JimsPC: I gave Adobe the 'move on' last year after they failed to allow me to process E-M5 files in my lightroom 3.6.Moved to ACDSee 6 pro. The Raw converter is as good as Adobe and it gives me freedom to file things as I like and handles adjustments to my methods better. I also use the full Nik suit and full Topaz bundle.Bye Bye Adobe.I refuse to upgrade just because Adobe management wants a revived product revenue by painting the bumpers instead of chrome plate and attaching them differently.
The trial one I tried of lr4 was in no way better than ACDSee, I tried several at the time I moved to ACDSee pro6. ACDSee was the best and paintshop pro x5 was the worst of a whole lot of them, though paintshop pro x5 had other qualities that I liked. Also I am not going to be blackmailed by Adobe. Nor pay their Mercedes bonus fee they charge in Australia. They have had the last of my money.
I gave Adobe the 'move on' last year after they failed to allow me to process E-M5 files in my lightroom 3.6.Moved to ACDSee 6 pro. The Raw converter is as good as Adobe and it gives me freedom to file things as I like and handles adjustments to my methods better. I also use the full Nik suit and full Topaz bundle.Bye Bye Adobe.I refuse to upgrade just because Adobe management wants a revived product revenue by painting the bumpers instead of chrome plate and attaching them differently.
John McCormack: I got an email from Corel offering X5 for $59.99 as an upgrade (I have X4 now.) Will X5 replace AfterShot Pro? Rumor has it that AfterShot Pro may die a slow death. AfterShot is the best RAW converter for the money and much faster and easier to use than LightRoom. I hope ASP stays around. Doubt I'll give X5 a try until they drop the upgrade price.
I have used converters from PSE10, ASP, ACDSee6pro and Olympus2 using the same images with all settings at 0 (to TIFF), then put the image sets side by side @100% and 200% in PSE (calibrated monitor). I did this because ASP seemed to be more than soft it was very spongy and I wanted to see the difference. Its a toss up over PSE and ACDSee for raw conversion of EM-5 raw files in detail, they are similar in colour as well. ASP has some great features but RAW conversion is not one of them. It is the worst converter I have used. ACDSee is slightly richer than PSE converter, that is good as I have adopted ACDSee for its superior light handling.No Aftershot pro RAW conversion is not good. Pity the rest is a good usable package.
ImageAcquisitions: When I quickly started looking around for a media manager (for photo and video clips) I went through the usual suspects (LR, other third party, and noticed a buddy of mine using ACDSee Pro) I looked it up, and have been using it ever since.
One thing I like the most is ACDSee's ability to let me manage my files where as LR wants to manage my files and insulate me from the actual source media so it can "forever" handicap me having to use it to manage my material. Nope, no way. I don't care about any feature LR may offer as far as doing anything that involves working with my files - its confusing, I don't know where my original file is, or if its being masked, etc. I'm sure with hours of study I could "figure it out."But the initial lag in just using the software caused me to stay away.I do use LR for tethered capture however. Something ACDSee didn't do in its previous versions unless I missed something. I'm using v6. I did have to relearn where they put the batch meta editor.
Yes LR3 does not support my E-M5 so I downloaded all the editors and tried them out. ACDSee6pro was easily the best and now (with Topaz) the only photo software on the PC and it allowed me to manage files my way. I can adjust 1 photo or lots. And it has killer features that I like, the light adjustment is brilliant (literally). Print is a bit of a problem with metric (wake up software people the whole world is metric, including the US for the past 10 years and there are more people outside the US than in)A top program
I just found a problem.The package is in imperial measurement, despite all countries now being officially metric, though some are slow adopters of the adoption made some years ago (USA comes to mind)This means no standard metric sizes for printing. If a custom size is made using mm it defaults to the nearest imperial with adjusted mm in brackets, it also show the height before the width this is the wrong way round compared with printers, I use Epson. Printers seem to have adapted to A3, A4 sizing, why can't ACSee. The print templates are also from pre history and when a custom print is created in lay out it is impossible to rotate the image. Though this is automatiic with the templates that suit no one.Printing seems to be a very big downfall for a package that otherwise is the best of the crop for management, lighting editing, (including LR4)Mr ACDSee you need to fix this. This version.
AntonyVance: I am not a professional photographer.I have been using this for last few years. I gave a try to LR for sometime but finally settled with ACDSee due to better rendering of Olympus ORF RAW files. The workflow is really quick. Lighting tool is best in market, LR is not even close.
Yes, agree with lighting comment and file mgt so much easier.
Been using lightroom 3 and PSE 5 -10 for years. LR is a pain having to import all the time, not my style.I just tried LR4.1, Photo director 2011, and ACDsee pro 6 and Aftershot Pro.Tried to down load the cyberlink v4, PDF but it would not work even created an account, not working in IE9, Firefox . Emailed them and got a ticket #, 2 days and no reply!Aftershot, nice little app easy to use, lacks a few things that i need.LR4, = LR3 for my needs, I like to use the files system my way. But has E-m5 raw I need.ACDSee pro6. I must say it does everything I want AND lets me do it my way. The edit screen better than LR and can create a lot more. I can use the file system I want and edit any picture I want. The exposure /lighting is magical, on 9 tone bands wow. Seems ACDsee will get my money, I will wait a bit for Cyberlink but 2 days to fix their own link or get back to me, does not bode well.
morepix: My interest is whether it'll do $1,000-worth better at high ISO levels than my GH2. The answer seems to be, yes, it's better from 1600 on up (in raw), a lot better in JPG. But is it $1,000 better? Remains to be seen.
The JPGs sure do look nice, but who wants to shoot JPG and sacrifice the other advantages of raw?
It does not have to be $1000 better only the difference.