# lightroom vs acdsee 6 pro -some setings id like to configure



## robert s (Feb 2, 2014)

I know LR doesnt adjust the picture on the fly. thats what I love about acdsee. I can go into a folder, edit all those pictures on the fly. delete then as I need to from one to the next. I even configured it to not even ask.
with LR I would like to be able to
1-edit the picture with out the export option later. possible? wastes too much time exporting. using my brothers pc with xp and 3.4 I simply want the pictures to be edited on the fly and not have to deal with exporting after.
2-when I delte a file from the timeline/filmstrip at the bottom of the screen(dont know the name) I want it to be removed from the folder (like acdsee does). I dont want to go back and start looking for images I delted. very hard to do so with those small thumbnails.

there are more things but these are the two main ones. btw does LR work with nef files in the filmstrip way? I tried working with D3 camera nef and it didnt open them.
thank you.


----------



## Jim Wilde (Feb 2, 2014)

Hi, welcome to the forum.

For starters you can't change Lightroom's non-destructive workflow, so if you don't like the "hassle" of exporting then maybe Lightroom isn't for you. Having said that, no image editor, including Acdsee, can adjust raw pictures "on the fly", they all have to work from a generated preview of the converted raw file. Those adjustments then have to be saved somehow as a derivative file if you want to do anything with it. Call it "Save As" or call it "Export", there really isn't that much difference except that "Export" probably gives you more options.

Yes you can remove a file from the Filmstrip and have it physically deleted from the folder, but you have to be working from either a folder or the All Photographs selection. Working from a collection only allows removal from that collection.

There is also a "splat delete" which removed from Lightroom and deletes from disk no matter if you are working from a folder OR a collection, the problem is that you get no "second chance" warning. Use the command (Ctrl-Alt-Shift-Delete) and the file is gone, so use it with care.

NEFs from the D3 have been supported in Lightroom since version 1, so what exactly happens when you try to open them?


----------



## Harley_Rider (Feb 2, 2014)

Robert;

     Like you, I just moved from ACDSee to LR...been using all the ACDSee Pro version from 1 to 7, really like ACDSee but they are taking too long updating their RAW support, so gave LR a try.   Couple of things I found useful, some great "how-to" videos available...check the Adobe site or just do a search.   Also, I stopped trying to configure LR to work/match ACDSee; after watching some of the videos and other tips found on-line, I configured LR for my work-flow and am very happy with it.  

   I also liked ACDSee's configuration for deleting...delete and the photo is gone.  Thanks Jim for that tip, didn't know about the (Ctrl-Alt-Shift-Delete).  However, I just started using LR's "Rejected Flag."   Just flag photos Rejected and then when you're ready to delete them, just use the Delete Rejected command.   You can even make a Smart Collection that will NOT show Rejected photos.
_
- JohnT_


----------



## robert s (Feb 3, 2014)

Jim Wilde said:


> Hi, welcome to the forum.
> 
> For starters you can't change Lightroom's non-destructive workflow, so if you don't like the "hassle" of exporting then maybe Lightroom isn't for you. Having said that, no image editor, including Acdsee, can adjust raw pictures "on the fly", they all have to work from a generated preview of the converted raw file. Those adjustments then have to be saved somehow as a derivative file if you want to do anything with it. Call it "Save As" or call it "Export", there really isn't that much difference except that "Export" probably gives you more options.
> 
> ...



with raw being out for so many years im surprised no one has released a software that can work raw on the fly. 

Ctrl-Alt-Shift-Delete for a measly delete? can I configure it to delete just by pressing DELETE? 4 buttons for a delete, wow thats overkill. cant I just send it to the recycle bin? with tons of weddings and thousands of pictures moving my hand from the mouse to press the delete while the other hand does a 3 button press is horrible. just slows your whole workflow. when I have to edit 2000 pictures from a wedding, seconds add up to the time spent editing.  why cant it just send it to the recycle bin? in all the pictures Ive edited there have only been a few single times I went back and got a file I deleted and had to restore it to the folder. its too much mommying. "you sure you want to?" YES! delete, "are you sure?" YES DELETE IT ALREADY! "No, please reconsider" JUST LET ME DECIDE AND DELETE already. non destructive nonsense. its destructive to my workflow. its too slow. 

 acdsee is much faster, lets me do what I need but I wanted something between acdsee to PS. PS is too slow for bulk editing, lightroom is not letting you have a free hand to do as you please but acdsee doesnt give me enough control on certain functions. BUT!!! I love being able to press delete and have it go to the recycle bin. delete and its gone. no warning, no waste of time pressing buttons and wasting precious seconds. but the crop tool is driving me crazy. it cant remember the crop size I used for previous pictures and keeps resetting itself. all in all its very fast. as well LR loads pictures so slowly . it loads the large picture but slowly brings it from blurred to complete sharpness. Acdsee takes 1 second or so and boom its there.  disappointed in LR. I expected more. 

not sure what this means?
_Yes you can remove a file from the Filmstrip and have it physically  deleted from the folder, but you have to be working from either a folder  or the All Photographs selection. Working from a collection only allows  removal from that collection. _

when I finish a wedding, I make a folder with the name and date, then put all my pictures in and then burn them immedietely to dvds then I open the editing software and navigate to where it is and start editing. not sure what an all photographs section.

If I have to clone/heal parts of picture (light stand or a person in the background) then I take those few pics and edit them after in PS after im done, but basically there are very few things I do to a picture. exposure, contrast/fill/color balance/rotate/crop/vignette/highligh midtone shadow recovery/sharpening basically just use those. I wish I could be able to just have sliders on the screen for that instead of clicking exposure and having it turn on that tool so I can make adjustments. the sliders just need to be on the screen all the time for those tools I need. like in PS, I can have just a window for history or action or whatever and remove what I dont need. I also wished after editing exposure or contrast (for instance) I could just press ENTER and it will save it and go back to the filmstrip, but when I press enter it just goes back to a full page of thumbnails and I have to press EDIT to get back into filmstrip mode. I have to actually have to move the cursor on DONE to save it and get out of that editing mode. such inneficient programming in all these editing software. they are not user friendly and efficient. all these things wastes seconds but in the end it all adds up


----------



## robert s (Feb 3, 2014)

I didnt move from acdsee to LR. I just was testing it. I see the workflow is not efficient like acdsee. acdsee is a lighter tool but faster. LR gets heavier editing options but is low and inefficient. any videos you can recommend on youtube?
the problem is, its not letting me configure the 2 most basic things I need. delete doesnt have to be a big issue. im a big boy. let me decide. and it doesnt need to completely delete. it can send it to the recycle bin. love the way acdsee does it. saves me so much time. the fact I have to remove my hand from the mouse wastes so much time. seconds add up. its a waste of time for me to sit and put in all my energy to edit the pics then I have to waste time for it to export those changes..no no. thats just a huge waste of time. it should let me decide how to do it.


----------



## Hal P Anderson (Feb 3, 2014)

robert,

Lightroom is capable of saving you an immense amount of time, but only if you invest some time in learning how to use it efficiently. It operates on a different paradigm than editors like ACDSee or Photoshop, and if you want to use LR well, you need to somehow learn that paradigm and embrace it.

Adobe have a number of free videos, and there are good videos available on the web for a fee. Google is your friend. 

Also, check out Victoria Bampton's free Quick Start Guide to Lightroom.


----------



## robert s (Feb 3, 2014)

I started playing with LR for the past 3 days and understood everything I  needed from it more or less. I only need basic editing sharpness/crop/exposure/HMS  recovery/rotate/color balance.. just basic things. its slow compared to  acdsee. in terms of functions, it can do more, if you need it. I need a  quick bulk editor for my wedding pictures. those that need heavier  things done to it are done in PP. but as of now, having to remove my  hand from the mouse to do a 2 handed delete is inefficient, and the fact  that I have to let the computer waste more of my time by exporting  makes it seem even less efficient. if LR gave me the option to decide,  that would be great but its forcing a certain workflow pattern that isnt  exactly what its meant to be doing and thats workflow efficiency. 

if  you can tell me how I can have LR edit and change all editing to pics  on the fly and how to do a one hand delete without confirmation, then I  will put in the effort to learn it and will even buy the CS6 version but  I think it not only isnt faster, but actually will make my time spent  on simple editing functions much longer. if it cant do those 2 basic  things I need then no need to continue and learn something that will  have me working more time editing then now. I want something faster than  acdsee.


----------



## clee01l (Feb 3, 2014)

robert s said:


> ...I only need basic editing sharpness/crop/exposure/HMS  recovery/rotate/color balance.. just basic things. its slow compared to  acdsee. in terms of functions, it can do more, if you need it. I need a  quick bulk editor for my wedding pictures. those that need heavier  things done to it are done in PP..


You probably are not a candidate for LR.  LR is first and foremost an image manager.   Added to that are the ACR capabilities (the same ones found in PS). You probably don't retain images for the long term or need to manage a long term inventory.   PS & Bridge will probably do all that you need to accomplish.


----------



## robert s (Feb 3, 2014)

clee01l said:


> You probably are not a candidate for LR.  LR is first and foremost an image manager.   Added to that are the ACR capabilities (the same ones found in PS). You probably don't retain images for the long term or need to manage a long term inventory.   PS & Bridge will probably do all that you need to accomplish.



I cannot use PS for bulk work. its way to slow. its specific to problems I need to fix. cloning, healing, copy/pasting parts of bodies onto a different photo. I want something more advanced than acdsee but quick like it. I see theres no flexibility with LR. accept it of eff off  I cannot configure things I want from it. as far as speed, acdsee is faster hands down. but its limited and I think the quality of the export with LR is better. although I think im nitpicking. 

you are right, I dont have the pictures long term on my HDD. I do a wedding, transfer the pics from memory cards to my HDD, burn it all (good/bad) as it is to dvd's, then I start editing. when its done, I burn 2 copies and give one to the photographer I worked for and 1 goes into my dvd album for archive. after a month I remove it from my HDD. shame I cant tweak acdsee as I would want and shame I cant tweak LR as I want. but no photog uses 1 software for everything. I need PS for heavy things and acdsee for all the rest. I wanted to move to LR but I see its not flexible. having to remove my hand from the mouse to delete an image everytime is a big no no for me. its very inefficient when I have to remove my hand to do a 4 button delete press. if I could configure those two things above, then I would buy a newer version, otherwise acdsee is bearable.


----------



## Den (Feb 3, 2014)

I don't get it when someone complains like this about a program. It works as it was designed, if you need it to do something else it was never intended to do, use something else. Like complaining about having to shift gears because you purchased a manual transmission vehicle!


----------



## robert s (Feb 3, 2014)

your example is flawed. I didnt buy any car. my brother bought it a few years back and I was just trying it out to see if its quicker. either I have to accept its 2 heavy flaws or not use it. I dont think I asked for anything out of the ordinary. to configure a 2 handed press for a delete, or asking if there is a way for the software to save changes on the fly instead of wasting valuable time twice but exporting. PS lets me customize a lot of features of the software so I asked if LR can as well.


----------



## Hal P Anderson (Feb 3, 2014)

For deletions just hit the X key to flag the images as rejected. Then sometime later, hit Ctrl-Backspace to delete all the rejected images. Not very slow.

When you've made all your edits, select all your images in grid mode (Ctrl-A), and then hit the Export button, and export them all. Not very slow, either.

And relax a little. We're all volunteers here, and your being angry and SHOUTING in your posts will generally get you less help, not more.


----------



## Jack Henry (Feb 3, 2014)

If you were just testing acdsee and are just testing LR, what were you using before? If Photoshop, then LR will save you a LOT of time just because of the filmstrip in the develop module. In Photoshop don't you need to load each photo individually? Hitting X for each photo you want deleted and then later hitting Ctrl-Backspace will cost you all of 0.5 of a second at the end of the day. And exporting 100 photos at the end of the workflow will be quicker than saving 100 photos individually. 

I'm totally confused as to how you think it will cost you time. It will SAVE you time if you're willing to listen to the answers you've been given here and actually try them. 


And if you think you've learned everything you've needed in just 3 days, as you've said, then really,  you've learned nothing.


----------



## clee01l (Feb 3, 2014)

robert s said:


> ...either I have to accept its 2 heavy flaws or not use it...


Only you see these as flaws. others see these as assets.  From a programming stand point, you never want to surprise a user with accidental file deletions.  That is why these checks are built in.  Not even the File system lets you delete files without asking "Are you sure?"

If you are in a collection, the only assumption the program can make is that you want to delete images _from the collection_.  Any other intention requires the "magic hand shake"  Something that you must with intention perform. Of course it is slower. it is designed you make you think about what you are doing.  If you are not in a collection, LR brings up a confirmation dialog to determine if you want to delete from the catalog or from the catalog *and* HD.  If it were any simpler, there would be too many people deleting images in their sleep and complaining about that just like you complain about this.  

If you want a different custom solution than Adobe's or ACDSee's general approach for the masses, then think about writing your own .

The way to use LR effectively is to not delete any images until you are done. Hitting the "X" hotkey marks images for rejection.  When you are done. Filter on the rejected images in the All Photographs collection and delete all of them at one tie instead of in dribs and drabs. Deleting a few images here and there is not a very efficient use of time.  Your OS requires the same amount of spin up time to delete 100 images as to delete one. Also the filesystem housekeeping after deletion is just about the same for one image as for 100.


----------



## robert s (Feb 3, 2014)

*If you were just testing acdsee and are just testing LR, what were you using before? 
Ive been using PS from version 5. very proficient in it. in the summer ive gotten back to wedding photography as my gear was stolen. so made the jumnp from film to digital. I realized PS is just too slow and heavy. PS has its strong points. speed isnt one of them.
*
so I started looking for software that would help me with tons of pics I was shooting (compared to film before my gear was stolen) in a fast setup. I did try LR on my brothers pc, a few months back and realized although it is quicker, its still slow. got picasa on the pc and realized there is no control there. not very user friendly. my friend recommended ACDC. got the trial and BAM it was so smooth, so easy to work with. fast and easy. bought it within an hour. there were some things I didnt like but all in all, it did the bulk of it. the ones I need to fix heavily went to PS. 

you know when you buy a new phone, how youre mesmerized with it that you dont notice the flaws? so after time of working with it, and doing thousands of pics you see things that need to be fixed and tweaked in the software to even get more speed. same with LR. it needs to be quicker. the biggest I found is the delete. just press the button and it deletes it to the recycle bin. it doesnt ask and that saves my sanity by not having to press buttons endlessly (since im pressing tons of buttons as it is) editing is on the fly and I love it. do the editing, press the arrow to the next picture, press ENTER and done, next. been using ACDC for a few months now and I when I started, I said, oh geez another horrible software like picasa. but it wasnt.  it was smooth, gave me control of everything I needed, minus the heavy editing I might need with some pics in PS. I said maybe I can get more from LR and thought to really give it a shot. but the two biggest issues I see is the delete and the export. it should give me the option of adjusting the editing on the fly. 

*
If Photoshop, then LR will save you a LOT of time just because of the filmstrip in the develop module. In Photoshop don't you need to load each photo individually? Hitting X for each photo you want deleted and then later hitting Ctrl-Backspace will cost you all of 0.5 of a second at the end of the day. And exporting 100 photos at the end of the workflow will be quicker than saving 100 photos individually. 
*
of course PS is slow. when I used it solely. but not today. I shoot much more and need something that will cut down my time in front of the pc. 

* I'm totally confused as to how you think it will cost you time. It will SAVE you time if you're willing to listen to the answers you've been given here and actually try them. *

I was recommend a 4 button delete and then pressing enter vs a press a button and its gone in ACDC, so im simply trying to find a way to configure it where its best for me. removing my hand from the mouse just wastes time when youre editing 2500 pictures. I want to at least match LR to ACDC and right not LR is not fast enough. when you say advice, it reminds me of my older brother who likes to give me advice. I listen to him but many times I dont accept his advice as its not best for me, so he gets offended. as if his advice must be taken and if I dont do as he says he gets quite upset. as a pro photog and a bodybuilder for many years, people ask for advice on both, I give my opinion, whether they use it or not, its up to them, but I dont get upset if he does what he feels is best for him. when im talking about costing time, im talking about wasting precious seconds over simple things that could be better. trying to cut time in seconds is done all the time. ACDC has flaws and if I can get LR to be as fast as ACDC then I will buy CS6 immediately. thats why I gave it a second shot but only if I can tweak those 2 things. 

*And if you think you've learned everything you've needed in just 3 days, as you've said, then really,  you've learned nothing.
*did I say I learned everything in 3 days? where exactly? I said ive been using it for 3 days straight now and *learned everything I needed from it*. which means all the basic editing I need like I do with ACDC. I dont plan on learning everything about it. I just need it for basic bulk editing. pretty much exposure/color. even after so many years I dont know everything about PS. I only use what I need. I have been editing pictures for a long time. been a pro photog for a long time as well. so when I came to LR it wasnt so hard to get the jist of it. it took me an hour to understand ACDC and I loved it from the beginning ad bought it immediately. im having a hard time understanding why I cant configure LR to be as fast. but dont get so upset if I say LR isnt as good as it could be. do I care if you say ACDC is a horrible software, no. it works for me and thats all that matters. people are getting personal and post opinions based on that. im trying to stick with LR (not giving up ACDC yet) and see if I can tweak it to my liking, if I cant then no harm done, ill stay with ACDC.


----------



## Bryan Conner (Feb 4, 2014)

According to your profile info, you are using Lightroom 3.4 which is almost 3 years old and is not even the latest release of Lightroom 3.  Are you comparing this suboptimal, 3 year old technology version of Lightroom 3 with the latest version of ACDSee?  

As far as the delete issue goes, in my Lightroom 5.3, I select an image, push delete on my keyboard and then push D on the keyboard to confirm that I want to remove the image from the hard-drive.  I like the option that I have here to push R on the keyboard to only remove it from Lightroom but keep the file on the hard drive.  When I am doing my first edit on a large number of images, I tend to work fast...sometimes too fast and may inadvertently hit the delete button.  Having to confirm whether to send to the recycle bin or to remove the image has saved me from having to restore an image from the recycle bin a few times.  I think Lightroom is being "better safe than sorry" in this case.

What exactly do you mean by "edit on the fly".  I used ACDSee before using Lightroom and liked ACDSee.  But, after learning how to use Lightroom effeciently, I love it and have forgotten about ACDSee until your post.

In the end, if you like ACDSee better, then by all means use it.  If you think ACDSee is better than Lightroom, I suggest you visit an ACDSee forum and see if you can get help there making ACDSee perfect for you.


----------



## robert s (Feb 4, 2014)

*According to your profile info, you are using Lightroom 3.4 which is almost 3 years old and is not even the latest release of Lightroom 3.  Are you comparing this suboptimal, 3 year old technology version of Lightroom 3 with the latest version of ACDSee?  *

ACDC is pro 6. LR is indeed 3.4, for XP. there is no issue with speed as the hardware is fine. im only asking about configuring "features" to my liking. sorry to say but using PS cs4 or CS2 makes no difference performance wise. its features and new add ons that make thinbgs easier. 
*
As far as the delete issue goes, in my Lightroom 5.3, I select an image, push delete on my keyboard and then push D on the keyboard to confirm that I want to remove the image from the hard-drive.  I like the option that I have here to push R on the keyboard to only remove it from Lightroom but keep the file on the hard drive.  
*
I will try this. thank you. I just dont like the constant pop up windows with the are you sure, where what...just do it and be done with it. reminds me of vista and tons of confirming.
*
When I am doing my first edit on a large number of images, I tend to work fast...sometimes too fast and may inadvertently hit the delete button.  *

thats why I like ACDC. it throws it to the recycle bin. there have been a few tims I went back and got the image I deleted. thats the best option. throw it to the bin. does LR do that or completely erases?

*Having to confirm whether to send to the recycle bin or to remove the image has saved me from having to restore an image from the recycle bin a few times.  I think Lightroom is being "better safe than sorry" in this case.*
it should throw it to the recycle bin. If I need to then I can go back and get it. 

*What exactly do you mean by "edit on the fly". *
not having to deal with export. like in ACDC. you edit, move to the next pic, it asks if you want to save and then it saves all the editing of the pic. if you go to the pic in the folder it will have the changes done to it already. if I do the editing I need to a picture and then move to the next, I would like it to save all the changes I made to it. that if I go to the flder and look at it, its already edited. it should let me decide or be able to configure it as I see fit. I can understand their non destructive feature but it should let me configure it to my liking. like with PS. I can save it as PSD or I can save it as a JPEG. let me decide. 

*But, after learning how to use Lightroom effeciently, I love it and have forgotten about ACDSee until your post.*

Im happy for you. really. not being sarcastic at all. whatever is good for *you*. you have to edit the thousands of pics. it has to suit your needs. people seem to get upset if I say LR is not as efficient as it could be. I dont care if someone says nikon is garbage (my gear as a pro photog) or ACDC is crap. I really dont. must we take LR and use it as adobe dictated? why cant it be better? why cant I suggest different features that will make it better? why do we have to accept a piece of software as it is? why cant offer a suggestion to make it better. many software (all kinds) are created by programmers, not users or designers. they dont understand the minute changes they can make to make the software so much more efficient. they dont understand what users who have to sit in front of the screen and use it for hours really need.  

In the end, if you like ACDSee better, then by all means use it.  
ACDC is just a tool. as I see till now, in develop mode in it, it can do everything and is less system demanding and faster. the reason I want to give LR a try is because I think (not 100% sure yet) the jpeg output after editing is a bit better which saves better details. I have to check it and see. specifically those shot at high iso or underexposed.

*If you think ACDSee is better than Lightroom, I suggest you visit an ACDSee forum and see if you can get help there making ACDSee perfect for you.*

I have already. trying to see which to stay with.


----------



## davidedric (Feb 4, 2014)

I happen to have a copy of acdc,  not the pro version,  before I got Lightroom about a year and a half ago. 

It sounds as though you want to do a cull of your images before post processing them,  and your preferred tool for doing that is acdc.    If that's right,  then why not:

Copy the images from your camera /memory card into a folder in your Lightroom database
Use acdc to read that folder and delete the images you don't want
Import the remaining images into Lightroom (remember this doesn't move the images anywhere, just makes entries in the catalogue) 
Edit in Lightroom 

Dave


----------



## Bryan Conner (Feb 4, 2014)

robert s said:


> *According to your profile info, you are using Lightroom 3.4 which is almost 3 years old and is not even the latest release of Lightroom 3.  Are you comparing this suboptimal, 3 year old technology version of Lightroom 3 with the latest version of ACDSee?  *
> 
> ACDC is pro 6. LR is indeed 3.4, for XP. there is no issue with speed as the hardware is fine. im only asking about configuring "features" to my liking. sorry to say but using PS cs4 or CS2 makes no difference performance wise. its features and new add ons that make thinbgs easier.
> *
> ...



I really believe that if you will take the time to learn how to use Lightroom, you may like it and see why it is so popular and widely used by professional and amateur photographers alike.  The export button can be thought of as a "save as" button.  I will go ahead and say it-  Export is a very much improved and  more flexible version of "save as".  Also, are you familiar with virtual copies in Lightroom?  Your points sound very similar to the points that I used to make when I was very much pro Photoshop/ Camera Raw/ and Bridge and very Lightroom resistant.  I just did not understand why people were so pro Lightroom. Then, I got Lightroom 4, learned how to use it the proper way, learned the thinking and philosophies behind the workflow and now I can see what the hype was/is about.  But, if you do not have time to educate yourself on how to use Lightroom and what it can do...and why it does it that way, then I understand.


----------



## Den (Feb 4, 2014)

Ditto on Bryan's reply.


----------



## robert s (Feb 4, 2014)

Bryan Conner said:


> I really believe that if you will take the  time to learn how to use Lightroom, you may like it and see why it is so  popular and widely used by professional and amateur photographers  alike.  The export button can be thought of as a "save as" button.  I  will go ahead and say it-  Export is a very much improved and  more  flexible version of "save as".  Also, are you familiar with virtual  copies in Lightroom?  Your points are sound very similar to the points  that I used to make when I was very much pro Photoshop/ Camera Raw/ and  Bridge and very Lightroom resistant.  I just did not understand why  people were so pro Lightroom. Then, I got Lightroom 4, learned how to  use it the proper way, learned the thinking and philosophies behind the  workflow and now I can see what the hype was/is about.  But, if you do  not have time to educate yourself on how to use Lightroom and what it  can do...and why it does it that way, then I understand.



Im trying to understand it. and the export feature is something id like  to bypass. Im not at all pro PS/camera raw/bridge. I was using PS for  everything in the film days, till recently. today its just a hindrance  and annoying software to use. its slow and very technical. every tiny  thing takes long. all the keyboard shortcuts instead of habing the  sliders right there to tweak the image. but I respect the software. and I  love that when I do SAVE, it saves the image with the effects there.  the export "feature" is a huge waste of time. it should have a toggle  switch to let me decide. I love software thats flexible and lets me  tweak its features to suit my needs. 

I only use PS for specific needs. either work on glamorizing specific  photos for my portfolio. or copy/pasting body parts from one picture on  another to make it useable. for instance family formal shots I do at  weddings. I did grooms brothers/mom/dad together. shot 7 shots and 2  came out good. and my flash for rim lighting, was showing in the picture, flaring through the brothers feet. so I grabbed another photo that  was good and cut out their legs and pasted it in to make a useable  photo. I use the clone and healing brush to clean up important pictures.  usually family formals or pics of the ceremony itself. cleaning out  guests from the pic who wonder around the and should not be pointing  their camera everywhere. 

no, I dont know what virtual copies is. would you mind explain please?

I dont have patience to do editing as I once used to. with film I was  editing 1000 pictures, now im editing 2500 pics of a wedding (12 hour  coverage) and its a nuisance for me and every second counts. thats why  doing the editing then sending it out to export and waiting when I could  be burning the pics to dvd is a huge waste of my time. I need something  light zippy, can do all the basic editing. I started using develop mode  and its just super fast. only reason why im sticking with LR is I think  the quality of jpegs are outputed better with LR. I think marginally it  can hold detail better in my high iso shots (3200-6400) and  underexposed shots when I need to bring out the detail. but I will try  it a bit more. from what I see though, LR, speed wise cant keep up with  ACDC. even making adjustments (D600/D800 cameras) you can see the  software takes a second or two when im moving the sliders. if I move it  quickly the change is very erratic and so I have to stop for a second to  let it settle and show me the change. with ACDC there is no delay at  all. I can slide it left and right and the change is immediate. seems  very resource hungry as well LR. 

been using it now for 4 days and im trying to make it work, but my  intuition is very sharp and if I feel something is not it, it wont  change later on. I like adobe. they make decent software. in fact I was  very reluctant with acdc as I thought it was going to be this slow no  features, low level software. in fact I was shocked by how acdc is. I  used it out of recommendation from my friend and photo partner. the day I  had to start editing these huge amount of digital files, I asked him,  what options are there because PS is so slow. it will take me more than 8  hours it took me when I was doing a full wedding with film. he said try  picassa. I did. I erased it within 10 minutes. when youve been editing photos for so long you know what feels right and what doesnt. its UI and how they thought about the little things . you can see the difference when it was programmers/engineers and when designers/users  who made it. I called him again. he  said try your brothers LR. I thought if I love PS then for sure LR is  going to be amazing. I was so psyched. even seeing the familiar adobe  loading screen with credits just psyched me up. t I was going  slowly, just understanding the navigation. got to my folder and started  editing. where the eff is save as?  after an hour of trying LR, I kept  saying to myself whos the clown who  thought about these things?  programmers, or designers or users? and the  ONLY thing Im trying LR is  because of its better output. and I need to  test it to see if its  true.. within an hour was annoyed. called him again from frustration. he  said there is capture one or dxsomething, but not sure if its current. I  told him I tried something like that in the past. dont like. what else?  oh, try ACDC. I said, whoa, havent heard that in a long time. DL the  trial and with 5 minutes was up and running and it was fast! I was  smiling. I bought it within an hour. problem is, using it over time you  see its flaws. I saw LR's flaws immediate. it works for specific people.  my friend argues LR is great. he loves how you can use gradient  exposure on the one side of the picture if the exposure was off. I have  PS if I EVER need to run into something like that. I think people follow  people like a flock so if many say its great then it must be great. for  me the software is only a tool. I use other adobe products but LR is  not flexible or quick. for basic editing  crop/exposure/rotate/sharpening/recovery/black and white  conversion/color balance, ACDC is extremely competent. and very fast. i have my left hand on the right and left arrows and NEVER move it away from that area. I use 4 buttons. left/right/delete/enter. thats it. I dont ever lift my left hand from its place.


----------



## Bryan Conner (Feb 5, 2014)

The best thing for me to do is to refer you to the help button in Lightroom. There are very informative and easy to understand videos available at no cost. The videos are short and to the point.  Victoria's Lightroom FAQ book that has been already recommended in this thread is also extremely informative. These are two sources that can explain things better and more concisely than I can.


----------



## Victoria Bampton (Feb 5, 2014)

robert s said:


> why cant I suggest different features that will make it better? why do we have to accept a piece of software as it is? why cant offer a suggestion to make it better.



There's nothing wrong with suggesting features or little tweaks, once you've learned how the software is designed to work. You're getting pushback because you're trying to change the fundamental way that Lightroom was designed to work. 

It's like trying to make a fine watchmakers screwdriver work as a hammer.  It's not going to work well.  It doesn't mean there's anything wrong with the tool - you're just not using it the way it was designed.

Lightroom is efficient for large numbers of photos.  I edited more than 150k photos each summer for a number of years. There are ways you can adapt your workflow if you'd like to use Lightroom, but if you don't want to adapt you'd be better off with other software.

If you want to use Lightroom, stop thinking of the photos as individuals.  Forget deleting individual photos one at a time - mark them as rejects and delete them in one go at the end.  Forget saving photos one at a time - the settings will save as you go along, and then export them in one go at the end.

Do you have any further questions on how you can adapt your workflow to work with Lightroom, before I close the thread?


----------



## Jack Henry (Feb 5, 2014)

You do realise that you don't need to Export each photo as youve done it don't you? You export the lot when you're finished. It takes even less time doing it that way than if you were saving each one in ACDC as you went along.

And were you really doing 1,000 photos on a film camera at weddings? That's 27 rolls of film......... Then scanning 1,000 photos into your computer? If you did, then you really have no issue griping about a few seconds here or there.


----------



## robert s (Feb 5, 2014)

Victoria Bampton said:


> There's nothing wrong with suggesting features or little tweaks, once you've learned how the software is designed to work.* You're getting pushback because you're trying to change the fundamental way that Lightroom was designed to work. *
> 
> You're trying to make a fine watchmakers screwdriver work as a hammer.  It's not going to work well.  It doesn't mean there's anything wrong with the tool - you're just not using it the way it was designed.
> 
> ...



I will play with LR some more but at least I know more or less what I can/cant do. as of now ACDC is just faster for me. LR is fast, compared to PS, but not as fast as I thought. not flexible and efficient. not faster than ACDC I was looking to replace and thats a shame. even the sliders are better. the slider in LR is just a thin line with this small arrow and takes more precision. with ACDC its a thick bar where you can throw the cursor in it and slide. no need to be 100% accurate. and it will happen that towards the end editing thousands of photos you will tire and be less precise. 

shame companies decide a certain way to use it and arent open minded to give people the flexibility to decide whats best for them. I will play with it some more and want to test if its output is better for jpegs than ACDC. if it is, I will suck it up and use it, if it isnt or isnt noticeable, I will pass. 
thank you for the help


----------



## robert s (Feb 2, 2014)

I know LR doesnt adjust the picture on the fly. thats what I love about acdsee. I can go into a folder, edit all those pictures on the fly. delete then as I need to from one to the next. I even configured it to not even ask.
with LR I would like to be able to
1-edit the picture with out the export option later. possible? wastes too much time exporting. using my brothers pc with xp and 3.4 I simply want the pictures to be edited on the fly and not have to deal with exporting after.
2-when I delte a file from the timeline/filmstrip at the bottom of the screen(dont know the name) I want it to be removed from the folder (like acdsee does). I dont want to go back and start looking for images I delted. very hard to do so with those small thumbnails.

there are more things but these are the two main ones. btw does LR work with nef files in the filmstrip way? I tried working with D3 camera nef and it didnt open them.
thank you.


----------



## robert s (Feb 5, 2014)

Jack Henry said:


> You do realise that you don't need to Export each photo as youve done it don't you? You export the lot when you're finished. It takes even less time doing it that way than if you were saving each one in ACDC as you went along.
> 
> And were you really doing 1,000 photos on a film camera at weddings? That's 27 rolls of film......... Then scanning 1,000 photos into your computer? If you did, then you really have no issue griping about a few seconds here or there.



yes I was doing around 1000 pictures. they were all printed. I scanned them in nikon coolscan 4 then 4000, then 5000. edited what I needed then burned and gave the couple the pics to choose which to print.  dont forget 12 hour coverage and weddings here are never less than 300+ people. never. mostly it was 400+ people. 

exactly why im saying that today im just tired of editing already. been through it all. my patience is low. when I know I have to edit, its just an annoying chore. I just wnt to photograph. editing is not fun. but now its 2500 pics. so a lot of time is needed as well. I need something quick. been a pro photog for many years so while I love photographing, the editing is too tiring.


----------



## Victoria Bampton (Feb 5, 2014)

If you'd like to stick with Adobe software, but are looking for more flexibility, you might also like to investigate using the Adobe Camera Raw interface hosted by Bridge (which ships with Photoshop). It's the same processing engine as Lightroom, but Bridge acts as a browser - more like ACDC.

Or if you're fed up with editing, you could check into companies who will do the raw processing for you.  It's very similar to sending the films to the lab, so it might be just the thing for you.


----------

