The trade off is a less feature rich set of database oriented tools. Lightroom uses a true relational database called SQLite as the Database component, while ACDSee uses a simpler proprietary data base. While ACDSee does have a database component, it isn't as complex as the one found in Lr.
Lightroom vs acdsee full#
It is a valid, high quality, full featured Workflow tool for those who aren't 'sold' on Lightroom's charms.
Lightroom vs acdsee pro#
Raw conversion in ACDSee Pro 6 is every bit as good as in Lr 3. But it basically boiled down to the fact that I prefer a browser based organizer to a database oriented organizer, because it is faster and more responsive than Lr. I just removed Lr 3.6 from my PC in favor of ACDSee Pro 6. Sorry to be so late to the party, but I have something to add to this thread, I hope. I'm not sure what camera yo have, but it could be worth looking into. Often, the software coming with a camera can serve this purpuse just fine too, like Canon DPP or Nikon ViewNX2. If you're really after a simple basic editing tool, then I think there are enough programs that deliver that for less money than ACDSee: Picasa, IrfanView, for example.
Consolidate on one good tool, and learn to use that one tool properly. If choosing LR, I would make it my only tool - having seperate tools for basic versus advanced editing in a RAW-workflow can be a royal pain. So, it's worth considering, even if it may come with a bigger learning curve than some others. While I do not use the program myself, I think Lightroom is the best all-round choice if you're serious about photography - it delivers pretty much on all counts that sooner or later start to matter: good quality RAW conversions, ample editing options, flexible output options and a catalogue with search options to manage 1000s of files properly.
0 kommentar(er)
