Where is the value in allowing vertically designed panels to be docked so that they occupy the full width of the pathbar location hiding important path info and wasting enormous amounts of screen real estate?
That appears to be a Workspace of your own creation, is it? You are correct that these (not Pathbar) are better suited for a vertical location, but these were put in a location that spans the entire width of the Bridge Window.
Also, just to let you know, Bridge does not provide any real tethering as one can obtain in Lightroom Classic. There, you can get a full-screen view of what the camera is seeing before any photo is taken. That cannot be done with Bridge. At best, you can only see what the camera took after the photo was taken (but I'm not sure if the image file can automatically be transferred to the computer. Can it? Are you able to get that to happen?
Those Panels do not make any sense the way they appear. Pathbar shouldn't be there; it should rest below the icons just above it.
Nonetheless, this is a Workspace of your own creation; I'd suggest you try again.
FWIW, I find my Workspace to be very functional and provides most of my needs, copy the design and see if it helps you. You are in no way obligated to duplicate this, but you may get some ideas that you can use.
My question was based on a simple testing of the various docking locations available in the new Bridge. The vast majority of panels in Bridge are designed to present information vertically. What value does Adobe see in opening up the full-width pathbar location for the docking of vertically formatted information? What am I missing?
Good question. I think it has to do with the fact that any Panel can potentially go anywhere. Yes, that's (I'd call it "too busy to do it right" programming where they let any Panel go to any location. I suppose they could have created built-in restrictions, but that would take time, and, as we've seen with release 13, that's something that they didn't have.
If you have any other theories, I'd be curious to hear them.
Stupidity comes to mind. It takes very little time to decide NOT to implement a stupid idea. If someone at Adobe can correct that impression by enlightening all of us, I’m listening.
Sure, that's a possibility, and so is the possibility that they did that to bug people! (LOL)
Seriously, I've written in these forums multiple times that the Bridge team is small, and in a very small window of time, they were asked to update the entire structure of Bridge. (Much of the code was the original code from Bridge 1. This lets them ship a native M1 version for Mac and provide a number of features that could not have been added otherwise. Unfortunately, they did not have enough time to do it right the first time and released a product that was not ready for Prime Time. Plus, to save time, they removed the ability to have more than one window open at a time, and we all know how well that worked out.
So, dumb? Sure, possible, but I go with just assembling the whole thing and hoping that no one named Tyrehal289439821vx3 would notice! I wonder if there was an office pool on that!
Hey, you didn't answer my question: have you found a way to tether to Bridge? I'd be curious!
Not Bridge per-say. The capture utility is set up to dump the captures to a specific location on the tethered drive, and then Bridge is set up with several options as to how to browse that location. It allows for ACR adjustments to be made on the spot while the client watches. Configuration of the various Bridge panels for tethered capture browsing is completely up to you.
It’s not a terrific solution for shooting people and fast action subjects, but works fine for still life work and other sorts of assignments where just a few captures at a time are being created. 35 megapixel raws transfer in just a few seconds. Bridge is simple sitting there waiting for them to arrive.
Up above you said: "Much of the code was the original code from Bridge 1."
First, are you suggesting that the Bridge enginners went back 18 yars and started over again? If so, how did you discover this fact?
I spend too much time in these forums (LOL).
To be more specific and more general, when applications are first made and then released. As updates come, new code is written to change old code and these are pieced in. Every once in a while, the entire application is rewritten. These more typically occur when the application has to work with a new OS. For Bridge, it was long due and the motivator was Apple's new M1 processor.
About your tether solution. Excellent solution. I had a hunch it was something like that, and the obvious shortcomings are understood (inability to see on the full screen what's taking place before pressing the shutter) being the big one.
Have you tried using Lightroom Classic for this? If you have either a Canon or Nikon camera, you might be able to use that approach. Please see https://helpx.adobe.com/lightroom-classic/kb/tethered-camera-support.html and check out if YOUR camera is included. In my own experience, this works very well (you can also operate the camera from your computer via LRC.) When doing this with my Canon 7Dm2, the images go to both the camera card AND the hard drive in the designated LRC location's folder. Then, once backed up, you can erase the card.
As I am Windows based, I know nothing about Apple OSes. Bridge 13 does feel kludged together in order to bring one major new feature (new content windows) to a program that already had that ability using multiple instances (which has been serviceable, but not a particularly elegant solution). This major “new” feature feels a whole lot like going after a fly with a baseball bat in a china shop. Quite a bit of glass got shattered in the process.
As far as tethered shooting goes, I’m Canon-based, so the EOS Utility has been my go to when shooting tethered for many years. It does everything you described in your Lightroom workflow except it does not record to camera disk while tethered to my laptop. Pressing live view launches an additional Canon screen that allows for viewing the live image on the laptop. I personally only use live view for initial setup of a particular visual and then use the captures to refine an image. If I’m shooting on sticks, I trigger the camera from the laptop. I can always grab the camera off the sticks and walk around with it shooting by hand while continuing to record to the computer.
Lightroom (a database applicaton) seems a bit of overkill for this sort of thing. I only require a browser for this sort of activity The heavy lifting happens back in the studio on my workstation.
Hi, @Tyrehl289439821vx3 Thank you very much for that information. Since I just go to LRC for all of my personal imagery and Bridge for my "I dont't need this in my LRC catalogue" images, I've never explored what Canon had to offer me. While I do not think I'll need to in the future, it's great to know that's an option.
Options! It's what makes life worthwhile!