ACDSEE 8 Updated to Support More RAW Formats

[Jason Dunn]

<div class='os_post_top_link'><a href='http://www.acdcorporate.com/english/PressRoom/PressReleases/2006/release-20060427.htm' target='_blank'>http://www.acdcorporate.com/english/PressRoom/PressReleases/2006/release-20060427.htm</a><br /><br /></div><i>"ACD Systems International Inc., today announced updates to its two flagship products, ACDSee 8 Photo Manager and ACDSee Pro Photo Manager. The enhancements are designed to improve speed, performance and productivity, and include advanced support for RAW formats that meet and exceed industry demands. “In our continued commitment to our customers, these updates allow them to take full advantage of the powerful capabilities that the RAW format offers,” said James Latham, vice president of marketing for ACD Systems...The ACDSee Pro Photo Manager update includes improved speed and performance in RAW processing. The software features support for popular professional camera models including the Nikon D200, D2H, and Minolta A200, the ability to view full EXIF information from all supported Olympus RAW camera models, the ability to filter .thm files and the preservation of metadata in JPEG and TIFF files when converting from RAW."</i><br /><br />I wouldn't normally post on a dot release of software, but this is an important update for me personally since now it means I can view RAW images from my D200 much faster and easier - deleting the truly bad photos, and processing the keepers with Adobe Camera RAW inside Photoshop Elements 4.

[Vincent Ferrari]

I have to say that my main issue with ACDSee Pro wasn't anything but the utterly AWFUL RAW processor built in. Adobe's is better, and Canon's included RAW image task slays the hell out of it.

It utterly sucked and resulted in my request for a refund (which, in fairness to them, they provided without question immediately).

It was a nice program, but the RAW results were uninspiring to say the least.

[Jason Dunn]

It was a nice program, but the RAW results were uninspiring to say the least.

So far today since installing it I've only used it to preview RAW images from my D200, I have yet to use it to edit/finalize them. Is it just the results that are unsatisfactory? Or the UI of the process?

[Vincent Ferrari]

The UI is actually pretty good, but I found a lot of random noise and strange chromatic anomalies with it. Of course I didn't save any of the images I processed with it and ended up reprocessing them with Camera RAW.

I was majorly disappointed to say the least.

[Jason Dunn]

The UI is actually pretty good, but I found a lot of random noise and strange chromatic anomalies with it.

Hmm - strange indeed! I'll try it with some of my RAW images and will see what my results are like. What camera were you using it with?

[Vincent Ferrari]

Rebel XT (350d).

I really wish I had saved the mangled images. If I tell you they were so bad I couldn't use them, I'm not exaggerating at all. Hopefully you'll have better luck. If you do, you're gonna love ACDSee 'cause it's awesome in every other aspect!