Lightroom 1.0 vs. ACDSee Pro 2 beta

I've been using ACDSee for years (Since 3.0 and now Pro 1.0) as a photo manager and Photoshop (Since 1.0) as my editing software. I have CS3 and Lightroom (I thought I'd switch for better integration and features), but have recently downloaded and installed ACDSee Pro2.0 beta.

I didn't really like LR for the price since the main reason I would use it would be for management. It was faster then ACDSee Pro 1.0 but it lacked a lot of features I thought it should include like RAW+jpg+psd autostacking/comparing​, better upsizing/printing routines, and multiple print size layouts etc. I also didn't think it was very user friendly and could have used the same type of GUI as CS3 where window placement is much free-er.

In mintures of using ACDSee Pro 2.0 beta (free to use until September), I was amazed by the speed. I haven't loaded it up all my pictures yet, but it's previews are lightning fast with no prebuilt files. It also manages my photos, videos, and many other documents. I'm still testing, but I'm seriously considering selling my LR. I think Adobe released a product before it was ready.

Anyone else using both? Here's the free download.....

http://forums.acdsyste​ms.com/index.php?showt​opic=3677

I find lightroom to be the best thing to ever happen to RAW editing.

I feel (my opinion) that its going to become like photoshop... The NEXT Industry standard software for DNG / RAW / JPG photo "Digital Darkroom" type of editing.

All of the pro studios and photographers I run into and chat with are all using lightroom and its due to the company behind the software... Adobe.

I use a lot of their products, from Acrobat Pro, Photoshop, LR, After Effects, Premier, the seamless intergration with all of their other products is going to take them to the top...

If you can get over the cost of the software, I think its a must have for pro photographers and serious hobbiests... The workflow is amazing.

Was Windows the best operating system or Office the best office software way back when? No, but they integrated and packaged and forced a monopoly. I love Photoshop and some other Adobe programs, but I feel that LR is being advocated in the same way. No offense Stealthlude, but here you are toting the LR flag for no other reason then bandwagon. You're basically saying there is no need to look at or try other products and state that LR is going to be the best. I want to jump on that bandwagon too, but LR is just missing some of the basics I was looking for and it slows my workflow down.

LR has some serious drawbacks and it' has some plusses too. It does do things that ACDSee doesn't, not that I needed it too. It has also only been around a little while. I realize they actually bought LR from someone else and then upgraded it, but ACDSee has been around a long time and has the developement behind it. Don't get me wrong, there's problems with ACDSee too, but I expected so much more from Adobe. It should have been better and had all the features of ACDSee, Qimage, and ExpressDigital Darkroom.

Funny thing I've found about LR is that I don't create any jpegs, tiffs, or dngs anymore. LR just works away on the CR2 file (from my 30D). Prints too without converting. If I need to post something on the web, then I'd need to convert to jpeg, but I have no need for that as of yet.

With the upcoming LR upgrade incorporating better sharpening, the only thing I might need now is noise reduction; and I suspect that LR will have that in the future too.