Talk:ACDSee Pro


 * merge the original page even includes pro as one of its stable versions. Gaijin42 (talk) 22:01, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * In creating this I followed a very similar pattern to Adobe Lightroom and Apple's Aperture. This logic follows that those should also be merged with their parent pages. More references will be added in the next few days with balanced reviews. If you can provide quotes of areas that need editing I will happily modify them if it seems warrented.Billsaints (talk) 22:17, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Contested deletion
This page is not unambiguously promotional, because... it follows a very similar structure to Adobe Lightroom and Apple Apeture. The article only states the features added, not whether they are better than competitors. The tone has been kept neutral throughout, not promotional in any way. It references impartial reviews where available for each release.

I used this as a reference:

Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 2.0 Beta was advertised in official emails from Adobe in April 2008. New features include: The official release of Lightroom v2 was on July 29, 2008, along with the release of Adobe Camera Raw v4.5 and DNG Converter 4.5. Adobe has added DNG Camera Profiling to both releases. This technology allows custom camera colour profiles, or looks, to be created by the user and saved. It also allows profiles matching the creative styles built in to cameras to be replicated. Adobe released a complete set of such Camera Profiles for Nikon and Canon models, in addition to basic Standard Profiles for all supported makes and models, through Adobe Labs, at the same time as the Lightroom v2 release. This technology is open to all programs compliant with the DNG file format standard.
 * Localized corrections (edit specific parts of an image)
 * Improved organization tools
 * Multiple monitor support
 * Flexible printing options
 * 64-bit support

which is very similar to this, which I used:

ACDSee Pro 3 was released on September 29, 2009. It major change was made in its handling of RAW files and enabled full non destructive editing. It also changed the interface and added more online publishing tools. New Features included[5][6]:
 * ACDSee Online storage and sharing
 * Advanced color
 * Vibrance slider
 * New user interface
 * New Process Mode
 * Non destructive developing of RAW files in Process mode
 * Publish images using the FTP, Email, SmugMug, or Zenfolio uploaders.
 * Fimstrip in View mode
 * Noise reduction
 * Improved selections
 * Special Effects Browser
 * Edit Tools and Category Icons

Removing the ACDSee Pro one and keeping this would seem like double standards. Any recommendations to help improve to the standard expected would be appreciated, I am happy to edit and help in any way.

The company has been releasing Photo Imaging software for longer than both the above products and companies. It is used by over 40,000 worldwide, many of whom are professional photographers and has a huge following in both Germany and France. --Billsaints (talk) 03:28, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Billsaints, you're probably right about the other article having poor form, as we definitely discourage a "laundry list" style like that. That doesn't mean any other article should be that way. If you think the other article is poor, go make it better! However, there's no need generally to have a separate article for the "Pro" version of any software. Difference in versions with a brief summary (not exhaustive list) of differences from the standard version mentioned in the main article is generally acceptable. Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:28, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the advice, I'll look to trim the article, remove some of the less relevant 'laundry' style info.Billsaints (talk) 06:28, 29 October 2011 (UTC)