ACDsee Vs Lightroom...Vs?

[jtk]

My CS2 files are a disorganized mess. PC, 2G, lots of external HD.

 

Finally switching a DSLR (K20D)...pretty much through with film...I've scanned

what's important, have DSLR projects ahead...

 

So...do I want Lightroom or ACDsee Pro ? or?

 

In addition to organizing, I need to post photos with AUDIO RECORDINGS (separate

recordings, mixed elsewhere to MP3) to websites such as SlideShow.... will

ACDsee or Lightroom facilitate that?

 

Does Lightroom have ANY advantage?

 

Do I misunderstand something basic here?

[patricklavoie]

Well Lr could managed, keyword, develop, slide show, web, print without the need of anything else. I dont know if ACDsee could do that? As for the sound i dont think Lr would do it.

 

I use Lr with CS3 and i cant think of using anything else or going back with anything else...

 

hope other will help you with ACDsee

[images_in_light_north_west]

Lightroom and ACDsee dont compare, use lightroom for your raw files and CS2 to fine tune and your set. ACDsee is realy just for file mngmt, LR will do that also, Sound, I dont know about.

[arek_szep]

Hi, ACDSee has an option "image Audio" LR does not, I never used that option, so I have nothing to say about it. For orginazing ACDSee is great, viewer is very fast.Lr for me is ..to much ...,the only thing I realy like is tonal adjustment,and rendering is very "contrasty", looking good on the screen,this is my personal expirience

[jtk]

...fyi, I didn't mean "slideshow" I meant

 

soundslides...http://www2.soundslides.com/forum/viewforum.php?id=12

 

...so I'm wondering if ACDsee or Lightroom work efficiently with Soundslides...

[dirk_funhoff3]

I am an advocate of specialised tools - I do not like this "one for all" approach as in Lightroom. Therefore, for image management I use and recommend iMatch (www.photools.com) It should also manage other media files, although I personally do not use it. It is very reasonably priced, great support and a big fan community behind it, solving almost any problem you may have.

 

Within iMatch there are "scipts" usable, which can do almost anything from within iMatch, including galleries for websites. But as any powerful tool, you will need to learn its use.

 

But after that, your images will be organised - wherever they are!

 

Always good light, Dirk

[samn]

ACD Pro 2 seems to have what you are looking for. It embeds music files into slide shows. I suppose that you could have a one image slide show to do what you wish. I have never used this feature so don't know for sure. Download a trial and see.

 

Pro 2 is very fast, has all the bells and whistles, the editor is sufficient for 85% of my work. I use it in conjunction with Photoshop if I need layers.

[godfrey]

John,

 

Lightroom works great with SoundSlides 2. Import, edit to finish, then export your images to

JPEGs of the appropriate size. Drop them into SoundSlides, add your sound track, setup the

timings ...

 

Godfrey

[jtk]

Godfrey...are you using Soundslides now..maybe for DVDs? ..nice visuals :-) No sound!

 

Sam...are you using Pro2 for organization only? No sound online? ...or are you just using Pro2 for DVDs?...nice visuals, love that boardwalk, but it sounds deaf :-)

 

Dirk, still photography online without sound seems like still photography limited to B&W...it's OK, I've done a bunch, but it's not enough for the future. Do you find iMatch superior to Lightroom or Pro2?

 

Arek...I don't quite understand...are you saying ACD forces images to look too contrasty or are you saying you like the contrasty look you get with it?

 

Ross...wonderful "nature" photos. I miss the wind, the water, the screams of the folks in the rafts, Seattle's fog horns :-)

 

Here's what excites me (uses soundslides):

http://www.albinocrow.com/multimedia/portfolios/about/index.htm

[glenbarrington]

I have a love/hate with both ACDSee and Lightroom. I own both and just can't decide which I Love/Hate the most.

 

I think ACDSee will be a better organizer for multimedia projects. It handles a wide variety of file formats. It is very fast, and I love the hassle free way it prints. IMO the best single machine media organizer out there.

 

I think LR is the way to go for processing Raw and cranking out a lot of work as quickly as possible. I have found it nearly impossible to get a decent print out of LR V1.3 or earlier. I've read all the books followed all the suggestions and nothing I do creates a nice print. Some love the print options of LR, and some couldn't get a decent print out of LR if their lives depened on it. An adequate organizer though a bit slow on the displays not nearly as advanced as ACDSee. But a sheer joy to use with processing photos.

[patricklavoie]

Glen, i will be happy to have a look at your setting and help you get good print from Lr..every people i personaly know use Lr to print (including me sometime) with there epson (nobody in my close environement have canon or hp) and they all get good result equal to what you can get with Photoshop and a color managed workflow. Ask Godfrey about his print quality with Lr...i dont think is print look bad ; )

 

I think people who get bad print from Lr are not using a color managed workflow, or think they use it but not correctly..therefore people easily complain about Lr printing ability, but in fact the problem is a lot of time 18 inch from the monitor : )

[jtk]

I doubt many photographers with intensive darkroom or Photoshop experience, dodging/burning or using graphics tablets, print important images from LR...but it'd obviously be great for touristic happy snaps.

 

There's a lot more to printing than color managed workflows.

[patricklavoie]

Agree with you John. thats why my own workflow doestn included printing from Lr most of the time...but if i dont need photoshop (rarely or for my personal snap sometime) i use Lr since im already there.

 

Saying that Lr print are bad, or that Lr doestn give good print is not true; if you can get good print from photoshop, you will get the same print from Lr IF user read and understand a color managed workflow.

[jtk]

No, you cannot get the same print from LR that you can get from Photoshop...assuming you want a finely adjusted print, dodged, burned, locally contrast adjusted etc..as opposed to a technically perfect match to a monitor.

 

I'm considering LR specifically to exhibit work online. It's too crude for fine prints.

 

LR lacks almost all of Photoshop's subtle controls. It was designed to manage and very simply adjust high volume for pros who rely on labs, not for fine prints.

[patricklavoie]

John, let rephrase what i meant..

 

if you arrange a image in Ps, then print it you will get a good print.

 

If you import this newly fully arrange in Ps image in Lr, you will get the same print quality.

 

So assuming you have the *same* image in both software, you will get the same result, if you use the same color managed workflow.

 

Indeed you cant do in Lr what you can do in Ps as for the darkroom, local adjustment etc...thats why Godfry said that he export is file to photoshop to fine tune it and resend it to Lr to be print. That will indeed have the same result in the end as for the print quality.

[jtk]

Patrick, my OT (and Godfrey's response) has to do with ACDsee Vs Lightroom (we specifically discussed multimedia, NOT prints).

[patricklavoie]

John, i was answering Glen comment about the suppose inability of Lr to produce good print. Then i was answering your comment about photographer not printing important image from Lr. hopefully my answer satisfy you.

 

I tought it was a conversation with multiple subject ; )