Hi Sheila,
I think you have an interesting concern, but it's not based on what the intentions of the software were intended for. I've been racking my brain trying to think of an example but all of them come up condescending and I do not want to do that. That is NOT my intent.
To address two issues you ask about, in LRC, if you want a parent folder to display the number of images in its children's folders, be in Library mode, go to the Library menu, and check/uncheck the option "Show folders in subfolders." that will give you what you want there. And yes, if you have LRC move the metadata to the images, you will see them in Bridge. However, as you read further, you'll see that that's not really necessary (to view them in Bridge).
Let us first look at the original intent purposes of each program: Bridge started out as a part of Photoshop. It was a new Window that could look at a folder and show you the images that were in that folder. You could look at the images and determine which ones you want to work with within Photoshop. When Bridge was released as Version 1 in Creative Suite 2. As a separate application, Bridge became a "bridge" between the other Adobe applications. Many people were confused as to what Bridge actually did, and the actual answer was not much. But, it was an excellent file browser that let you do many important things (rate images, label images, keep all applications colors coordinated, just a look in the Tools menu shows the range of stuff that Bridge can add. But in the end of everything, it's just a file Browser.
One special thing that was added was ACR, Adobe Camera Raw. Here, Bridge became a gateway for you to view your raw images and provide a very slick way for folks to do the basic processing that early ACR provided.
But then Adobe did something very interesting: they took ACR and attached it to a database. This became Lightroom (note: I'm going to call it Lightroom Classic from now on end because Lightroom is now a different but similar application but is no longer the Lightroom I'm currently writing about, so everything I'm now talking about is what we know as Lightroom Classic (or LRC.)) [Meanwhile, Apple created Aperture to do the same thing but eventually gave up on it because more people were going to Lightroom. It was canceled.]
What the database dynamic meant was that LRC could manage thousands of images, located anywhere on anything attached to the computer and maintain every adjustment made to that image. I could go on with all the features that LRC has, but I'm sure you already know them. But I do need to go back to this database thing because it's vital to understand what makes LRC unique and why working with the two applications at the same time is not in your best interest.
Case study #1: where are the images? One of LRCs features is that the images could be anywhere: your Desktop, in the Pictures folder on your Mac, in a hard drive on the desktop, anywhere. LRC keeps the location of every image in that database. However, if you move an image in the Finder or Explorer to any other location, LRC does not know where that image is and when you try to open that image to make some adjustments, you get an exclamation point in the thumbnail. That means that LRC doesn't know where the image is located. Once you point LRC to where that image is now located, all again is fine — unless you move it again OUTSIDE of LRC.
Case study #2: you open a folder of images that have already been imported into LRC in Bridge and enhance an image. Now, back in LRC, you go to that image and you get a window pop up and tells you that that image was altered outside of LRC, which version do you want to keep: the LRC alterations or the "other" program that was messing with that image?
In both of these cases, what is taking place is that LRC doesn't work well with outside activities. Like a sleepy little down in Nevada, what happens in LRC, STAYS with LRC. What you are doing between LRC and Bridge are only going to give yourself grief.
So why should you have both applications on your computer? Why would you use one over the other and when would you do so?
I use both, almost every day. Images that are part of my image collection reside within LRC. In LRC I keep all of my family's images (from around 1900 to the present), I keep all of my travel photos of every place I've been. I keep all of my event photos when I've attended events. I can quickly go back and find any image at any time in seconds. I can continue to enhance these images if needed as needed. I can do all of the amazing things that LRC lets me do within LRC. But I also have images that have nothing to do with my image collections. These may be images of items I wish to sell or give away on Craigslist. I do a monthly newsletter for my woodworking club and members send me images of their projects. I take images of my woodworking projects while I'm working on them (however, images of the completed projects do go into LRC). Simply, I have a lot of small projects that have images that I do not need or want to be part of my LRC's collection of images in my catalog. This is where Bridge shines. I can quickly peruse, find, and process these images, do what's needed to be done, and never look at these images again. You are correct: LRC and Bridge do NOT talk to each other because they are not supposed to talk to each other — there's no need. They are not designed to help or assist each other because there's no need.
I'm sure you've used Bridge and LRC for everything I've mentioned here, but I'm also concerned that you may have given yourself a bit of grief over those two situations that I've pointed out. If you have any questions about what I've written, please feel free to ask.
4
Replies
AdChoices