jkmcf: First time poster, hopefully you can help.
I'm trying to decide between A3 and LR3. The only real requirement I have is being able to store libraries on a NAS using a non Mac filesystem. I understand that LR3 can do this. I know iPhoto does not since it stores metadata in the filesystem. In case it isn't obvious, I'm looking for OS X software.
My gut tells me LR3 is the best choice, though I'd probably enjoy A3's interface a bit more. If there's another worthwhile product, I'd love to hear about it.
Hi there :)May I give you a useful hint?DO NOT USE ANY KIND OF NAS WITH ADOBE PRODUCTS, as they DO NOT support their files opened on/through the network.They oddly become inconsistent and as a result, they disappear from the NAS and/or become completely void.This is a known issue of Adobe's products (in particular, as my personal experience teaches, Photoshop).A way to solve is to work locally, and THEN move or backup on the NAS all your work and files.
I hope of having been helpful! :)
thephotobox: Still waiting for them to fix the RAW conversion for the D3100... I find Lightroom's RAW processing to be much stronger, as well as the sharpening, but the interface is TERRIBLE. I find all adobe programs to have bad UI. After Effects, Premier, Photoshop... If I could just get the "guts" of Lightroom with the UI of Aperture I'd be all set.... just my thought...
I totally agree with you.The UI of Adobe's programmes is too 80's...Last week I went to a PhaseOne showcase in Epson Headquarters in Milan, in which I had much more in-depth contacts with CaptureOne 6.It has a very filled interface, but with a clear workflow given by a logical disposition of the various icons on the top bar, from which you can control a great number of images, and in few, very few moves. And it is really cheap compared to other softwares.
Scott Kirk: NOT as Advertized
DO NOT BE FOOLED this software is a joke and customer service is no existent, recently I was working huge job and again acdsee 3 had "issues" when I moved files to another folder in acdsee the corrupted and dissapeared, so in desperation I updated to "4" well it's really no better, crashes and freeses if you make it do any heavy lifting. I have an i7 940 processor, 2 GB dedicated HD video card, 1.5 TB hard drive and 18GB of ram and the only thing their automated system could tell me was to upgrade my computer??? You cannot speak to a human, and tech support is ARROGANT and took a week to get back to me by email which is useless. If you are a dabbler and don't care about losing your stuff give it a shot it is cheap ish... but you get what you pay for and this software cannot keep up to professional standards and totally let me down as did the PATHETIC customer service! Buy ANYTHING else!!
Now you have 5.0 Pro... :DMaybe the help desk has been updated as well! :D
As you may notice I am joking... ;)
ACDSystemsInternationalInc: We have an incredible upgrade offer for existing owners of ACDSee Pro and ACDSee Standard. Upgrade coupons will be sent shortly by email to previous owners of ACDSee Pro and ACDSee Standard. Please keep checking your email - you should receive your coupon codes soon! :)
Got boxed versions since 1.xx... After those ones, came Pro... But used it always as a trial, not sure of what I needed... And...Then TOO MANY versions in TOO short time...There is something wrong in it. And since then, colours are not managed as they deserve... Ain't gud, fella! Dis ain't gud! :(
Six monts ago I started to buy version 3, while on their site was floating version 4 beta. Then it came out not earlier than 4 months ago with new built that resolved issues...I think that I'll finally buy it next week, when version 6 will be available.Maybe next thursday the new 3D functions of version 8 will be great!But still no real colour management and preservation of it within the images.
Are they fixed focus f11? :DAlso TOO blue hues in these pics. Talking of Nikon it is also something strange, being the majority of the pictures taken with their cameras coming from a quite nice warm yellowish world...
I think they're nice. But futile.
bricci_mn: Hello everybody!Just lurking for years here around at DPreview, but much more than rarely I have written something... Now it's my turn...Long awaited "Big N" and "Big C" mirrorless alternatives to Panasonic and Olimpus (m)4/3 finally came, and then... The Nikon ones are such a "intermediate-of-intermediate" format between 4/3 and Pentax Q format, which, in my very very humble opinion, none of the small form factor enthusiasts will invest on unless they want to carry around the "coat of arms" of one of the two great japanese makers...Will Canon come out with something very similar, I think, then we will see where they would go any farther...In my opinion, the success of V1 and J1 (V1 is probably FAR better in terms of everyday useability) is only reassumed on a mere consideration of both availability and quality of lenses and accessories whith which they'll feed the market.
@Jim5kI surely agree with you.In my family I grew up with (in purely casual order) Hasselblad 501C, fabulous micro-camera Rollei 35T which nowadays works like a charm, Voigtlander Exakta, Leica M7, Leica M9, Yashica P&S with high quality 35mm Zeiss Tessar lens, Panasonic Fz10, FZ18, LX2, Fuji's and a myriad of others to introduce ourselves into the digital world starting from the bottom.As you may see, despite I'm not a child, but not an old man, I checked every kind of use starting from simple point and shoot to the most "thought" picture needed using medium format.Not much done with common SLR, 'cause of we didn't need them.In family we reached an answer: now it's time to digital.I add also: now it's time to forget mirrors.Not to abandon the concept, but limit it only to a niche of high end SLRs.Let's do it NOW. But will the makers want to give us future technologies NOW? :)
They are two giants, all the ads on magazines and sites are about them and their products... Could Panasonic and Olimpus and their still (very) rare contributors (Voigtlander, Sigma, Tamron, Zeiss, Schneider...) survive this?I have a GF1 with 14-45 + 45-200 and all a vast set of orgasmic Leica lenses commonly used on M7 and M9 which my father owns, and I am still waiting for a REAL replacement for this body that can satisfy my edonism.
Panny still hasn't done anything to satisfy me and people like me who don't think GF2 and GF3 are to be considered such substitutes. Will Canon create something similar to Nikon or 4/3-world?
Hello everybody!Just lurking for years here around at DPreview, but much more than rarely I have written something... Now it's my turn...Long awaited "Big N" and "Big C" mirrorless alternatives to Panasonic and Olimpus (m)4/3 finally came, and then... The Nikon ones are such a "intermediate-of-intermediate" format between 4/3 and Pentax Q format, which, in my very very humble opinion, none of the small form factor enthusiasts will invest on unless they want to carry around the "coat of arms" of one of the two great japanese makers...Will Canon come out with something very similar, I think, then we will see where they would go any farther...In my opinion, the success of V1 and J1 (V1 is probably FAR better in terms of everyday useability) is only reassumed on a mere consideration of both availability and quality of lenses and accessories whith which they'll feed the market.
kwa_photo: Well this just plain sucks for any GF-1 or GH-1 user. Ack! The GF-1 has NOT had a real replacement at all since it was released. The GF-2 & GF-3, while having better IQ, have not really been photographer's cameras....so I stick with the GF-1 and it's analog feel. I'm very disappointed with this exclusion. The lens seems a perfect match for the GF-1. If there is a technical limitation that prevents the GF-1 from being included, I hope Panny comes out with a statement as such...othewise, I view this as a "you have to upgrade statement". If that's the case, give me something to upgrade to!!!!! Argh.
I TOTALLY AGREE!I will put my arms up and surrender only when Panasonic will state clearly with a document that my "still expensive" GF1 camera is not compatible with the new lenses that are going to come out from their laboratories hereafter.