• Global community
    • Language:
      • Deutsch
      • English
      • Español
      • Français
      • Português
  • 日本語コミュニティ
    Dedicated community for Japanese speakers
  • 한국 커뮤니티
    Dedicated community for Korean speakers

Saving a Custom (Manual) Sort

New Here ,
Dec 09, 2007 Dec 09, 2007

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

I searched and searched through Bridge and found NO way to save a custom sort (manual) with a name (or a collection if you prefer). I created a manual custom sort in a folder and ran a PS action to reduce the size of each photo and put them into a new folder. When I opened the new folder the sort was alpha, not like the old folder. I now have to manually sort over 300 photos in new folder.

Is there a way to do this and if not, can a script be written for it. I create slide shows and no of hundreds of examples of how I would use this. It is really labor intensive to put the photos in a special order and then have no way to save it for future use.

Any suggestions or help would be appreciated. If I have to pay someone to do this, I will. thanks.
TOPICS
Scripting

Views

1.3K

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
New Here ,
Dec 12, 2007 Dec 12, 2007

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

I am using Bridge (Version 1.0.4) and CS2 on WinXP, SP2. I am extremely disappointment in a limitation in Bridge that seems to be related to JamesAGrover's challenge to save a manual sort that he has created in a collection.

A review of topics related to manual sorting in these Adobe forums indicate that there is a general limitation to sorting a collection. This limitation seems to exist in any of the Adobe products for Mac or PC that offer the ability to view "collections" of images, for example, Lightroom and Bridge.

A "collection" seems to be a set of file names that are handled independently of the real files themselves. The magic resides in the user's experience of handling the "collection" of filenames as if they were the actual files themselves.

Of course, there is no "magic"; the collection is working with some kind of pointer to the actual files, where ever they may truly reside.

There are many powerful reasons for offering functionality of this kind. The one that primarily interests me is that by working with pointers to the same file from different collections, I can create different subsets of images and unique sort orders without copying the original files. I avoid filling my harddrive with copies, but I can burn thousands of CDs and DVDs each with different selections and sorts.

But unfortunately, inside a "collection", I am unable to execute a manual sort at all. The problem exists if my collection includes files from a single directory or from several different directories (folders). Since this seems to contradict the basic promise of a "collection" of filenames, I keep thinking that I misunderstand the user's interface.

I have set the "View - Sort" menu with every permutation of checks and unchecks for "Ascending Order" and "Manually" with no luck.

I have discovered a workaround to my problem: I have been able to manually sort, and save, a direct view of a real file system directory from the Bridge interface. But that has forced me to create copies of my images in one unique new directory for every selection and sort that I need.

To tie this back to the first post in this topic, I must observe that for me, after creating and manually sorting a collection, I will want to save the collection with its unique and idiosyncratic, manual sort. I don't want to copy the original files umpteen times! It seems that I will encounter the problem described by JamesAGrover.

I wonder if any forum member, or any one at Adobe, has a comment. Specifically I wonder about two things:
1) Am I misunderstanding the user's interface? Is there a setting that I have not discovered?
2) Is there a basic limitation with "collections" that has been removed in CS3?

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
New Here ,
Apr 25, 2008 Apr 25, 2008

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Bridge (Version 1.0.4) and CS2 on WinXP, SP2 can be used for manual sorting.But Adobe forum indicates there is a limitation in sorting a collection(set of file names that are handled indipendently)It can be worked with pointers to the same file from the different collection,can create different subset of images .If the collection includes files from a single directory or from several different directories then it cannot be sorted manually.Somany things have been done to sort out this problem but all in-vain.The question appears that there may be a misguidence or a basic limitation with collection which has been removed in CS3.

Martin Fowl
| inkjet
cartridge
| data recovery
| data recovery |

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
Valorous Hero ,
Apr 25, 2008 Apr 25, 2008

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

I have noticed that when you do a manual sort, a file is created in that folder called .BridgeSort this file could in theory be copied to your new folder?

Update, tried it and it works!
Paul.

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
Engaged ,
Dec 04, 2020 Dec 04, 2020

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

I remember years ago, you could create different manual sorts by copying and renaming the Bridgesort or something. I came looking to see how that was, as I did once and forgot the procedure.  I just want to save a sort in a species folder, so that for example only tiffs are selected, with a rating of 4 and keep the desired manualy sorted order. Then if I need to sort by filename or date, I wouldn't lose the specific manual sort.

A problem is that then the Bridgesort folder doesn't have those characters and is filtered out. 

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
Community Expert ,
Dec 04, 2020 Dec 04, 2020

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Your best bet would be to rename your saved order so that you have bug-001, bug-002, etc. 

 

That's the only way I've ever figured out to save a custom sort that's reliable.

 

The catch is if you want the same image sorted a 2nd or more way. Than there's no hope.

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
Engaged ,
Dec 04, 2020 Dec 04, 2020

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

My file names are as such Melanitta americana BLACK SCOTER 9019877 .NEF

 

The 10 digit numbers are unique and correlate with a database that has desired information about the file.  They have no relation to the subject, created in order of shooting since I started.  Relevant information is in the description, keywords, headline, location, etc. 

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
Community Expert ,
Dec 04, 2020 Dec 04, 2020

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Would it trash your database link if your rename would/could be:

 

Melanitta americana BLACK SCOTER 9019877-0001.NEF

Melanitta americana BLACK SCOTER 9019877-0002.NEF

 

etc?

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
Engaged ,
Dec 04, 2020 Dec 04, 2020

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

LATEST

It wouldn't affect the database.  It would just be irrelevant to it.  Now all I have to do for 9019877 is see if was published and how much it earned, plus many relationships to groups,  Every number is unique and can't be changed..  

Likes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines