nomade
Hobbyist
I found it after installing the CS2 version of the photo shop, is that usefull?? Cause i don't really get it.
Adobe bridge
- Thread starter nomade
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 16
- Views 1K
ChrisN
Striving
Hi Nomade
I've only just bought CS2 myself, and played with Bridge a few times. It seems to be a photo-browser; an easy way to browse through a collection of images on the computer, and select photos for passing to CS2 for further work.
Anyone with more experience with this one?
I've only just bought CS2 myself, and played with Bridge a few times. It seems to be a photo-browser; an easy way to browse through a collection of images on the computer, and select photos for passing to CS2 for further work.
Anyone with more experience with this one?
nomade
Hobbyist
Yeah i figured that, but that would be just like te adobe SVG..
S
Simon Larbalestier
Guest
I like it and use to to edit and caption my images before going into CS2
jlw
Rangefinder camera pedant
Bridge is very useful if you own multiple Adobe applications (such as Illustrator) or if you shoot or archive digital photos in any raw format.
It's useful for Illustrator etc. because it will display thumbnail images for documents in all those formats -- very handy if you have a folder full of files for a particular graphic project, such as Photoshop images and Illustrator artwork and Indesign layouts. Bridge can display all of these so you can see what each file is.
It's useful for raw-photo shooting because it provides an interface to the Adobe Camera Raw engine, the same thing Photoshop uses to open raw images. With Bridge, you can view an entire shoot's worth of raw images and set basic correction factors on them, such as exposure correction, cropping, straightening, vignetting correction and sharpening. That means you don't have to spend the extra time of converting and opening each image in Photoshop in order to do a rough edit.
If you do later open an image in Photoshop, it will read the cropping/exposure/sharpening info you set in Bridge, and give you the option of applying it to the image as you open it. From within Bridge you also can save out single images, or selected batches of images, in a variety of formats, with your corrections applied. So, for example, if you've set crop and exposure adjustments on a bunch of raw files, and want to save a set of edited JPEGs to email to someone, you can do that from within Bridge, rather than having to process each image through Photoshop -- big time-saver.
Better yet, the raw-file adjustments you make in Bridge are not permanent -- they're stored in separate "metadata" while the raw file itself remains unaltered. That means that if you later decide you don't like the way you cropped an image (for example) you can go back and revert to the original version, then crop it differently.
The main drawback to Bridge is that while it lets you view and adjust images, it doesn't give you any way to print "contact sheets" or generate web pages from within the application -- if you need to do that, you need to export the images and run them through another application, such as Photoshop or iView Mediapro.
"Photo workflow" applications, such as Adobe Lightroom (still in beta) and Apple Aperture are beginning to appear that DO offer "one-stop shopping" for all your raw-file handling needs -- they let you view and rate files and apply raw-files corrections, as Bridge does, but also let you make prints, export web pages, etc. But if you don't need those specific features, Bridge can do a lot.
It's useful for Illustrator etc. because it will display thumbnail images for documents in all those formats -- very handy if you have a folder full of files for a particular graphic project, such as Photoshop images and Illustrator artwork and Indesign layouts. Bridge can display all of these so you can see what each file is.
It's useful for raw-photo shooting because it provides an interface to the Adobe Camera Raw engine, the same thing Photoshop uses to open raw images. With Bridge, you can view an entire shoot's worth of raw images and set basic correction factors on them, such as exposure correction, cropping, straightening, vignetting correction and sharpening. That means you don't have to spend the extra time of converting and opening each image in Photoshop in order to do a rough edit.
If you do later open an image in Photoshop, it will read the cropping/exposure/sharpening info you set in Bridge, and give you the option of applying it to the image as you open it. From within Bridge you also can save out single images, or selected batches of images, in a variety of formats, with your corrections applied. So, for example, if you've set crop and exposure adjustments on a bunch of raw files, and want to save a set of edited JPEGs to email to someone, you can do that from within Bridge, rather than having to process each image through Photoshop -- big time-saver.
Better yet, the raw-file adjustments you make in Bridge are not permanent -- they're stored in separate "metadata" while the raw file itself remains unaltered. That means that if you later decide you don't like the way you cropped an image (for example) you can go back and revert to the original version, then crop it differently.
The main drawback to Bridge is that while it lets you view and adjust images, it doesn't give you any way to print "contact sheets" or generate web pages from within the application -- if you need to do that, you need to export the images and run them through another application, such as Photoshop or iView Mediapro.
"Photo workflow" applications, such as Adobe Lightroom (still in beta) and Apple Aperture are beginning to appear that DO offer "one-stop shopping" for all your raw-file handling needs -- they let you view and rate files and apply raw-files corrections, as Bridge does, but also let you make prints, export web pages, etc. But if you don't need those specific features, Bridge can do a lot.
chrish
Chris H
I tend to get a little miffed with bridge when I open Photoshop and want to quickly browse images.
I was used to Photoshop's image browser poping right up and being able to view the thumbnails, then rotate, etc. but now I have to wait for a separate application to open. Its not that big of a deal and doesnt bother me that much, but it gives me something to complain about.
I was used to Photoshop's image browser poping right up and being able to view the thumbnails, then rotate, etc. but now I have to wait for a separate application to open. Its not that big of a deal and doesnt bother me that much, but it gives me something to complain about.
nomade
Hobbyist
Thanks jlw, that was helpfull...
I took a photography class and the teacher was very impressed with the Bridge. He is a professional photographer and uses it quite effectively in his post processing and stuff. Honestly, I don't get it. I am not a heavy PS user so it perhaps is not as useful to me as it is to really PS users.
Bike Tourist
Well-known
I use Nikon View to view, rename and sort images. Adobe Bridge is just an unused application for me. If I want to bring up and modify several raw images at a time, it's quicker to just CTL OPEN and highlight the image files I want to open. I can still specify parameters before CS2 opens them.
As for the separate metadata files — another annoyance I've tried to turn off. I prefer to keep only the digital negative raw file and I will alter the original according to my needs each time.
CS2 is like digital cameras . . . lots of features, but you don't have to use them all.
As for the separate metadata files — another annoyance I've tried to turn off. I prefer to keep only the digital negative raw file and I will alter the original according to my needs each time.
CS2 is like digital cameras . . . lots of features, but you don't have to use them all.
dcsang
Canadian & Not A Dentist
Save yourself the trouble (if you're using Bridge to perform RAW conversion or as a workflow tool) and download Adobe Lightroom.
As JLW said, Lightroom is more of an "all in one" type tool that will allow you to do everything (or most things) right in the tool itself without having to flip back and forth.
If you're looking for something that is merely used to browse images - an archving/library browser or such - there are a ton out there. Everyone has their own faves.. I personally like Picasa but that's just me 🙂
Cheers
Dave
As JLW said, Lightroom is more of an "all in one" type tool that will allow you to do everything (or most things) right in the tool itself without having to flip back and forth.
If you're looking for something that is merely used to browse images - an archving/library browser or such - there are a ton out there. Everyone has their own faves.. I personally like Picasa but that's just me 🙂
Cheers
Dave
jlw
Rangefinder camera pedant
Whoa. I said that, but I don't recommend Lightroom for everybody.
For one thing, it's still a beta version, so you can't count on it being 100% reliable. In its current form, it's a bit of a resource hog, it takes a long time for all its threads to shut down after quitting, and unexpected things can happen with it that can cause you to lose a lot of time-consuming work.
A bigger drawback, if you're performing batch raw conversions, is that its metadata format isn't yet compatible with that used by Adobe Camera Raw (and thus by Photoshop.) What that means to you in practice is that with Bridge, you can set crop, exposure, vignetting, etc. in Bridge, and then if you need to open the image in Photoshop for further editing, all those settings carry over into Photoshop's file-open dialog settings.
The best Lightroom can do is apply your settings, write out a 16-bit TIFF file, and let you open THAT in Photoshop -- which kind of blows the concept of not needing to archive anything except your original raw-file "digital negative" plus the metadata that apply to it.
A third reason not to rely on Lightroom for serious work is that we don't know what its future will be. The beta versions all expire on specific dates, there's no telling when Adobe will issue a release version, and when/if the release version comes we have no way of knowing what its features will be, how well it will work, or how much it will cost. You easily could find yourself in a position of having invested hundreds of hours of time in building Lightroom libraries of all your images, setting metadata, etc., and then finding you have to throw away all that time investment because the final release product is crap or doesn't meet your needs.
erudolph
Established
One good thing about Bridge is that because it's a separate application, you can work in it while Photoshop is processing.
Ed
Ed
dcsang
Canadian & Not A Dentist
jlw said:
I never said you recommended lightroom for everybody.
I personally think it's a great tool Beta or not - especially since the Beta3 version is available for Mac users and runs just fine for me - yes it is a resource pig but it's currently, imho, the best RAW converter program around right now. And that's comparing the others I've used - including CaptureOne, RawShooter, and Adobe Camera Raw.
There's always a ton of "could haves/should haves/maybes" that can occur with Beta versions. For the time being, at least until the end of the year, I'll use Lightroom but have any number of other pieces of software "at the ready" should Adobe decide to abandon or make drastic changes to their tool. The workflow, again for me, is perfect and offers what I need currently to process my hundreds of RAW images that I get back after each wedding.
Cheers
Dave
jlw
Rangefinder camera pedant
That scenario makes good sense for a wedding shooter, since after a few months have passed it's unlikely you'll need to revisit that work again.
The people who ought to be on guard against investing much time in Lightroom are those who have big image collections that might have to be revisited at any time.
Undoubtedly Lightroom eventually will be revised so its metadata format is compatible with ACR's. (I'm sure the only reason it isn't already was that Lightroom was originally a Macromedia product, and had been started before Adobe took over Macromedia.) And if we're lucky, there will be some kind of conversion capability that will allow you to move your crop/exposure/vignetting data from the current beta format to the final format.
If that never happens, though, every minute you spend doing post-production in Lightroom now will be a lost investment.
As I said, it's not an issue for everyone, but it's not well-publicized, so people need to be aware of it.
The people who ought to be on guard against investing much time in Lightroom are those who have big image collections that might have to be revisited at any time.
Undoubtedly Lightroom eventually will be revised so its metadata format is compatible with ACR's. (I'm sure the only reason it isn't already was that Lightroom was originally a Macromedia product, and had been started before Adobe took over Macromedia.) And if we're lucky, there will be some kind of conversion capability that will allow you to move your crop/exposure/vignetting data from the current beta format to the final format.
If that never happens, though, every minute you spend doing post-production in Lightroom now will be a lost investment.
As I said, it's not an issue for everyone, but it's not well-publicized, so people need to be aware of it.
derevaun
focus free
I should look into Bridge a little more, but for now it's just not worth the time it takes to load. I use GraphicConverter (on Mac) for everything I'd use Bridge for, and it's faster and more intuitive. I can see how a working graphic designer would need something like that for handling disparate files for a pro job. Not sure of any meaningful advantages to a photog.
jlw
Rangefinder camera pedant
derevaun said:
The key photographic advantage, if you shoot raw files, is that you can edit them non-destructively (set cropping, exposure compensation, sharpening, etc.) and have those edit settings carry over into Photoshop, batch exports, etc. Unlike with GraphicConverter, iView, etc., those edits don't change the underlying data -- for example, you can make a tightly-cropped, dark-toned image, and then if you decide you overdid it, you can go back at any time and set a looser crop and lighter exposure value -- the original raw-file data is still there, so you haven't lost any information.
If you don't shoot raw files, this advantage is moot, so there's no big benefit to using Bridge -- there are several other batch-viewing applications that have more features and better performance.
rvaubel
Well-known
jlw said:
Using bridge, there is really no reason to ever shoot JPEGs. I shoot everthing in RAW, make my corrections in ACR and am good to go 90% of the time. If the images need a little polishing in Photoshop, it's right there at a click of the mouse.
The bottom line is you never need to save anything to TIFFs or JPEGs unless you are going to print them or send them somewhere electronically. I keep a seperate database of converted files. Workflow is a cinch
Rex
