Bordertool name doesnt match1/10/2024 ![]() ![]() ![]() For speed DXO is very good at applying its standard preset as I usually agree with their application. Same usage here - ACDSee Pro 2020 and DXO PL4 Essential (not Elite which has a fancier noise reduction module.) I like both programs, but find ACDSee easier to use for its DAM and tagging, etc. I use raw only for light challenging photos (interiors, night, high dynamic). If I preferred DXO or C1, I would definitely use ACDSee Home Studio as the front end. I am using Ultimate with the NIK Tools and the Topaz Denoise AI and Sharpen AI, not because I need them for DeNoise and Sharpening, but because I have them and they are VERY convenient. Ultimate does have, however, a very good Layers based bit mapped editor, that can use many Photoshop plugins. I think ACDSee Ultimate is a waste of money for people who want to use a different raw developer, an/or, a different bit mapped editor. With Batch functions, face recognition, and a full featured database that is significantly faster than Lr (esp with VERY large databases), it is hard to beat as a front-end for 3rd party raw developers and editors. For those who prefer something else for raw that doesn't have a true front-end photo manager, I think ACDSee Home (Dumb Name, it's a raw aware, pro level asset manager), makes a great front end for those software titles. But I don't really care what other people use. I am experimenting with Affinity Photo, and while I like it's raw conversion capabilities, I still don't think it is quite as good as ACDSee.īut that's me. I think ACDSee, compares very favorably in noise control and sharpness to Lightroom, and as I recall, it uses the LensFun database. ![]() I have experimented with DXO and Capture One, and still prefer ACDSee for highlight and shadow recovery. I am an m43s shooter, an ex-Lightroom user, and use ACDSee Ultimate exclusively for my raw development. ACDSee flies relatively under the radar so your experience may help others. Please report back when you have more experience of using the combination. I don't think ACDSee can really compete as a raw converter particularly as you use MFT which really benefits from the superior lens corrections and DeepPrime noise reduction. I think ACDSee works rather differently to the normal DAM and doesn't require any import step which should make working with DXO easier? The Ultimate version has quite comprehensive pixel editing features.ĪCDSee started as a DAM and I would expect the combination of DXO-Photolab and ACDSee to be a good match exploiting each programs strengths. It depends which version of ACDSee you are using? Of course I am not arguing about the colors easy to arrange So I seeACDSEEt as an upgrade for FastStone I am currently usingĪnybody has experience to use ACDSEE and DXO PL4 as their main tools ? so what is your workflow ? thanks and eventually use ACDSEE as a DAM, culling tool and perhaps final touch. Here the comparison which show me that I am better to use DXO PL4 to demosaic and denoise. but of course I am more familiar with DXO I spended about 5 mn with ACDSEE and 30s with DXO PL4. So to evaluate briefly it's processing capbility I develop a RAW file with ACDSEE and compare with what I achieve with DXO PL4 I am evaluating ACDSEE ultimate mainly for it's DAM capabilities and the friendly user interface
0 Comments
Leave a Reply.AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |