P: Export images at multiple resolutions in one go

> Victoria, is it really out of the realm of reality that Adobe, with all the resources and talent they have, can't be focused on customer needs and responsive like other developers?  Does their size preclude Adobe from being responsive?  I hope not, though it does appear to be that way.

It's like the difference between turning a small yacht vs. an ocean liner. There's a lot more people to get on the same page and agreeing. So yes, they'll never be as nimble as a small developer.

David Converse:

Can you point your alleged "ad hominem attack"?  It sounds like you're using a different handle on the Bridge thread, but I don't see any "attack".  Welcome to this thread.

As for "conspiracy theory"... clearly I'm not the only one noting the frequent deflective/your-goal-is-nuts/everything-Adobe-is-peachy tone of replies in these forums.  There's nothing conspiratorial or theoretical about that.  This tone is an observation that it's not just me noticing.

To the matter:  what Victoria said. As you must know, the photos exist as files paired with their corresponding sidecar files and are indexed in the Lightroom database.  

From Adobe staff at https://forums.adobe.com/thread/972960: "Adobe Bridge helps clear the clutter and lets you focus on what’s critical with features such as the Filter Panel, which lets you quickly locate assets by attributes such as file type, camera settings, and ratings. Adobe Bridge immediately shows you what’s in your hard drive, network, or storage device without the need to import into a catalog or database."

It's not unreasonable to expect that Adobe's product meant to allow searching media files by attributes would work with other Adobe products that let you work with media attributes.

Excel?  Not so much.  Sorry, that shoe just doesn't fit.

As a busy, working pro I have to focus on productivity.  Deflective, patronizing replies to questions are not helpful.

Victoria, is it really out of the realm of reality that Adobe, with all the resources and talent they have, can't be focused on customer needs and responsive like other developers?  Does their size preclude Adobe from being responsive?  I hope not, though it does appear to be that way.

Anyway, I do appreciate your helpful, resolution-focused approach to helping people in these forums.  Thanks again.

Victoria, is it really out of the realm of reality that Adobe, with all the resources and talent they have, can't be focused on customer needs and responsive like other developers?  Does their size preclude Adobe from being responsive?  I hope not, though it does appear to be that way.

Anyway, I do appreciate your helpful, resolution-focused approach to helping people in these forums.  Thanks again.

Yeah I meant the database structure isn't accessible. The way things are organized in LR may not have much to do with folders on a hard drive. And that's not even considering Smart Previews and such.

I was just trying to convey that what he wanted wasn't going to work the way he thought it was, the data just isn't organized that way.

> Files can be added in place or imported to the LR database. Files in the database can't be browsed with Bridge

No, you've misunderstood there. Files are never "in" Lightroom Classic's database. They can be left in their current location at import, or they can be copied to another location, but they're always in normal folders that can be browsed using Bridge.

There were multiple problems with your entire idea of browsing files that you flagged in Lightroom, using Bridge. Files can be added in place or imported to the LR database. Files in the database can't be browsed with Bridge, regardless of flag metadata being written to XMP. Also, not all files have the same metadata support yet I believe any file can be flagged.

For that matter, folders can be labeled in both Bridge and Lightroom, but there is no way to store a folder label (and remember, this has to be cross-platform.)

What you were asking for is essentially a structural problem that can't be addressed by writing a few bytes of data. It would, indeed, be like wanting Bridge to read Excel files. Wanting Bridge to read an SQL database is pretty similar.

> The right response to the Bridge discussion (from anyone wanting to help) should have been :  “Flags are not written to the XMP sidecar file. You can file a ticket to suggest that Adobe do so.” 

That would have been a very good response, with the addendum that Lightroom doesn't write xmp by default but can be set to do so.

Bridge vs. Lightroom tends to create as many flame wars as Mac vs. Windows and Canon vs. Nikon. It's a shame, as we're all meant to be on the same side. 

Hi Victoria, they are (I think) referring to this thread.

https://forums.adobe.com/message/11157494#11157494

David, 

I acknowledge that you have been a critic of Adobe as per your responses on this forum. I am saddened/shocked by the tone you adopted in the conversation. 

Adobe’s own site implies that a 2-way information exchange can occur via XMP between Bridge & LR while leaving out the important bit about flags not being stored there; “Because Adobe Bridge, Camera Raw, and Lightroom all use the XMP standard for storing metadata, each application can read metadata changes made in the others. If you add a star rating or IPTC information to a photo in Adobe Bridge, for example, Lightroom can display that metadata in the Library module. While browsing files, Adobe Bridge rereads metadata, detects changes, and updates previews automatically. ” . https://helpx.adobe.com/in/bridge/using/metadata-adobe-bridge.html#view_camera_raw_and_lightroom_metadata_in_adobe_bridge

The right response to the Bridge discussion (from anyone wanting to help) should have been :  “Flags are not written to the XMP sidecar file. You can file a ticket to suggest that Adobe do so.” 

Daniel’s response didn’t even broach anything about how XMP files work, or what is and what is not saved in them. 

Lumigraphics (which I assume is you, David based on what you said above), explained that “flags aren’t saved in the XMP” and scoffed at the OP for having that expectation. Your words, were “This is like asking to read Excel files in Bridge.” What's the relevance, or the need to say that? You provoked the OP into invoking the “Apologists” term by taking that attitude. Your attitude was wrong, your words were wrong. You overreached. That wasn’t help. And the prevalence of that attitude is exactly what I’m riled about. It wasn’t your role nor your call to scoff at someone like that. 

Neither Daniel nor Lumigraphics (which I assume is your handle)  have not once mentioned that you have or plan to discuss this with Adobe. Instead Daniel is all over the place to justify how LR and Bridge cannot talk to each other. All that Daniel has done on that thread is make Adobe’s engineers look goofy, by saying that “The applications are not meant to work together.” 

“Some of us are working pros” —> This is irrelevant. Without knowing my credentials, or Leroy’s credentials, it doesn’t behoove anyone else to throw this around. If helping someone is your focus, then there’s no reason for jumping into a thread where the Daniel the ACP is snuffing out the issue away by trying to say “you should not want this”. 

LR users are already a frustrated lot, if someone is making a suggest to Adobe or complaining about Adobe, they don’t need a non-Adobe person challenging their need for it. They don’t need a history lesson about why Part X of the Adobe system cannot talk to part Y of that system. The root of the Justifier term stems from people who do precisely that on multiple threads. 

If you don’t have an answer, a single sentence to the effect of “I have discussed this with engineers in the past, they said it won’t work” or "I don't know" or "They won't do it" would suffice, rather than insulting playing clients by scoffing at their expectations of Adobe. 

They are Adobe’s clients, David, not yours, not Daniel’s. Only an engineer from Adobe’s team can & should say that something is impossible. Let them do the job of denying requests, don’t do it for them.

I would advise you to take a page from Victoria’s responses, and even from the response by Brett N, Adobe’s engineer, on this thread, about how to respond to stuff that you disagree with. https://feedback.photoshop.com/photoshop_family/topics/lightroom_bridge_keyword_compatibility

By scoffing, you are only doing a disservice, not helping anyone. 

The irony is, when two people used the "Apologiser / Justifier" term, David, John are taking affront and suggesting etiquette, but they don't care when patronizing, scoffing & gaslighting are routinely directed by some "ACP/Champions" towards regular users.

Help = assist. Period.

Help is not using a combination of  “not possible, scoff, ridicule, patronize, history lesson, engineering lesson,” when you aren’t a part of the engineering or product team. Even if you were a part of the Adobe team, you have no right to scoff at some user’s request. 

> You want a feature that isn't possible

I've obviously missed this thread, but this is a feature request forum! It's ok to request the impossible, as long as everyone understand that Adobe does not have a genie standing by waiting to click their fingers.

It would likely be technically possible for Adobe to update the XMP spec to allow flags to be shared across apps, but whether that would ever be considered a high priority, possibly not. I think the chances have increased with the introduction of LR Cloudy.

But the one thing that doesn't change is we all need to be respectful of each other. That's just good manners, online or offline. That includes no name calling, and no rising to bait. Conspiracy theories don't benefit anyone much either.