Even at these large sizes ACDSee can catalog read jpegs a second from a folder and snap a search result onscreen in 3-5 seconds. The jpeg is for cataloging in ACDSee and delivering to clients.
Portman.jpg acdsee pro 3 plus#
To achieve this I create two official versions: a full-size TIFF, plus a jpeg copy at maximum quality. My RAW originals are all 92 - 114 megabytes each, so I have a third advantage: my official version loads faster. Second, if you screw up your "official" version (for instance, create a reduced-sized jpeg to email to someone and then hit "Save" - which I did just last week) your backup preserves all of its information, untouched through all adjustments.
Portman.jpg acdsee pro 3 software#
First, your "official" version can be opened in nearly any software and should always display the same.
The TIFF then becomes the "official" version, and the RAW becomes your backup. The solution is to save your adjusted RAW as TIFF in a different directory tree. This means (as Glen states) that when you change software you lose your adjustments - the new software simply doesn't correctly read the XMP data that holds your adjustments. Right now you seem to be using your adjusted RAW as your "official" version. Different tools offer different opportunities! That's why even though I still REALLY like ACDSee Pro, I never pass up an opportunity to explore new software.įWIW, you might consider a change in workflow, for your still images at least. One side benefit of importing the old raw into ACDSee Pro was that they were once again, undeveloped! By switching to a different Workflow tool (In my case ACDSee Pro), I got a different enough change in my POV that I found new depth in the undeveloped images and was able to RE-develop them with ACDSee Pro in a different way. Even though the old raw files now looked as they did when new and were first imported into Lightroom, I wanted to do that in order to be able to manage the old raw images as well. I found it convenient to import the raw files as well for complete management of my files. Having gone through a conversion from Lightroom to ACDSee Pro, I'm afraid the only practical way to save your Lightroom work is to use Lr to export the 'done' photos as tiff files for import into ACDSee. Multiply this time by the number of combinations of Source and Destination software titles, and you've got some serious work cut out for someone! And even if they both use a contrast slider, what if one slider uses values from 0 to 100, and the other slider uses a value set that ranges from -100 to +100, how would one figure out where the equivalent settings lay? Without assistance from the publisher of the source data (which seems unlikely), a LOT of time consuming, and expensive, testing would be required. Then too, there is the difference in individual controls, how does one accurately adjust contrast if Software "A" uses a conventional contrast slider and Software "B" does without a contrast slider but uses a combination of "Shadow", "Highlights", and "Brightness" controls to adjust contrast.
Again using the Lightroom example, there is no incentive for Adobe to allow a developer or other software publisher to make it EASY for customers to move to a competitor. That is pretty much proprietary in nature.
First of all, while XMP files are open for to all to use, how the individual software publishers actually use those files is NOT open for all to use. This task isn't impossible, or even particularly difficult in terms of design and implementation, it's just gonna be expensive to develop. As a retired Teradata DBA, I have some knowledge of data conversions.Ī lot of practical considerations make this difficult enough that I don't see much economic incentive for a development team to be attracted to this sort of project. If you are looking for software that can read the XMP file from, say, Lightroom, and then convert it to an XMP file for use in ACDSee Pro (or any other raw conversion tool) so that you don't lose what you have done in Lightroom with raw, to my knowledge, no such utility exists - Even if you use DNG.
0 kommentar(er)
