Why I Use ACDSee Versus Adobe Bridge for Culling Images and More

0Comments

Believe me, I have tried. Over the years, I have tried to wean myself off ACDSee. But, like Al Pacino in The Godfather, “Just when I thought I was out, they pull me back in!”. ACDSee does what I want it to do and, as a single package, and it does it better than anything else I have found.

 

I use Lightroom as a factory, a mass production tool. I import the images, I process them, that’s it. For a long time, I have felt no urge to look at anything other than the Library and Develop modules.

ACDSee Image Software

The wood shed.

Continuing the analogy, what I might call handcrafted images, are processed in the garden shed, with Photoshop. Pretty much everything else I do in ACDSee.

ACDSee in place of Adobe Bridge

First and foremost, ACDSee is an Adobe Bridge replacement for me. For something like 80% of the time, I use about 20% of its capacity, that is its ability to act in the place of Bridge. I am certain that I have only launched Adobe Bridge once in the last year. I had to do it just once to write this article! ACDSee simply does it better in my opinion.

ACDSee Image Software

Standard file manager style screen

Any of the different versions, even the most basic of them, meet my needs. The screen shots for this article are from ACDSee Ultimate, but my previous experience is that all versions work in a similar way. You would need to work out just how many bells and whistles you wanted to invest in. ACDSee offers a good comparison of the different versions on their website. I am sure you would find that ACDSee is not a challenging piece of software, it works quite conventionally.

This article may well invite some comments suggesting that “such and such” software does that too, and I am sure that is true. Is the elephant in the room Photo Mechanic, is it Irfan View, or even Adobe Bridge? I am also sure that there are even others. So I try others, I give them a go, but I end up back in the arms of the little-known all-around beauty which is ACDSee.

ACDSee Image Software

Lifestyle

I tend to be a little bemused when I have heard people talk about having a lifestyle. I have wondered if I ought to get myself such a thing. My reaction is not much different when people talk about having a workflow. Different situations seem to me to require different approaches, and I have wondered if I should get myself a workflow.

The truth is that I am not totally slapdash. For example, if I have been out on a photo walk, there is a routine which I tend to follow. Stepping through that routine seems a good way to look at some aspects of ACDSee. Here is my process.

IMPORTING IMAGES

ACDSee provides a ton of choices for importing photographs, let me highlight just one.

ACDSee Image Software

Import window of ACDSee.

I am a huge believer in the adage that “Data only exists if it exists in two places”. The extension of that thought is that you do not actually have a backup until you have a third copy. Presuming that you leave your images on the card in the camera, ACDSee gives you the choice to make two copies on import and to give you those second and third copies of your images. The first copy can be imported to one folder and the second copy can be imported to another location. That might just prove to be a very useful safety net one day. You might be glad you tried ACDSee for this reason alone.

It might be a consequence of having used computers since before The Ark, but I still tend to think in terms of named and dated folders. Libraries, collections and the like, clearly work for some, but I import to my date/location file structure, then into Lightroom from there.

THE CULLING PROCESS

One of the most important parts of my workflow (Oops! did I just admit to something?) is the culling process. I will take a long time sorting through the photographs, in sweeps, which are progressively more demanding, deleting those which I do not want to spend time processing. ACDSee helps me with the cull in at least 3 ways.

ACDSee Image Software

1 – ACDSee is fast with RAW files

Subjectively, I tend to find Adobe Bridge rather clunky to operate and slow in responding. It was painfully slow to open a folder and draw the thumbnails on a computer with quite high specifications. The same folder was opened, with thumbnails and images viewable very promptly, in less than ten seconds with ACDSee. It was taking so long with Bridge, the images were still not viewable after 2 minutes, that I moved to another copy I have of the same images on a faster, SSD drive. In all fairness, Bridge was then just as quick as ACDSee.

ACDSee Image Software

Adobe Bridge

Objectively, ACDSee is faster at drawing a RAW file than Bridge to an insane degree. I took shot Image A and opened it to a full-screen view in ACDSee, then in Bridge. Then I reversed the process and opened Image B in Bridge first, then in ACDSee. Both ways, using ACDSee, the image was clear, viewable in sharp detail, within 2 seconds. Using Bridge, after more than 30 seconds I gave up, clicked to zoom in, and only then did it become a clear, sharp, fully-drawn image.

ACDSee Image Software
That adds up to an awful lot of time over the years. I cannot fathom that there is anyone who likes sitting and waiting for their computer to catch up. Not only would you save a huge amount of time cumulatively, it also makes for a much more satisfying experience.

2 – Comparing images is easy with ACDSee

Second, the process of culling is easier because ACDSee offers an excellent tool for comparing photographs in close detail. I know Lightroom offers something similar, probably others do too, but none seem to work as well as that in ACDSee. Often I will have a series of four or five shots (or more) which are largely similar. ACDSee lets you put those shots on screen, next to each other, all at the same time. Actually, I think it works best with just three on screen at a time.

ACDSee Image Software

Three or more photographs compared side by side.

The choice as to which photograph to keep often comes down to a technical decision such as which shot is the sharpest. For a portrait, that usually means looking at the eye. With ACDSee, when you zoom in on one of the photographs which you are comparing, all of the shots zoom in to the same point, at the same level. Again, I acknowledge that other software probably does this, but I have not come across all the things I want, working as well as they do, in one package.

ACDSee Image Software

All three shots zoomed in to the same level.

3 – Full-screen mode

The third way in which ACDSee helps me cull images is that it goes to full screen so very easily and quickly. It displays photographs in the way I want to see them. Full screen, with no window border, no mouse pointer. Double click or hit Enter and you are in full screen. Also “Crtl/Cmd+scroll wheel” zooms you in. That is how I want to view photographs.

Then, there are two bonuses. First, a right click option is Zoom Lock, which means I can Page Up and Page Down between shots which are full screen and zoomed in to the same point and level. You might even prefer this to the side by side comparison. The next bonus, which can be useful now and then, is that the EXIF data can be brought up very quickly with ALT/OPTION+Enter in the full-screen view mode.

ACDSee Image Software

Full-screen mode, with the EXIF data, added on the right.

All the above is mostly about ACDSee being used as a replacement for Adobe Bridge. One important thing I have not squeezed in so far is that you can open an image straight into Photoshop from ACDSee. It does the file browser function of Bridge just as well, and a very easy keystroke combination of Ctrl/Cmd+Alt+X takes the image into Photoshop. It is probably the only shortcut I can use without looking at the keyboard.

These factors alone make a case for why ACDSee keeps pulling me back in. However, there is more!

BATCH PROCESSING

ACDSee Image Software

ACDsee has a good selection of batch operations.

The tools which I probably use most often, and they work very well, with all the options you could ask for, are the batch tools. I find it so helpful that ACDSee will batch resize a number of images, then convert the file format, then rename them. There are a few other tricks too.

It is not part of the batch menu but, at least in my mind, it is linked. I often publish directly to social websites where, again, you are given useful choices.

ACDSee Image Software

Send to …

ACDSee Image Software

This is probably a good place to mention again that I know Adobe has the tools to do all of this. But I do not think anyone can believe that they are as simple to use, and they are certainly not all in one place.

MANAGE

As I have already confessed, I am still in the mentality of file browsers, and that is the format which you are looking at with ACDSee. It has all the benefits which you would expect from such a tool. You can search, play with metadata, sort by different criteria, look at different views … it just works well.

ACDSee Image Software

Full-screen slideshow.

Seems this might be the time to mention that ACDSee does good slide shows too, with some level of sophistication. Full screen, with the toolbar you can see above only appearing when you click on the screen. Most notably, that gives you the ability to change the delay. For more sophisticated settings, you can dig a little deeper.

ACDSee Image Software

Slideshow settings window.

EDITING

Finally, the part of ACDSee which I use least often, though still appreciate, is the program’s capacity as an image editor.

I do sometimes use it for one-off processing of an image. Some people suggest that ACDSee is a full blown alternative to products which are much better known. ACDSee will handle RAW, it has layers, it is non-destructive … it has some clever tricks … if you do a search on You Tube, you will find plenty of people offering not just enthusiasm, but solid tuition that might persuade you that ACDSee can meet ALL your photographic needs in what would then be a very reasonably priced package.

Read dPS author Leanne Cole’s review here: Photo Editing Alternative – An Overview of ACDSee Ultimate 10

It might seem trivial, but what I often use ACDSee for is cropping and leveling. Without a description of the minute details, it has all the usual cropping facilities, but with the easy ability to set dimensions precisely to the pixel.

ACDSee Image Software

Pixel precise cropping.

You can then place the mask precisely on the image, in a way that I have not found any other program capable of doing. I also like the way it allows you to vary the opacity of the image area outside the mask. If you set a crop dimension and move through a series of photographs, the dimension will also be retained from one photograph to the next.

ACDSee Image Software

A helpful tool.

It also works similarly with regards rotating the image.

ACDSee Image Software

You can rotate by the degree.

I’ve not used anything else which lets you rotate the image with such precision, auto-cropping as you go.

Again, a clear display of what is happening, with helpful options

CONCLUSION

I love the forensic, hugely detailed reviews which, for example, DP Review conducts. This article cannot be of that nature. It is more a taster, highlighting a few of the things which I find helpful to me personally, and which might work for you too. I also join others in celebrating the underdog, particularly if it is, in fact, a really good team, which plays a good game.

Why not go over to ACDSee, download it for a 30-day free trial and give it a go yourself. If you already use it, tell us in the comments below what features you love the most and why.

Read more from our Post Production category

Richard Messsenger

is from Nottingham, England, and is currently based just north of Manila in The Philippines. Photographic opportunities of all hues present themselves daily. However, he like projects with parameters to work towards, targets to aim for. Older, hair too thin, belly too fat, knees wobbling, but he still enjoys using his talents and enthusiasm to make photographs.

  • Dave Melges

    It’s interesting, I’ve used ACDSee for a very long time now…more than 10 years, as my image management solution.

    But I use pretty much none of the features you mention, lol. We’ve picked the same software for different reasons.

    My main reason, is I want a management software SEPARATE from my edit software….I feel like Adobe’s goal is to make people feel trapped in their ecosystem, and I know so many people that really have no idea where their ACTUAL files are.

    I edit in Paint Shop Pro….ACDSee is great because I can drag from there to pretty much anything, even onto the timeline of a video editor or into a browser…..it’s separate from all software, so it works with pretty much any software.

    I never IMPORT anything. I move files to my own filing system so I always know exactly where everything is…even if down the road I stop using ACDSee. But ACDSee creates thumbs quickly, and I can cull very quickly……1000 images for me is typically less than 6 minutes. But at that speed I’m obviously not using “image compare” or full screen mode.

    The only batch processing I do, is resizing.

    But for those few tasks…..viewing, culling, resizing…..things like moving and copying and sorting….

    ACDSee is great. And a bargain. I only buy a new version every 3 or 4 years.

  • Richard Messenger

    That is great. I am just, first and foremost, happy to hear that someone else uses it!

    Then I smiled, because you said that you use all the things I do not use. I can well imagine that might be the case.

    Then I grimaced. How curious. Then I smiled again. I do not think we use opposite things at all.

    The paragraph starting ‘My main reason …’ is totally what I mean when I say it is a ‘file browser’.

    The next paragraph, I again totally agree. Outside of the fact that I do not use Paint Shop Pro, the rest is totally what I use ACDSee for too.

    Again, ‘I never import …’ I do not think that it matters too much that I often do NOT use ACDSee for importing, but then the culling process is, I think we agree, much quicker. But, yes, I did take 158 photos of my daughter today, and they were in very poor conditions, so I did use ‘image compare’ to see which one of 3 or 4 images was sharpest.

    Then … yes I resize .. then convert. So often I will reduce a ‘tif’ file to whatever size, then convert. I do use the batch renaming too.

    SO! Great to find another fan. AND, I actually think we both appreciate much the same things … and, yes, a few different things.

  • David Harpe

    I’ve been a big fan of ACDSee for years and they add nice improvements with every update. I use it primarily as a database/organization tool and for quick edits where I don’t want to dive into photoshop. They do a great job with it. It’s also a hedge against Adobe for me. Currently I’m CS6 and I don’t have a camera that requires anything more so it works. I really hate subscription models and ACDSee hasn’t gone that way (yet) even though they offer one. I buy every upgrade in the hopes of staving that off. 🙂

  • Richard Messenger

    Absolutely right! A database, quick edits … and that is a good point about subscription models.

    Very nice to know I am not alone. I thought I was and wondered how they stayed in business.

  • CopyKatnj

    I’m also a big fan of ACDSee and have recommended it to friends over the years. I started with ACDSee 15 and upgraded to a PRO version that was too different than what I was use to with version 15 so I went back to version 15 and I am still using it. Another comment mentioned CS6, I’m still using that also and don;t have much enthusiasm to go into CCxxxx.
    With ACDSee I have all the external editors I’ve bough right at hand to select after culling my captures.
    So is it worth the effort to upgrade to ACDSee20 from ACDSee15?

  • esoteric2000

    Interesting and informative as usual. Good job.

  • Richard Messenger

    Thank you Mr Esoteric. Always good to see you.

  • Richard Messenger

    It is great that ACDSee has other fans. I was a bit pessimistic, thinking that I would get lots of answers saying that other software did the same thing. That I was going to have to repeat my ‘single package’ comment.

    That was funny. It took me a moment to realise that CCxxxx was not a swear word. I can totally understand the position taken on Photoshop. I seem to remember a conversation with someone telling me to change a car that I had … the answer was probably much like yours, why should I when this one does me fine? However, there are some really nice things, improvements in the tools, in recent versions.

    As for upgrading ACDSee. The simple, honest answer is I do not know. David Harpe would seem to suggest there are good reasons. Especially a jump of 5 increments.

    Yes, a major part of my devotion is based on ‘Ctrl+Alt+X’. No Bridge, my image file browsing is fully catered for with ACDSee, and I can go straight to PS.

    Good to hear from you CopyKatnj.

  • joelluth

    Nice review. I live by LR but I use Bridge as little as possible, I just don’t like it. I haven’t used ACDSee in many years and even if I personally never go back to it I’m glad to see it going strong. Adobe needs competition.

  • Ditto to the above. I’ve been using Lightroom since v1.0. And I’ve also been using ACDSee since v2.0 (which predates Lightroom). It could just been that ACDSee is so ingrained in my workflow that I just can’t get over it. But culling in LR is so clunky slow these days that I actually feel like Adobe is forcing external culling onto people – especially photographers that shoot large numbers of images (like weddings). I have never used the more advanced versions of ACDSee (like to actually process my raw files) as I actually prefer LR to do that. But previewing, culling, renaming, resizing, copying, overall “managing” files is just so much faster in ACDSee that I pretty much only do the actual editing / exporting in LR and let ACDSee do the rest.

  • Redbriars

    I’m a big fan of ACDSee. I shoot with a Nikon D7200 (Raw + JPEG) and most of my edits are cropping, resizing, sharpening, sometimes a bit of exposure adjustment. ACDSee does all of that with ease, and there is still a whole Development tab that I rarely use (hue, saturation, light re-balancing and many more controls that are more sophisticated than I need). It’s all there in one program, plus a complete database management system. No subscriptions. I’m what they call an enthusiastic amateur, and ACDSee Pro 7 (on my XP) and Pro 9 (Win 10) do everything I need, for not a lot of money,

    Thanks for your review!

  • Bill Briers

    I use LR 5 (no subscription) and Affinity Photo (no subscription). I want to cull faster and happened to read your article, THANKS!!! I downloaded the trial ACDSee 20, and it is so much faster at loading previews than LR! But when I put star ratings or color ratings on my Nikon RAW files in ACDSee those ratings don’t show up in LR… I couldn’t find an answer to this in ACDSee forum or Google… do you know how to do this? I’d like to cull so that I delete bad pics but then rate other pics so I can prioritize developing in LR.

  • Richard Messenger

    Well! That is very good news. Again, it isn’t just me! Nice to hear the speed is confirmed with Nikon files too!

    Sorry, I have come across this problem before, and do not believe there is a solution. Honestly, I do not rate my photos (you might read my other articles about Photographer’s Metadata for one reason why) so I haven’t looked so hard. Continuing with the honesty, I hope not rudensss, I would actually be mildly surprised if ratings made in one progam did transfer to another. I suspect they are not part of the exif, so are stored and attached to the image file in some other way only known to each program. As I say, I don’t know for sure, but that is my guess.

    Would it be a total pain in the backside to cull in ACDSee and then rate in Nikon’s software.

    I don’t quite know what your process is. I think ACDSee is the best thing for viewing photographs. So, I would think that that is where you want the ratings to be available, no?

    Sorry, a long, but essentially unhelpful answer!

  • Richard Messenger

    Aha! I’ve never used the development tab either. I probably should try it, because when I want to process just a single file, I get entangled with Bridge and, though it is essentlally just another interface for Adobe Raw, I find it very hard work.

    As I’ve said to others, it is great to get the affirmation (“all there in one program”) that I am not alone in barking up this particular tree.

    You sound like you’re enjoying yourself and that is great to hear.

  • Bill Briers

    Thanks for the reply. It will still speed up culling, so worth the purchase… Probably just have to modify my work flow. Thanks again for your article, this is a much cheaper alternative to Photo Mechanic (their ratings transfer to LR BTW) which is very popular.

  • Richard Messenger

    Yep! That’s it! You’ve got a process which sounds very similar to mine.

    I think a lot of people use Photo Mechanic for the culling process, and … I’m not sure what else because it is a few years since I gave it a go. I have tried other things, like yourself, I’ve tried the process in LR. NOT fun. As I’ve said, I took 158 photos of my daughter a couple of days back, and smiled when I got that down to 10ish to actually process.

    I do think the culling process is VERY important. I do not want to spend time processing photos just for the hell of it! But, also, I think it tunes you to thinking what makes a good photograph.

  • Bill Briers

    I forgot to mention that ratings on TIF files are visible in both LR and ACDSee

  • Richard Messenger

    I think I tried Aperture once, and it seemed very similar to LR, and i know some people swore by it. The demise was sad because, as you say, Adobe needs competition. I thought I should just check … ACDSee 20 is currently $27.95! That’s the price software should be! If you find Bridge as clunky as I do, you might give it a free trial.

    Thank you Joe!

  • Richard Messenger

    Folks! I really did not think this article would get much response. It is great to gain the comments that it has. I think ACDSee deserves that support.

    One thing though, we ought to support ACDSee further. PLEASE SHARE this article wherever you can. Please use the button on the left, or copy and paste a link, give the guys a leg up.

    I have just seen that they’ve got a substantial sale on at the moment, and the beta of their Mac software is actually free!

  • Richard Messenger

    NOW! That IS interesting. Thank you Bill. The ratings can be read by some of the programs in some of the formats. That might be useful to know.

    And WOW! Yes, I’ve just looked, Photo Mechanice is $150. It would need to tell jokes and make a cup of tea with toast and jam for that money!

  • Richard Messenger

    On the topic of workflow … I import from the camera into a folder, (it happens to be an SSD and I think that helps a lot, and it is where my import of RAW files are kept in folders which are reverse dated ‘2017-07-28’). That is the folder which I then will spend time going through, in ever demanding sweeps, to choose just the shots I want to develop. When I’ve done the cull, only then do I import to LR. When I’ve processed I export to a new folder, named and dated in a structure which makes sense to me. That is a folder which is, in effect, managed and viewed by ACDSee. Seems simple enough, and it has been like that for a few years now. Sure, I go ‘off piste’ now and again, but that is mostly it.

  • CopyKatnj

    After reading the below comments and commenting myself, I trialed ACDSee20. Two hours later I upgraded from ACDSee15. It is faster and has some more features added. More importantly, it is a great DAM.

  • Richard Messenger

    Excellent! I can see the smile from here.

  • Bill Briers

    How do you cull in ACDSee? Do you just delete bad shots or are you rating or something to identify which ones will be imported to LR and which will not be edited?

  • Richard Messenger

    It’s late here, the bottle of wine is empty, so I hope this is coherent.

    Without wishing to put you through a counselling session, each one of us should do what they are comfortable with. Whatever works for you.

    Every situation will be different.

    Because the light was very poor, I put the camera in high speed, because I was having to shoot at stupidly slow shutter speeeds. As I’ve said, just a couple of days ago, that gave me 158 photographs of my baby daughter. BUT there were only probably 10 different poses, and that is what I ended up with. A first run through, would get rid of the obvious rejects. With a number of similar shots, the second run through was based on the technical sharpness of the eye. The remainders, perhaps 70 or so, are now all technically good, and it might be down to some sort of artistic decision, the smile is a tiny bit wider, the eyes are a touch more twinkly … often ridiculously detailed differences. Make any sense? 10 it was in the end that I actually imported to Lightroom.

    I might go on a shoot to the local market, and it is very likely that there will be many more different scenarios, but I will work at getting it down to as little as 20% that I want to spend time on processing. Somehow it makes the processing easier, more fun, more fulfilling, because you know you are working on the chosen few. Again, does that make any sense? Often I have 3 or 4 different photos of a similar scene. I’m not adverse to keeping them all, but if I feel the story is told sufficiently by just 2 of them, the baseball bat is swung.

    I do feel that the years, maybe the last 4, 5 or 6 that I have been doing this have improved my photography. I think the greats move that decision making as far forward in the process as the point when they push the shutter. Having spent hours flicking between two different versions of the same scene, I think it has helped me be clearer in terms of what does, and what does not work. What is worth taking a chance over.

    Mmmm? After all that, I’m not even sure I’ve answered your question Bill?!

  • Bill Briers

    Ha, thanks! So it sounds like you delete everything that you don’t plan to process in LR. I use star ratings to cull in LR and delete anything under 3 stars then I filter so that only the 4+ stars show up and I process those, then I may go back and look at the 3’s again and see if there are any that I want to add (depends on the purpose of the shoot) maybe so that I can use one for a head swap or something.

  • Richard Messenger

    Yes, you’ve got it Bill, that is all that late night ramble was saying. Delete everything I do not want to process.

    In line with my articles about Photographer’s Metadata, I am aware of the effect of the passage of time, the need to be cautious about irrevocable decisions.

    As I’ve said, we all have different approaches, and star ratings just do not appeal to me. I think I am probably in a minority there, but a binary, ‘yes’ or ‘no’, decision appeals to me much more than perhaps thinking for even 0.2 of a second longer whether it is a 3 or 4.

  • Richard Messenger

    It is good to be caused to review these things. Thanks Bill.

  • Peter Sands

    G’day Richard … I enjoy your articles, thanks for them!

    I’m currently trialing ACDsee Ultimate and am impressed with its speed, seemingly ease-of-use, and versatility. I tried LR and quickly abandoned it because of slowness and that wretched catalog process. I do use Photoshop Elements but bypass the Organiser ‘cos it drove me nuts.

    My current process is to use Windows Photo Gallery to import my files and tag them. I really like the hierarchical tagging available in Photo Gallery: it’s easy, flexible, and the tags are written to the file so they go with the file if I move them to another computer. I then use FastStone Image Viewer to compare, cull and do basic editing. It is fast and clean, it sees my Olympus raw files, presents the images well, has a wide range of basic edits, a good slide show builder, and batch resizing and renaming. If needed I export to PSE from FastStone as I can then do much more refined or layer-based editing.

    From what I’ve seen so far ACDsee Ulimate could do all this for me in the one package, but with one exception: the tagging. My impression is that the tags are not written to the file itself, so there must be a catalog/data base behind the scenes, and the big negative for me is that Ultimate does not seem to see my tags from Photo Gallery. If the tags were compatible … wow!!

    Peter

  • Richard Messenger

    I’m sensing an Aussie in the house? G’day to you Peter.

    Thank you, I appreciate the positive comment.

    Leaping to the end. I think that you are right. From the comments of others here, what others have told me before, and my own experience, it seems that the tags do not easily move elsewhere. There is definitely a database. Perhaps it works like the star ratings, that tags can be transferred in some file formats as Bill Briers has described below.

    Then! I love that you have chosen specific tools to do specific jobs. Would never have thought to look at Windows Photo Gallery. I’ve never heard of FastStone. I often hear that Elements does everything that the vast majority of us need. Kudos to you for finding things that work for you. I might give them a look sometime. BUT, the conclusion I think I take away is that you are inclined to question things, to wonder if there is a better way, try things, and I personally think that is really important. It is one of the things the responses to this article have caused me to do. To question my process and wonder again, to give a specific, about my culling process.

  • Richard Messenger

    Ah! Windows Photo Gallery is part of the Essentials pack. Oh dear, sorry to see that they dropped it at the start of the year!

    I see good reviews for recent versions of Faststone. Good price too!

  • Peter Sands

    You are correct! From Taroona, in Tassie … though my parents were from Nottingham! Pity about Essentials … fortunately I saved the Photo Gallery setup files! Been using it from XP through to 10.

  • Richard Messenger

    Or … maybe it is time to review the process … see what it is you’re actually trying to achieve … you’d think I was on commission, but maybe it is time to see if ACDSee can remove some steps …

    Nottingham, hey? You have fine roots sir!

  • John Johnson

    I am committed to ACDSee. It’s sheer speed makes a joke out of Lightroom or Bridge, especially when changing folders and having to wait while thumbnails generate. The batch rename tool is something that Adobe can’t compete with, it’s powerful enough that you can program in your own formula or metadata into the file name, and is perfect for dealing with folders full of irregularly numbered or named images.

  • Richard Messenger

    Absolutely agree.

    Difficult to understand why it is not very much more popular, isn’t it?

Join Our Email Newsletter

Thanks for subscribing!


DPS offers a free weekly newsletter with: 
1. new photography tutorials and tips
2. latest photography assignments
3. photo competitions and prizes

Enter your email below to subscribe.
Email:
 
 
Get DAILY free tips, news and reviews via our RSS feed