| Author | Thread |
|
|
06/10/2004 01:50:21 PM · #1 |
I will be out for a while, but hopefully can get some feedback during the day . . . . anyone have any experience or comments on either or both of these organization/viewing tools? Any comments or feedback will be appreciated!!!
|
|
|
|
06/10/2004 03:01:16 PM · #2 |
I have the Adobe PS Album 2.0 and it is very user-friendly. It didn't take long at all to install, search for all my pictures, and be ready to use. I don't know anything about the other program. :o)
|
|
|
|
06/10/2004 07:00:07 PM · #3 |
I use both, though have yet to get fully into Adobe PS Album.
I use them for different purposes though.
I use Album to categorise and store photos, put to CD etc.
I use ACDSee, and have done since the early versions, as a photo viewer. I simply use it to flick through my photos, or to show properly to people at home. If it has the ability to catalogue I've never used it, probably because I still only use the functionality of several versions back.
Both are great pieces of software. Sorry, that doesn't really help you choose between them *laugh*
|
|
|
|
06/10/2004 07:51:03 PM · #4 |
I started using ACDSee around v2.4 and absolutely loved it for the longest time. Sadly it's gradually been getting worse and worse since 4.0 came out (mainly, it's become bloat ware and takes too long to load on a 3ghz machine). I tried out 6.0 recently, which has seemingly hit rock bottom, and realized that I needed a change. I got a copy of IrfanView and was reminded of all the things I liked about the ACDSee of old -- speed, browsability, and just enough editing to fulfill my photograph cropping/lighting needs.
I haven't tried Adobe PS Album. ;)
|
|
|
|
06/10/2004 08:11:26 PM · #5 |
Thanks to all of you. I hope to still get a few more comments. I ask becuase I have ACDSee 6.0.3 and have seen the forum comments on how much less older users like it -- and that its database can be unstable. I have PS Album now also, but it seems very slow to start up and ACDSee is very speedy. I am trying to get a feel from people if I might want to switch over or just leaveit alone. Thanks!!
|
|
|
|
06/10/2004 09:33:52 PM · #6 |
I have ACDSee 5.0 -- I never upgraded to 6.0. I use it for categorizing photos and I use the PhotoSlate 3.0 I got with it for creating album pages. I don't notice it running slowly at all -- very fast on my system and it's only a 2.4GHz P4. The database works fine EXCEPT it doesn't commit changes after each transaction, like a good databse should. I've spend some time updating the database with various information and catigorizations of photos only to have ACDSee lock up on me so I have to kill it -- and all the database changes I made during that session are gone gone gone. VERY Annoying.
I got prints now! -- check 'em out.
|
|
|
|
06/10/2004 09:40:01 PM · #7 |
| You also should concider the breeze browser. |
|
|
|
06/10/2004 10:00:15 PM · #8 |
Thanks for the comments. Anyone from the Adobe Album group???? Thank you!
|
|
|
|
06/11/2004 10:23:49 AM · #9 |
I have PSA 2.0, haven't tried ACDSee. I like PSA, i recently gave a copy to my father too, since it's so easy to use and he's the epitomy of computer illiteracy. hehehe. At any rate, i use psa to catalog all my photos and i think it's pretty good. I like the collections feature, and i like the searches. i think it's pretty quick performance wise, and i'm runing on a 2.4ghz with 768 meg of RAM. while it may not have ALL the features you'd need out of a professional cataloging software, it does really well for me. when i need an image, it's pretty easy for me to find what i need. If i'm looking for landscapes of boston, i can find all of 'em in a few clicks. If i'm looking for stock photos of forks, they all come up pretty quick too :) I think my database is a pretty good size, i have over 8500 pictures worth stored in there.
the only complaints i have about it, is that it has a file size limitation. Images that i have resized and interpolated for DPC for example, are too big to load into PSA. So i have to keep them separate on my HD. It's not a big deal for me as i have only a handfull of those types of files, but I can see how that limitation would really annoy me if i had a lot of 'em.
Also, the backup that you can produce with it is really good. I recently backed up my whole album, onto a couple DVD's and brought it to my office (where i also have a copy of PSA) and loaded it to my pc here, to store as a second copy. worked really well, and that's what I use for my backup solution right now.
ok now i'm getting long winded, so i'll shut up now ;)
|
|
|
|
06/13/2004 07:06:34 AM · #10 |
Well why not try it?
I know in the case of Adobe Album, there is the free "starter edition" that you can download from the Adobe site. Even the free edition is good and after running with it for a few days (a copy came with my new camera), I just had to go for the full version (I was that impressed).
So download it and have a play. If you like it, stick with it (either the free one or the paid for). If you don't. nothing lost. |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 03/13/2025 09:09:38 PM EDT.
