15 minutes and already missing Output Module in Bridge CC!

[Enchanted_difference1549]

As simple as the subject.. please.. bring it back!

Adobe Output Module was an essential tool in Bridge, possibly the key feature to show people why to use Bridge.

Any good news in the near future?

L.

[simonwb]

Oh

[Limbo_Design]

This deletion is inexcusable Adobe.  Although very Apple like, just deleting something because they feel they know what is best for us and we will have to conform to a different workflow yet again. 

Don't give your customers any reason to look elsewhere Adobe.

[Jens Gaethje]

Agreed.

- The Export workflow has become essential to my work. Luckily Bridge CS6 stayed on my Mac, although i am not sure why i have two versions of bridge now on my Computer.

They say Adobe CC is cheaper than the constant updates of desktop versions; CC installation issues have cost me so much time, i might switch back to desktop versions in the future ...

[Guest]

You should have CS6 Bridge and CC Bridge.  Just like always with new versions.

Unless Adobe changes policy there will be no more desktop versions.  CS6 was the last of its kind.

[RollDotHome]

This is nothing but a joke! I don not want to keep 2 versions of the same software on my Mac indefinitely. I am planning to run both concurrrently until Apple release OSX 10.9 – at which point a fresh install of everything seems like a good piece of housekeeping. Come on Adobe pull you fingers out – how many more things are you going to break in the name of 'progress'? Been very supportive of this whole CC thing whilst many colleagues have been critical. Less than a day and I have egg on my face!

[Guest]

From all the posts I read if you only have one version of PS on your computer you are setting yourself up for frustration.  This is especially true if photography is your business.

An update can, and frequently does, cause havoc.  A fall back position is welcome until Adobe fixes problem.  Storage is cheap today so no reason you need more space. 

[RollDotHome]

Photoshop files (or files generated by Photoshop – TIFF, JPEG etc) are pretty much backward compatable. Files generated by InDesign, Illustrator particularly, are not. The issue here is with Bridge which in some ways is the glue that holds the suite together and it's sorely lacking in functions at this point in time. Acrobat is not in the standard upgrade cycle but is upgraded when it's ready – why could they not have done the same with Bridge?

[Omke Oudeman]

Photoshop files (or files generated by Photoshop – TIFF, JPEG etc) are pretty much backward compatable. Files generated by InDesign, Illustrator particularly, are not.

That is partly through, PSD, tiff and jpeg are relatively old world standards, they tried to introduce jpeg2000 but that did not succeed very well. ID and AI have the option to downgrade compatibility in the save dialog, as does Microsoft with Office to get the 'x' version for their documents as a standard but still offers a downgrade compatible save option.

Some file types need newest versions to contain all the new options. It is not always a way to force people to upgrades although it sure plays its role

The issue here is with Bridge which in some ways is the glue that holds the suite together and it's sorely lacking in functions at this point in time.

Exactly my point, it could be a very powerful glue if everyone at Adobe does want it to be, sadly enough this still is not the case, despite loads of feature requests Bridge has not really changed other then to 64 bit (which is a major operation btw) and some small improvements. Basically it does not offer more and better options then the CS4 edition. Deleting important functions without offering good (read better) alternatives is indeed a frustratingly stupid move made by bean counters and to high up sitting management.

Acrobat is not in the standard upgrade cycle but is upgraded when it's ready – why could they not have done the same with Bridge?

That is a legitimate question you probably won't get an answer on. Any listed company at the stock exchange isn't allowed to provide such details about future updates etc.

[IceBoxStudios]

http://helpx.adobe.com/bridge/using/whats-new.html#community

I can't believe they got rid of it. Really really really really really really dumb. What a waste of an hour today to acompish the SAME task as yesterday.

[Søren Langkilde Madsen]

Simply do not understand why this has been taken out of Bridge?

The Contact sheet is not a good replacement, the LR print is not either!

What's the reasoning behind this decission?
You have a product with features that are used by us every day. Why take this out?

A real bad decission not based on user needs!

[Brave_Companion16B8]

Just discovered this today as well. I had very specific settings I used for my contact sheets in Bridge. Do not want to take the extensive time required to learn how to do this now in Lightroom. I also agree with the comments that it was FAR more convenient with Bridge because it simply looks at a group of images. You must IMPORT the images into LR, which is then added to the catalog. Completely unnecessary.

Adobe needs to remind itself of the VALUE of Bridge. They seem to see it as their red -headed stepchild, giving it only short shrift attention. When will Adobe REALLY add some actual every day photographers onto their advisery groups so their ivory tower programmers (r.e. Julieannne Kost) can be brought back to reality.

I began using Creative Cloud early this year. I'm paying now more per year than I was previously. I am getting tired of Adobe forcing unwanted things upon me, and completely ignoring how much time and effort is required when major features of a program are simply eliminated.

I'm currently trying to find the settings in LR that will emulate the contact sheets I've been making in Bridge for years. It's not easy or intuitive, that's for sure.

[AnnShelbourne]

When will Adobe REALLY add some actual every day photographers onto their advisery groups

Adobe have done just that and they are the cause of the problem!

A number of them are staunch sponsors of Lightroom;

have been involved with Lr from the beginning;

seem to understand little of the needs of the graphic arts industry in general (beyond the needs of amateur photographers);

and their extremely vociferous voices carry far too much weight within the halls of Adobe!

[Brave_Companion16B8]

I don't know. I hear J. Kost in her videos claim that LR was created FOR photogs BY photogs. Can hardly believe that, as the program seemed so unintuitive to me after having used PS and Bridge for many years.

I know that Martin Evening said he questioned the need for the LR program when Adobe approached him about it. I think he was quite satisfied working with PS and Bridge until them. I don't know him, this is just an impression from his early comments. He is, of course, a huge LR supporter at this point.

My main issue is with Adobe abruptly changing things and seeming to care little about the problems they are creating among the user base, who are mostliy professionals to whom time is money. "Ivory Tower" programmers have little understanding of things like this. They're on salary...

[AnnShelbourne]

To me, Lightroom is, and always has been, "Photoshop Light" and seems to have been  designed specially for photographers who are little more than snapshooters and who can't, or won't (?!) take the time and trouble to learn to use Real Photoshop!

There are thousands who swear by it, and are perfectly content with the results which they get from it, but who fail to realise how much better their photographs could be if they took the next step forward.

[Brave_Companion16B8]

Now that I've finally used LR quite a bit on large commercial jobs I can work faster using it than with the Bridge/PS combo. Because you're just saving data instructions to the file you don't have to work on the full res. I don't do that until the final tweek in PS and then save the file for my client. I know some professionals don't take the file into PS at all. As more pixel level functions are added to LR perhaps I'll even get there.

So I do understand the reason for LR, but it took me a while. I'd used PS since 1995, and Bridge works very well with it. I don't see LR as PS Light. What bothers me with LR is really more of a complaint with Adobe. As said in earlier post they should not remove major features of a program (such as in Bridge) and force you to go to LR to replicate the same thing. I often think there is a lack of respect for the user base. If one has no alternative to the Adobe products, well, what can one do? We saw the same thing with the Creative Cloud roll out recently and the subscriptions. A lot of people were VERY unhappy. Fortunately I've been able to deal with it, but many cannot. Again, it seemed like a brute force policy that Adobe was willing and able to push through.

[AnnShelbourne]

I have both Lr 5 and Ps CC and I never use Lr — unless i am showing someone else how to use it.

ACR (via Bridge) has exactly the same tools; a far cleaner, clearer, better-designed and more efficient UI; needs no messing around with importation of files to its bespoke Library so is faster to use; has a direct Smart Object connection to Ps; and once we get AOM back in Bridge, has the output capabilty that I need.

Also Bridge (unlike LR!) recognises that there are file formats other than PSD, TIF and JPG.

[Brave_Companion16B8]

LR is definitely not perfect, I accept that.

[Enchanted_difference1549]

Well, this post and the the Bridge Output Module itself have nothing to do with Lightroom.

The OAM is being possibly rewritten soon, that's the point. Let's wait and keep pinging Adobe.

L.

[Echo Films]

I've just been talking with Adobe and they've provided a solution for now...

Santosh: Ollie, since the new Bridge CC does not contain output module the Bridge CS 6 is available to be installed as a subscription.

Santosh: However to use Bridge CS 6 the installer file is included with Photoshop CS 6.

So, there's currently a way of re-installing Photoshop CS6 and regaining access to Bridge CS6 and our trusty Output module.

Visit https://creative.adobe.com/products/photoshop, log in and as a CC subscriber the page will say "Photoshop CC", but there's a little drop-down box that will allow you to switch to Photoshop CS6 (just under the text "In this version")

That results in the Download button link changing from aam://SAPCode=PHSP?productVersion=14.0 to aam://SAPCode=PHSP?productVersion=13.0

Photoshop CS6 installs the Bridge CS6 module, which can be opened independently of Photoshop, so I assume that PS CS6 could be removed... though I'm not going to take my chances.

[Omke Oudeman]

Photoshop CS6 installs the Bridge CS6 module, which can be opened independently of Photoshop, so I assume that PS CS6 could be removed... though I'm not going to take my chances.

You can have multiple versions of Photoshop and Bridge installed on your system without problems, however while you can have both PS CS6 and CC active at the same time (only need enough RAM) you can have only one version of Bridge active at the same time.

Using the file type associations in Bridge prefs you can set files to open in CC or CS6 but the menu Tools to reach PS via Bridge is only possible with same version numbers.

A subscription gives you the option to have CS6 and CC available but you already discovered that

here is a link to the CC FAQ:

http://www.adobe.com/products/creativecloud/faq.html

[Jens Gaethje]

Okay, the bridge cs6 is still there, exporting my files nicely. But you say bridge cs6 is not able to "open in layers" or "photomerge" into cc?

I have not yet installed the PS cc version, as i am still recovering from the bridge cc install, where my favorite export tool went missing.

Any idea why they removed the export module from cc in the first place?

[AnnShelbourne]

>>>>>>>

Any idea why they removed the export module from cc in the first place?

>>>>>>

Short-sighted view of the needs of the larger Graphic Arts industry (as opposed to pleasing a niche market instead) resulting in a foolish mis-allocation of Budget to other products and the deprivation of essential resources to the Bridge team perhaps?

Heads should be rolling . . . !

[Brave_Companion16B8]

They just like to annoy us...

[carriestephens]

I think you are right!

I just happened to upgrade before i worked on a project that needed to be exported with Headers and Footers. I spent a little while looking for Output mode and then i had an aha moment and loaded up Bridge cs6.  Thankfully, I kept it installed. 

[Echo Films]

@CameraAnn I used to use Photoshop + Bridge in my workflow, and when Lightroom 3 was released I shifted to a Lightroom workflow. I still use Photoshop for pixel shifting, but in my Corporate photography business Lightroom is a far superior workflow - the odd liquify or specific layers trick within Photoshop means that most of what I do happens within Lightroom.

But for you to lump me into the subcategory of "little more than snapshooters who can't, or won't (?!) take the time and trouble to learn to use Real Photoshop" is insulting. I don't know what high and mighty platform you perch yourself atop of to be able to look down your nose at myself and other professionals and tar us all with an enormously wide brush of amaturism, but I believe that perhaps it might just be you who can't, or won't (?!) take the time and trouble to learn to use real Lightroom.

And asking us to take the next step forward implies we're all behind you. Again, please provide sound reasoning and examples to quantify where on Earth you get the qualification to claim to be at the head of post processing professionals using Adobe products.

This is all my opinion. Just like your comments are just your opinion. The sooner you learn that neither of us is right the sooner you might stop being so insulting.

Kind regards,

Ollie

Fellow of the New Zealand Institute of Professional Photography