ACDSee’s Develop mode is for RAW files and the Edit mode is for all other RGB files, ie demosaiced files.
As far as I can remember from previous testing, linear DNG files are bigger than 16bit TIFs, but I will happily be corrected of those is not true.
I seem to remember reading that DNG files are containers and can contain RAW files, but that RAW files are also a specialised type of TIFF.
Or something like that. It’s all too confusing - I’m going to have to revert to LF film photography - life as so much simpler then 
ACDSee allows you to develop files other than raw… But this is obviously a “development” which is not really one!
Only the settings that are possible are then available, but sometimes they are (a little) more complete than those of the Edit module. The Edition module also allows corrections such as geometry, repair, etc.
We find exactly the same thing with the Adobe development module: ACR. jpeg files can be opened in ACR and processed with them, which opens up some additional possibilities that are not available otherwise.
But you have to understand that PhotoLab can also open and process jpeg or tiff files, so there is no fundamental difference between these “development software” for this type of file.
gerarto
Any converter exist out of two parts. 1) the conversion from R,G,B to RGB and 2) the editing on that RGB image.
There might be some exceptions that fall back on the raw data like Deepprime.
George
A linear dng is less heavy than a 16 bit tiff.
For example for the same raw of 42 mpix in export from PhotoLab:
Differences may be due to the embedded jpg.
George
Hello Joanna,
I need the Digital Asset Management ability in ACDSee which is excellent. Having the people mode is also useful.
In the developer mode, I like the greater flexibility of the Light EQ in ACDSee. I get better results with it.
I shot mostly scenic photos, so I have deal with a lot of high contrast scenes.
However, when it comes to local adjustments. I prefer the control point in PL5 over the more difficult to use pixel targeting in ADCSee. I also prefer the noise reduction and clear view in PL5. Those two are good in ACDSee, but not as good than the ones in PL5.
I could go back and forth on some other features. Both have their strength and weaknesses. The bottom line is that I depend on the ADCSee catalog to organize my work. It’s my starting point of all my images. PL5 is excellent for what it was meant for, which is a raw developer, but I just use it as a supplemental package.
Hector
I did some testing with the following results:
It looks like PL does do some sort of compression for DNG but not for TIF.
ALL these formats are readable by PL which means you can edit them.
I did to with a nef.
Original 30.6Mb
Adobe DNG converter: jpg full size, no compression 62.3
Adobe DNG converter: jpg full size, no compression, no RAW 31.7
PL5: 102.1
I can’t choice linear or normal compressed.
I did use full size jpg for that’s what the nef includes. I couldn’t set the quality.
Quit different anyway.
George
The problem is that, in trying to use both ACDSee and PhotoLab, you have to convert to and work with TIFF files. This then limits the effectiveness of DeepPRIME NR and lens corrections, which are only applied at export.
I would strongly suggest you get to know how PhotoLab does the things that you are currently choosing to do in ACDSee. That way, all you do will be in dealing with the RAW file, only creating a bitmap file when you export.
If quality NR is important, you might like to try exporting your RAW files to DNG, with just lens corrections and NR, and then working solely with them.
To clarify, both of my packages, ACDSee and PL5 are pointing to my raw photo library. In cases where I need something done in PL5, I’ll start from the same original raw file and produce a Tiff (planning on moving on to dng). Then I import the final Tiff to the ACDSee catalog. This leaves me with the original raw and one extra tiff in the catalog.
Since I’m using the raw file in PL5 raw development, I still get the full benefit of deep prime. Only a small portion of my edits need to be done in PL5, probably between 5-10%. Yes, it will be great if I could do it all in one package, but PL5 does not have a catalog, so I’m forced to do it this way.
Thanks for your comments!
Hector
Can I just ask why you feel the need to use ACDSee’s catalog when PhotoLab contains features like Projects and metadata management?
One problem I can see with only working on TIFF files in ACDSee is that you have no direct way of going back to the original RAW if you need to change anything. Or are you editing your images in ACDSee as well as just cataloguing them? In which case, you are missing out on all sorts of excellent tools in PhotoLab that ACDSee doesn’t have.
A catalog system uses a database which is substantially faster at browsing, sorting, and searches, especially for when with a huge 100K image library. A catalog system is also more flexible, powerful and easier for advance searches, grouping, and sorting of photos compared to other non-catalog software. Some of this can be done in PL5, but not to the level of any Digital Asset Management software.
I hope I don’t sound like I’m saying that PL5 is deficient. On the contrary, PL5 in probably the best raw developer in its class. It was meant to be only raw developer with some simple organization feature. Here is screen of ADCSee in the Manage mode (Catalog) so you can have a rough idea what I mean.
Finally, I’m not losing anything from PL5 since I always start from the original raw file. If I need to re-edit anything, I just go back to the raw file in PL5 already which already has all the changes stored in the sidecar file. I just continue to make changes from there, then re-export the image again which makes things very simple. All my edits are using raw and all my changes are saved in PL5. The only difference is that I take an exported image from PL5 and import to the catalog in ACDSee for archiving, printing or posting.
Thanks for commenting!
Hector
I use Acdsee as my cataloging system and Photolab as my raw developer. I don’t mix Photolab and Acdsee for development. Even though light eq in Acdsee is great, the same thing can be accomplished in Photolab. However the cataloging system in Acdsee, in my opinion, is much superior to the cataloging system in Photolab. The cataloging system in Acdsee is really quite good.
Flattening the Tiff file seems to solve the issue,
Hope it Helps 
I have the same issue–PL7 exports TIFF files with two images (pages) one regular and one thumbnail.
I’m new to PL7 and up until now have used ACDSee Photo Studio Ultimate 2024. I’ll likely completely switch to PL but in the mean time any TIFF file I’ve exported from PL shows up as a two page image in ACDSee. I wish PL only exported a normal single page TIFF file.
