ACDSee8 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

On Tue, 27 Jun 2006 03:41:39 GMT, wrote:

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 state what cameras are NOT supported
BEFORE you buy the software! Another worthless software purchase.

Scott

Not much of a speller when I'm choked, sorry.

Scott

According to :
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.
--
Email: | 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 ---

wrote in message
...
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.

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


Music, art, & educational materials
Featuring "A Jazz Improvisation Primer"
http://www.outsideshore.com/

DD wrote:



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

In article ,
says...
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.

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.

--
Now with uploadable photo critique section in the forum
http://www.nikongear.com/