Olympus Viewer 3 vs ACDSee Pro 9
ACDSee are a well established company in the photo management business. I can remember using a very early version of ACDSee when I first started using computers for graphic design (and that was a long time ago). Theyve come a long way since then and now offer a vast range of design and photography related products - as well as version 19 of the original Digital Asset Management (DAM) programme I used all those years ago.
What Im currently interested in testing is ACDSee Pro 9. ACDSee are marketing Pro 9 as "
the most complete solution for the enhancement and control of your image production". Thats a fairly lofty claim. But with tools like Batch Editing, Lens Correction, Smart Collections, Non-destructive image editing, Photo Management, 4k monitor support, Photoshop plug-in support and slick metadata controls (they are DAM specialists after all), ACDSee Pro 9 really could be the perfect replacement for Adobes Lightroom. Currently, its also exceptional value - only $58NZ (for a limited time).
Because their suite of products is so vast, they also offer subscription-based plans where you can get a range of software for a monthly fee. Im trying to move away from this subscription based model, so this is less appealing. But the option is there for those who like this kind of system.
To see exactly how well AC9 works as a RAW conversion programme, I will be comparing unaltered Tiffs exported from AC9 against Olympus Viewer 3 Tiff files. The original RAW files are Olympus .orfs from an OM-D E-M5 MkII. Ive already compared the same files with Adobes Lightroom CC and Corels AfterShot Pro 3 (see previous posts) and found the Olympus Viewer 3 (OV3) files to be superior (IMHO).
 |
| ACDSee Pro 9 Tiff on the left and Olympus Viewer 3 Tiff on the right. Not much in it really? |
I have to admit, that having gone through this process with Lightroom CC and AfterShot Pro3, and not being impressed by either, I didnt really expect anything different from ACDSee Pro 9. Well, I was surprised.
Pleasantly surprised. Just looking at the comparison above, you can see that theres not much in it. The OV3 file is perhaps slightly lighter and has slightly less noise. But colour-wise its very close.
 |
| ACDSee Pro 9 Tiff on left, Olympus Viewer 3 Tiff on right. |
Above is a comparison with OV3 at its default settings of 0 (which actually does apply sharpening, contrast etc). You can see that the Olympus file is sharper, but again, the colours are almost identical. The ACDSee Pro 9 file may even have a touch more detail remaining in the highlights - perhaps again due to Olympuss tendency to apply contrast for a more finished result? Its really the colours that Im more concerned about being rendered accurately though. And in the files Im seeing, ACDSee Pro 9 is nailing the colour perfectly.
 |
| Colour rendition with unedited 16bit Tiff files from all 4 RAW conversion programmes |
Ive been using a sunset photo as my critical example of colour rendition and accuracy for all of the programmes. The OV3 file is my master file - the one by which all other conversions are judged. Surprisingly, Adobes Lightroom CC (version 2015.4) is the worst of all of them. Its a very flat and dull rendition as a starting point, with a complete lack of colour in the highlights. And while some may argue that RAW files are
supposed to deliver flat files for post-processing, I know which files Id rather be working with as a
starting point for further editing. The less time spent having to fiddle with sliders the better.
Corel Aftershot Pro 3 is better, although still not as good as the OV3 file. The files are quite soft (you can even see this from the example above), and have a very definite red/yellow cast in all the images I processed. It was as if the software struggled to get the white balance right in all the images.
Of all the RAW conversion programmes Ive tested so far, ACDSee Pro 9 is the clear winner. In fact, when I compare it to the Olympus Viewer 3 master file, I actually think I prefer the ACDSee Pro 9 image! It has exceptional colour quality and image definition - especially considering its a straight, unedited conversion. Im very impressed with ACDSee Pro 9s RAW processing capabilities, far and above the likes of Adobes Lightroom. Its also a fairly powerful, yet intuitive programme, with a very good UI.
I have about 6 months left on my student subscription to Adobes entire Creative Suite, after which the price skyrockets to beyond my budget. Besides which, Im too old and set in my ways to want to use a subscription-based model for software. Just let me pay for it, own it, and then Ill decide when and how often I want to upgrade.
ACDSee also offer an Ultimate 9 version which includes the ability to work with non-destructive adjustment layers. Ultimate 9 looks like a "one-two" punch designed to become a Photoshop/Lightroom all-in-one replacement. Unfortunately, its also almost 3x more expensive than Pro 9. Im definitely going to download the trial version and give it a very serious look. For someone wanting to eventually jump off the Adobe subscription band-wagon, ACDSee Ultimate 9 might just be the solution Im looking for? And in the meantime, ACDSee Pro 9 has me seriously,
seriously interested.
Go to link Download
