG; it will also support writing RAW processing parameters to DNG.  Combined with some major improvements in the RAW processing engine - quality, speed, and usability - I think it competes well with any other DAM solution you might be considering.

I have taken the liberty of writing up a fairly detailed description of how I have adapted "The DAM Book" workflow for use with ACDSee Pro 2.  I have posted this on http://blog.acdsee.com/.  The link to the first post is

http://blog.acdsee.com/2007/08/24/digital-asset-management-dam-with-acdsee-pro-2-part-15/

PC users who are looking for alternatives to the applications normally discussed may wish to check this out.

I should also warn that ACDSee Pro 2 does *not* support embedding its corrected preview in the DNG file, and while it will display a preview embedded by another application, it still insists on doing its own RAW conversion if you want to actually *do* anything with your image, such as edit it further with ACDSee's built in editor, print it, send it via email, include it in an HTML gallery, etc.  So those considering using ACDSee as a Bridge/ACR replacement but continuing to use their existing cataloging application may be disappointed.  Those considering using ACDSee for its browsing and cataloging capabilities only may be disappointed as well, but on the other hand, if you don't mind using another application for editing, printing, emailing, and gallery generation, you may still end up being impressed with ACDSee's browsing and cataloging capabilities - in particular, its ease of use.

But for those who would be looking at using ACDSee Pro 2 for essentially everything (I still use Photoshop when I need more advanced editing capabilities), these limitations will likely not matter.  One might feel uncomfortable with the fact that the corrected preview is not embedded in the DNG file, but since ACDSee Pro 2 is the only tool you'll normally be using to access your RAW images, and it will always display the corrected image based on its own generated (and cached) preview, the fact that the preview is not embedded in the file will not actuallly affect your work.  If you do need to be able to embed that preview in the file in order to feel like you are not locked into ACDSee, consider that there is no reason someone could not create a utility that will take a JPEG preview generated by ACDSee and embed that into the DNG file for you - assuming ACDSee does not itselft implement this feature at some point before you actually need it.

Marc Sabatella

[AlanDunne]

Marc,

thanks for the update from ACDSee land. A few years back I invested a lot of time and effort into ACDSee. It did have not nice features but back then (perhaps still is) way to proprietary. When I decided to cut my looses and get out of ACDSee and into IVMP, I had to build my IVMP catelog from scratch, manually. Nothing was exportable.

So my experience has soured me from going back, but it is good to hear that they have made some strides in the right direction. Competition is always good for the consumer.

Out of curiosity, do you know if their editing, especially for raw images, is metadata based, sometimes called "Instruction Set Editing" like Aperture and Lightroom, or is it pixel based?

Cheers ... Al

[Marc Sabatella]

thanks for the update from ACDSee land. A few years back I invested a lot of time and effort into ACDSee. It did have not nice features but back then (perhaps still is) way to proprietary. When I decided to cut my looses and get out of ACDSee and into IVMP, I had to build my IVMP catelog from scratch, manually. Nothing was exportable.

This is specifically what has improved in the last couple of years.  Everything in the ACDSee database can now be exported to IPTC, although with hierarchical categories (ACDSee's version of "nested virtual sets"), there is no obvious portable way of transferring this info the way there is with, for example, keywords.  This isn't just an ACDSee issue, though - it's a general problem for any application that implements something in private data (like nested virtual sets) for which there exists no portable exchange format.

The database can also be exported to a text file in XML format, which could also be another way of migrating from ACDSee to another application.  And they recently announced they will be opening up their API.

Out of curiosity, do you know if their editing, especially for raw images, is metadata based, sometimes called "Instruction Set Editing" like Aperture and Lightroom, or is it pixel based?

In ACDSee, RAW *processing* is what one might calll "instruction set" based: only the instructions on the parameters used are stored in the database and/or DNG file.  But any actual editing you want to do above and beyond that - thngs that can't be done from RAW processing, like text overlay, spot healing, etc - is what one would have to call "pixel based" - the reuslts can only be saved in JPEG, TIFF or some similar format.  Which is also to say, ACDSee does *not* implement non-destructive editing above and beyond RAW processing.  But the RAW processing facility is reasonably full featured, including things local contrast enhancement, highlight recovery, cropping, etc.

Marc Sabatella

[johnbeardy]

Marc

Does that raw processing work on the converted raw data,or upon the embedded jpeg preview?

John

[roberte]

Hi Marc,

What an extensive review - thank you. It's great to see another player working with DNG. However I think ACDSee missed a major benefit in not embedding their rendering into the JPEG preview. I'm sure you've let then know that! Is it as fast as iView at extracting a JPEG? I assume ACDSee caches a preview somewhere on the HDD.

John if the RAW conversion is like ACDSee Pro 1 then it works on the RAW data. My tests showed that version looked like DCraw without the refinements that ACR put on top of DCraw.

-- Robert.

[Marc Sabatella]

Does that raw processing work on the converted raw data,or upon the embedded jpeg preview?

I'm not sure what you are asking here.  RAW processing in ACDSee Pro 2 is RAW processing - it operates on the RAW data itself, just like any other RAW processor.  It might have to convert that data internally in order to display it, but it isn't "operating" on the converted data in the sense that would seem to imply.  You can choose to save a converted version of your processed image, but as with programs like Lightroom, you don't *need* to.  ACDSee generates its own internal preview that it will show you whenever you view the image (you can control whether it keeps all these previews, or whether it caches them and regenerates them as necessary).  More importantly - again, like most other RAW processors one might be considering - ACDSee remembers the settings you used in your RAW processing (in the case of DNG, these are written directly to the DNG file as XMP metadata).

As I mentioned, ACDSee *will* display an embedded preview generated by another program, but that's all it will do - display it.  ACDSee is capable of doing a number of other things with your images, including editing, printing, emailing, etc.  But it will not use the embedded preview for this - it will do its own RAW processing, which is almost certainly not what you want. That's why I said those who might want to use ACDSee for cataloging only might be disappointed - unless they have yet another program that can use the embedded preview to handle printing, emailing, etc

[Marc Sabatella]

What an extensive review - thank you. It's great to see another player working with DNG. However I think ACDSee missed a major benefit in not embedding their rendering into the JPEG preview. I'm sure you've let then know that!

I have.  I pointed this out very early in the beta period, but as it was, getting the ability to write XMP metadata (including IPTC and raw processing parameters) to the DNG file was all they were able to get in for the release.  I think my workflow writeup is going to help - they seem quite interested in it (more so than I was ever able to get them in "The DAM Book" itself).

Is it as fast as iView at extracting a JPEG? I assume ACDSee caches a preview somewhere on the HDD.

I've never used iView, so I can't say.  ACDSee definitely caches previews for files it converts itself.  Not sure about files for which it uses the embedded preview.

John if the RAW conversion is like ACDSee Pro 1 then it works on the RAW data. My tests showed that version looked like DCraw without the refinements that ACR put on top of DCraw.

Pro 2 is by all accounts "better" than Pro 1 in terms of output quality, but I'm not really the best judge here.  I can say there are more controls that Pro 1 had - highlight recovery, fill light, local contrast enhancement, cropping.  But more important, the workflow is *much* improved.  More work is done via background processing so there is less waiting, and there are new features to allow settings to be copied and pasted from image to image, etc.

The public beta is still available for downlaod as far as I know - www.acdseepro.com.  However, it does not include the DNG writing support.

[peterkrogh]

Marc,
Thanks for the review, this looks promising. 
It's too bad they did not take the DNG implementation a little further - it would have opened up a lot of markets to them which will kind of be shut off.

If they could extract and make use of embedded previews, then people with existing collections of images adjusted by Adobe apps could start using the program with no penalty.  As it is, this will be a major barrier for anyone with an existing collection of adjusted images.  I understand that resources are limited in product development, but this one will cost them far more as an omission that it would have cost to implement.

The second issue, as has been pointed out, is the lack of embedded preview.  This also shuts out users - particularly people who need to prepare images for enterprise-level DAM solutions - publishers and other media companies, large corporations, etc.  Again, the lack of this feature will cost them a lot.

There's a pretty significant market opening for anyone who can get these capabilities implemented.  Maybe you can help them to see that.
Peter

[Marc Sabatella]

There's a pretty significant market opening for anyone who can get these capabilities implemented.  Maybe you can help them to see that.

I'm working on it :-)  Like I said, they do seem to be catching on to the value of this DAM stuff.  While I agree that it is a shame that Pro 2 is missing these features that would have made it an interesting choice for folks looking to use it in conjunction with other software, I do think it is at the point where it is a very interesting choice for those considering an integrated solution like Lightroom.  Of course, even folks using an integrated solution may eventually wish they could embed previews in their DNG's.  But ACDSee Pro 2 is thankfully much less of a "closed loop" than Pro 1 was, and I think it is quite usable as is.  At least, if you don't need those embedded previews *right now* - that is, if ACDSee itself is sufficient for doing the sort of things you might otherwiise have used the embedded preview for.

Marc

[Marc Sabatella]

Just a quick heads-up that ACDSee Pro 2 has now been released (with the feature set as already described; no last minute changes):

http://www.acdsee.com/

Again, I don't work for them, but I have been participating in the public beta and helping moderate their forums.  I am trying to be careful not to come off as a "shill" but rather as someone with some insight into the product, and its DAM capabilities in particular - and I do as much promoting of "The DAM Book" in ACDSee-land as I do of ACDSee here :-)

Marc Sabatella

[mantra]

i tried and it rocks

[Ken]

Hi Marc,

I have been reading your prior posts as I still ponder the incorporation of Lightroom in my ever-changing workflow.  It seems that your RAW/JPEG questions and search for affordable Adobe alternatives are similar to some issues that I have been mulling over.  While I am still waiting for Hert to take v.4 of IDImager, a program that I am considering, out of Beta and into release, I was wondering how stable is ACDSee Pro 2?

--Ken

[Marc Sabatella]

I have been reading your prior posts as I still ponder the incorporation of Lightroom in my ever-changing workflow.  It seems that your RAW/JPEG questions and search for affordable Adobe alternatives are similar to some issues that I have been mulling over.  While I am still waiting for Hert to take v.4 of IDImager, a program that I am considering, out of Beta and into release, I was wondering how stable is ACDSee Pro 2?

Sorry it took a while to get back you.  In my experience, Pro 2 is quite sable, in the sense that it doesn't crash any more than any other application I use heavily (which is to say, it has crashed, but very rarely).  If you check out the forums on the ACDSee site, you'll see there are some pretty specific problems identified that some seem affected by.  A minor update has been announced and is expected in the next week or two.  There is a trial (full version, just with a special time-limited license code) available so it is easy enough to try it for oneself.  30 days should be more than long enough to get a sense of how well it suits ones needs, and since the update is expected soon, there is no reason not to go for it.