 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Digital Photography / DSLR Cameras / July 2006ACDSee8 does NOT support Nikon D50 RAW
Just upgraded my ACDSee, been along for the ride since 3.2-5.0- now 8, only to find out AFTER paying, downloading and installing that this software does NOT SUPPORT Nikon D50 RAW files, D70, yes D50 NO. It would be nice if they would sstate whant cameras are NOT suppoted BEFORE you buy the software! Another worthless software purchase. Scott >Just upgraded my ACDSee, been along for the ride since 3.2-5.0- now 8, >only to find out AFTER paying, downloading and installing that this [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >Scott Not much of a speller when I'm choked, sorry. Scott According to <sferguso@telus.net>: > Just upgraded my ACDSee, been along for the ride since 3.2-5.0- now 8, > only to find out AFTER paying, downloading and installing that this > software does NOT SUPPORT Nikon D50 RAW files, D70, yes D50 NO. Hmm -- as far as I know -- the RAW format is identical in both cameras. Is it remotely possible that ACDSee checks the exif info for cameras that it *knows* that it supports, and simply has not yet been told that the D50 is included? > It would be nice if they would sstate whant cameras are NOT suppoted > BEFORE you buy the software! Another worthless software purchase. Try contacting them and seeing what they say about the D50. Maybe it is a simple patch to a table of acceptable cameras, and they will supply it for free. If that won't work -- you can look for the Windows port of dcraw, which will even handle the D200 (I went to the camera store, took a couple of shots on my own CF card with their demo D200, and verified that I could process the RAW shots. If it handles the D200 (and my D70), it should also handle the D50. Once you have processed through dcraw, you can then read the resulting format in through ACDSee -- I hope. The default format is "ppm", so check that it will read those. Good Luck, DoN.  SignatureEmail: <dnichols@d-and-d.com> | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564 (too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html --- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero --- >Just upgraded my ACDSee, been along for the ride since 3.2-5.0- now 8, >only to find out AFTER paying, downloading and installing that this >software does NOT SUPPORT Nikon D50 RAW files, D70, yes D50 NO. >It would be nice if they would sstate whant cameras are NOT suppoted >BEFORE you buy the software! Another worthless software purchase. Took less than 15 sec to find: http://www.acdsee.com/products/acdseepro/rawformats -- Ed Ruf (Usenet2@EdwardG.Ruf.com) http://edwardgruf.com/Digital_Photography/General/index.html > Just upgraded my ACDSee, been along for the ride since 3.2-5.0- now 8, > only to find out AFTER paying, downloading and installing that this > software does NOT SUPPORT Nikon D50 RAW files, D70, yes D50 NO. > It would be nice if they would sstate whant cameras are NOT suppoted > BEFORE you buy the software! Another worthless software purchase. More fool you. Their website clearly states what's supported and what isn't. See what happens when you buy a Nikon. > > Just upgraded my ACDSee, been along for the ride since 3.2-5.0- now 8, > > only to find out AFTER paying, downloading and installing that this [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Their website clearly states what's supported and what isn't. > See what happens when you buy a Nikon. What on earth has it got to do with buyinh a Nikon? Doc >Just upgraded my ACDSee, been along for the ride since 3.2-5.0- now 8, >only to find out AFTER paying, downloading and installing that this >software does NOT SUPPORT Nikon D50 RAW files, D70, yes D50 NO. >It would be nice if they would sstate whant cameras are NOT suppoted >BEFORE you buy the software! Another worthless software purchase. I find it odd that the D50 is not supported. The D70s was released at the same time, and the D200 was released 7 months later. Even the Canon 30D is in there, so it's not a timing issue. I'd guess the authors simply overlooked the D50. I recommend sending an email to them asking if they can patch ACDSee. > Just upgraded my ACDSee, been along for the ride since 3.2-5.0- now 8, > only to find out AFTER paying, downloading and installing that this > software does NOT SUPPORT Nikon D50 RAW files, D70, yes D50 NO. > It would be nice if they would sstate whant cameras are NOT suppoted > BEFORE you buy the software! Another worthless software purchase. I cannot understand why people are so intent on paying for rubbish like ACDsee when Picasa2 from Google is available for free and is MUCH better than anything else out there? If you are running a PC platform you really owe it to yourself to try Picasa2. I think it rocks and is considerably better than even Adobe Bridge. SignatureNow with uploadable photo critique section in the forum http://www.nikongear.com/ >> Just upgraded my ACDSee, been along for the ride since 3.2-5.0- now 8, >> only to find out AFTER paying, downloading and installing that this [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >ACDsee when Picasa2 from Google is available for free and is MUCH better >than anything else out there? Is this SPAM or are you just a little drunk? >If you are running a PC platform you really owe it to yourself to try >Picasa2. I think it rocks and is considerably better than even Adobe >Bridge. A friend has Picasa which I've used, and he uses it to quickly touch up snapshot-type JPG files of family or friends. For simple things, it's a fine little program. But when he wants to do serious work, like tweaking RAW files from his D200, he doesn't even consider Picasa, and neither do I. While I think Picasa is a good program, it's certainly not the best and is not as good nor as diverse for converting RAW files. > >> Just upgraded my ACDSee, been along for the ride since 3.2-5.0- now 8, > >> only to find out AFTER paying, downloading and installing that this [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Is this SPAM or are you just a little drunk? Er, no. > >If you are running a PC platform you really owe it to yourself to try > >Picasa2. I think it rocks and is considerably better than even Adobe [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > While I think Picasa is a good program, it's certainly not the best and > is not as good nor as diverse for converting RAW files. I don't advocate Picasa as a substitute for any photo editing program, but simply as an archival tool with added functionality. It simply blows Adobe Bridge right out of the water, as well as ACDSee. SignatureNow with uploadable photo critique section in the forum http://www.nikongear.com/ > I don't advocate Picasa as a substitute for any photo editing program, > but simply as an archival tool with added functionality. It simply > blows > Adobe Bridge right out of the water, as well as ACDSee. There are one or two features of Picasa I would agree are improvements over what is offered in other programs, and for people whose needs are quite simple, it does the job nicely. But considering it cannot write to EXIF or IPTC metadata, only has one rating, does not in the current version support display of tree-structured directories, does no batch processing, and has no RAW processing capabilities to speak of, it's pretyt limited compared to ACDSee Pro. ACDSee 8 is missing some of the features that make ACDSee the better choice for me, but still light years ahead of Picasa. Bridge is a tougher call - it has fewer features in this regard still than ACDSee 8, and no virtual cataloging or database at all, but it does work very well with IPTC. Choosing between Bridge and Picasa would be difficult for me, as neither comes close to doing what I need. Depending on what I decided I could live without, I could see an argument made either way. But there is really very little of consequence that Picasa does better than ACDSee 8 or Pro - non-destructive editing and not much else - and there is much it does not do nearly as well or at all. --------------- Marc Sabatella marc@outsideshore.com Music, art, & educational materials Featuring "A Jazz Improvisation Primer" http://www.outsideshore.com/ > > I don't advocate Picasa as a substitute for any photo editing program, > > but simply as an archival tool with added functionality. It simply [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > non-destructive editing and not much else - and there is much it does > not do nearly as well or at all. I can't run Bridge properly on my system, which is a 1.5GHz Centrino with 1GB RAM. It simply causes my laptop to freeze up because it can't get enough RAM. Picasa2, OTOH simply flies through my images and has yet to lock up. I agree on the lack of a tree structure for sirectories, but its a small price to pay for something with so much else to offer. And it's free, whereas everything else comes with a heavy price tag. SignatureNow with uploadable photo critique section in the forum http://www.nikongear.com/ >> While I think Picasa is a good program, it's certainly not the best and >> is not as good nor as diverse for converting RAW files. > > I don't advocate Picasa as a substitute for any photo editing program, > but simply as an archival tool with added functionality. It simply blows > Adobe Bridge right out of the water, as well as ACDSee. I like Picasa, simple, easy to use, will d/load raw files when used with a usb card reader, editing of files is not destructive to the original files, easy to create a web page or to burn to cd/dvd, send pictures via email, great for sorting out photo files and albums for serious editing I use photoshop or gimp > >> While I think Picasa is a good program, it's certainly not the best and > >> is not as good nor as diverse for converting RAW files. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > for serious editing I use photoshop or gimp What he said. SignatureNow with uploadable photo critique section in the forum http://www.nikongear.com/ |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.