Lightroom vs. Bridge?

[web_boards]

For just storing and tagging photos, is there any real advantage to using Lightroom over Bridge?

Thanks.

[web-weaver]

The two are quite different and to really do justice to your questin would require more typing than my time allows.

I would suggest that you download the trial version of Lr and see for yourself.

[RikkFlohr]

Here is some good viewing: http://www.photoshopuser.com/lightroom

[john beardsworth]

See http://tv.adobe.com/watch/the-complete-picture-with-julieanne-kost/should-i-use-lightroom-or-bridge/

[areohbee]

web.boards wrote:

For just storing and tagging photos, is there any real advantage to using Lightroom over Bridge?

Yes. Lightroom is faster and more capable. Lightroom uses an image database, Bridge just "wings it" without the database.

[Ian Lyons]

Rob Cole wrote:

Yes. Lightroom is faster and more capable. Lightroom uses an image database, Bridge just "wings it" without the database.

Actually, Bridge does use a database. In 'some' respects, Bridge is better and faster than Lr for some users. For example, it can use the embedded previews, thus making it way faster than Lr. Also, unlike Lr, the UI is very flexible in so far as panels can be moved around. Also, unlike Lr, metadata can be 'appended' or 'replaced', which a pretty major benefit to those who make extensive use of metadata. So far as editing images go, ACR is faster than Lr at pretty much everything. Bridge has a powerful, scripting language, which is more than can be said for Lr. Also, 'Bridge Talk' (the code underlying Bridge's ability to communicate with other Creative Suite applications is used by Lr when sending images to Photoshop.

The external folk who drove Lr in the direction it eventually went were the same folk who drove Bridge. This was long before many of the current pre release testers (Lr and Bridge) even knew Lr existed.

[areohbee]

Ian Lyons wrote:

Actually, Bridge does use a database.

I stand corrected - my apology for disseminating misinformation. (I thought one of the advantages of Lightroom (over Bridge) was the database, and consequent speed for lib filtering and what have you). I know a lot more about Lightroom than Bridge.

Ian Lyons wrote:

...it can use the embedded previews, thus making it way faster than Lr.

Only faster if the Lr lib previews are not available yet, but unfortunately since editing an image invalidates the lib preview, this happens far too often... Seems like another Lr area that is ripe for improvement.

Ian Lyons wrote:

Also, unlike Lr, the UI is very flexible in so far as panels can be moved around.

I'm sure some people really appreciate this.

Ian Lyons wrote:

Also, unlike Lr, metadata can be 'appended' or 'replaced', which a pretty major benefit to those who make extensive use of metadata.

This seems like a glaring omission in Lightroom.

Ian Lyons wrote:

So far as editing images go, ACR is faster than Lr at pretty much everything.

Sounds like I should be using Bridge instead of Lightroom (and Adobe should be reconsidering Lr software design ).

Ian Lyons wrote:

Bridge has a powerful, scripting language, which is more than can be said for Lr.

Out of curiosity: Any reason why there are so few scripts for Bridge? It was one of the things that drove me to Lightroom - If I remember correctly, Bridge uses javascript, whereas Lightroom uses Lua (which I much prefer), but there are tons of plugins written for Lightroom, yet relatively few scripts written for Bridge. Or, is there some well-populated repository of Bridge scripts that I am not aware of? (definitely *not* "The Exchange"). I don't remember details, but my conclusion after comparing the scripting environment of Bridge to that of Lightroom was that Lightroom's scripting environment is far superior to Bridge.

Ian - the tone of your reply seems to suggest you are "not so enamored by Lightroom". Do you primarily use Bridge, or Lightroom?

R

[Ramblerkat]

Thank you for that explanation. 

[Conrad C]

The advantages of one over the other do depend on how you want to do your tagging and your personal preferences about how you work the fastest.

Some points in favor of Lightroom are the extensive keywording options that it has over Bridge. In Bridge, tagging is mostly about typing and clicking check boxes. This is fine if your volume is low, but as you need to tag more images the limits of Bridge start to get tedious and slow, especially the lack of keyboard shortcuts for keywording as far as I know.

Lightroom gives you more flexibility, especially if you like to use the keyboard instead of the mouse. Lightroom doesn't just have a keyword list and a place for you to type them in. It also lists Recent Keywords and provides keyboard shortcuts for them, it has the Metadata Painter (so you can tag by clicking images) and its keyboard shortcut, drag-and-drop keywording, Keyword Suggestions, Keyword Sets, and other ways that are totally missing in Bridge. I think you can keyword large numbers of images a lot faster in Lightroom, especially when various images need different combinations of keywords. Also, if location metadata is important, Bridge isn't of much help, while the Map module in Lightroom does help tag and find images by location.

While Bridge uses the Camera Raw database (I think it might be the Camera Raw cache, actually, which is potentially less permanent than the Lightroom database) it isn't at the same level as the Lightroom database. For example, you can't use Bridge to store any information about images on offline volumes, while the Lightroom database can remember metadata, previews and paths to offline images.

[MWildcard]

Conrad Chavez wrote:

Some points in favor of Lightroom are the extensive keywording options that it has over Bridge. In Bridge, tagging is mostly about typing and clicking check boxes. This is fine if your volume is low, but as you need to tag more images the limits of Bridge start to get tedious and slow, especially the lack of keyboard shortcuts for keywording as far as I know.

While I have never had or used Lightroom, I have a few things to contribute.  One, on keyboard shortcuts: It is true (I was very surprised) that there is no way within Bridge to set keyboard shortcuts to assign keywords.  However, I did find a workaround for this.  It's a bit clumsy to set up, but still MUCH faster than clicking the checkboxes for each individual image you want to tag.

Method 1 (not a true "workaround"): Use review mode (Cmd+B) to select a bunch of photos you want to tag and to drop out those you don't want to tag.  Then just tag them all at once.

Method 2 (actual workaround) for Mac only: Download and install BetterTouchTool from here: http://blog.boastr.net/ (which you should have installed anyways; it's a terrific app.)  Add Bridge to the applications section.  You can then add custom keyboard shortcuts (or even trackpad gestures) to activate any menu item in Bridge.  (Already useful, even without keyword setup as I'm about to describe.)

To set a keyboard shortcut to assign a specific keyword or set of keywords, you go in Bridge to Tools->Create Metadata Template and make a template with just the keywords you want.  Assign it a descriptive name.  Now, adding those keywords can be done in Bridge through a menu item (Tools->Append Metadata->[name of template]) and therefore that action can be assigned a keyboard shortcut or a trackpad gesture using BetterTouchTool.  (In BetterTouchTool, select Application->Adobe Bridge.  Then under the "keyboard" tab, select "add new shortcut," then under "Trigger predefined action" select "Trigger menu-bar menu item" and type "Tools;Append Metadata;[enter name of your template here]".  And of course set what keyboard shortcut you want to use to activate that action.)

Admittedly slightly cumbersome to set up, but really it's only a couple minutes and then you're done.  I only bother doing it for keywords that I use very frequently, such as names of close members of my family.  (BetterTouchTool also allows you to deactivate the keyboard shortcuts without deleting them, which can be handy so you don't use them accidentally.)  But it works perfectly and I now do 90% of my keyword tagging through keyboard shortcuts in Bridge, using BetterTouchTool.

Another point that hasn't been brought up: I wonder, does Lightroom add its keywords to the actual metadata of the image files you are tagging?  Or does it just store the keyword data in its database like iPhoto?  I recently found out that iPhoto does NOT add keywords to the actual metadata of the file, so if you ever move away from iPhoto any work you have done in tagging your photos will be wasted.  Bridge DOES change the metadata of the actual image files, besides keeping a database/cache.

[Todd Shaner]

I use both LR and Bridge for project asset management. LR has keywording benefits, but can't import many file formats such as PDF, AI, INDD, etc. Neither can LR read, write, or filter the metadata of these other file formats to organize, search, and find ALL project file types. LR is also limited as to the metadata fields it can display in the Grid and Loupe views.

MWildcard wrote:

Another point that hasn't been brought up: I wonder, does Lightroom add its keywords to the actual metadata of the image files you are tagging?  Or does it just store the keyword data in its database like iPhoto?  I recently found out that iPhoto does NOT add keywords to the actual metadata of the file, so if you ever move away from iPhoto any work you have done in tagging your photos will be wasted.  Bridge DOES change the metadata of the actual image files, besides keeping a database/cache.

Lightrom has the ability to write keywords to the file or raw XMP sidecar using CTRL+S keys in the Libray module view. You can also change the Catalog Settings  to 'Automatically Write changes Into XMP,' which will also write metadata to JPEG and TIF files.

It would be great if Adobe would offer a CC version of LR that is better integrated with all of the other "suite" applications. I do almost all of my InDesign layout image rendering with LR, including scanner images, but LR lacks certain basic capabilities. I have posted a LR Feature Request that address some of these limitations, including ability to display key metadata fields. This allows properly resizing images for an InDesign layout or Web application, and viewing and filtering on key metadata fields from inside LR.

Please review this feature request, add your comments there, and a +1 vote if you feel the changes would be beneficial.

http://feedback.photoshop.com/photoshop_family/topics/gw73zjy55amnv

Thank You,

Todd

[rjmas]

Lightroom is geared for photography and raw format editing. Bridge is not an editor of that magnitude. If you are simply adding metadata and keywording your images, then Bridge will work fine. But if you are importing camera raw images and editing/cataloging/switching between LR edits and PS edits, then Lightroom is the tool to use. The reason Lightroom does not see/incorporate files such as .pdf, or any other file which is not an image, is because that is not its purpose; it is not a downfall of the software - it's just a matter of what it was designed to do.

[Kim_Letkeman]

rjmas wrote:

Lightroom is geared for photography and raw format editing. Bridge is not an editor of that magnitude. If you are simply adding metadata and keywording your images, then Bridge will work fine. But if you are importing camera raw images and editing/cataloging/switching between LR edits and PS edits, then Lightroom is the tool to use. The reason Lightroom does not see/incorporate files such as .pdf, or any other file which is not an image, is because that is not its purpose; it is not a downfall of the software - it's just a matter of what it was designed to do.

Bridge is part of the ecosystem of Photoshop and ACR, so it forms a fairly complete application stack as does Lightroom alone. The primary difference is that each chunk of the application is separate with Photoshop whereas Lightroom is fully integrated. Further, Photoshop tends to prefer bruising pixels in layers (although smart objects and layers blur that somewhat) whereas Lightroom is 100% non-destructive and sometimes feels a lot slower. But to save edits that involve anything but Lightroom itself, both application stacks require intermediate PSD or TIFF files, so they end up acting more than a little similar.

The inability for the Lightroom catalog to hold information about any type of file is absolutely its greatest downfall. It makes the application much less useful in many user stories or scenarios.

[azvlr]

As an absolute beginner, I am trying to decide which of these programs to invest my time into learning. Most of the responses above are very technical, at least to me, so aren't all the helpful. It seems that Lightroom and Bridge have features that overlap. Bridge and Photoshop have features that overlap, and Lightroom and Photoshop also have overlapping features.

Why did Adobe do this? Why do I have the capability to edit photos in Lightroom? I thought that is what Photoshop is for. I was quite disappointed when I started some training videos on Photoshop, and the first hour and fifteen minutes of the training is about Bridge. I would appreciate some advice. Thanks. (I was not able to view the videos at work).

[dj_paige]

Why did Adobe do this?

To give us choices. To provide features not in Photoshop or Bridge.

Why do I have the capability to edit photos in Lightroom?

Why not?

I thought that is what Photoshop is for.

There are several levels of complexity of photo editing, if you don't need ALL of the extreme power of Photoshop, maybe something else (Lightroom, Photoshop Elements, Bridge/ACR) will suffice

I would appreciate some advice.

Well, I don't have any advice at this time because you need to specify some detail about what you are looking for in a photographic application. If you can tell us, in a reasonable amount of detail, what you would like to do with your photos, how you would like to organize them, what types of edits you might want to do, what the end usage of your photos would be (professional display, sharing with friends and relatives, entering contests, etc.), we might be able to give better advice.

But ... I really think this is a time when the advice of a stranger across the internet is pretty irrelevant. All of these programs offer 30-day free trials. You need to give the programs a try and decide which one you like better. Note: that's which one YOU like better, not the one that some stranger across the internet likes better.

[robgendreau]

I often wished LR had features that Bridge has; the XMP template and metadata stuff for instance. And even when I'm browsing through photos it would be nice to sometimes see PDFs in LR, or at least have the option. Or the list view you get from Bridge. Or in Bridge being able to go straight into a PS plugin (I'm using CS6 BTW). I realize Bridge came about sorta (entirely?) as a means of facilitating suite-ness among the Adobe applications, but I think it would be a terrific standalone Finder substitute, at least on the Mac platform. I hate that I'll probably have to get the full CC subscription to get it in the future.

[Todd Shaner]

robgendreau wrote:

I hate that I'll probably have to get the full CC subscription to get it in the future.

I'm not sure what you mean by "full" CC subscription. All CC single-applications and the Photography CC plan with PS & LR include Bridge CC.

[robgendreau]

trshaner wrote:

robgendreau wrote:

I hate that I'll probably have to get the full CC subscription to get it in the future.

I'm not sure what you mean by "full" CC subscription. All CC single-applications and the Photography CC plan with PS & LR include Bridge CC.

I'm not sure what I meant either...didn't know that Photo CC plan included it! thanks tons. And thank you Adobe.

[azvlr]

Thanks for the response. Don't sell yourself short. Your input is very helpful. It's so hard to know where to start since there is not a good entry point with any of these programs to build on the other. It sounds like they tried to give each program a few of the features of the others so that people could get up an running on any one program without having to learn the whole suite. Based on other reading I have done since I posted, I think Lightroom will work for most of my photo management.http://www.tipsquirrel.com/lightroom-vs-adobe-bridge/ Are the edits I make in Lightroom compatible with Photoshop? I'm guessing yes.

I am definitely an amateur, but we just bought a pro-sumer digital SLR, so I want to get more into photo processing. I want to be able crop, adjust poor exposures, colorize (for art effects), remove distracting elements and zits. I will mostly share photos with friends and family, but want some print-worthy photos to frame. I wouldn't mind entering some small contests here and there eventually.

Thanks again!

[oweniverson]

i used bridge a bit before Lightroom came around, but now i only use Lightroom. from my point of view, it seems that Bridge (hence its name) is a "bridge" between all different Adobe apps - illustrator, photoshop, indesign, etc. Lightroom is analogous to the old lightroom where you would develop photos. while lightroom offers some spot-editing features, it's main focus is on developing the entire image. Photoshop is a compositor. its strength lies in its layering abilities and all the power that comes from masks, and specific selections. since using Lightroom, i never open Photoshop anymore (or rarely, if i'm actually chopping things up and compositing).

anyway, that's my take - i'd be curious if others agree or disagree.

[brennanw50166403]

I shoot hundreds of thousands of photos a years for several clients. Lightroom is overcomplicated software. You can spend hundreds of hours learning LR and not shooting if that is your goal.

[Kim_Letkeman]

Lol ... that is a bit of a nonsense assertion. LR takes a few dozen hours to get comfortable, but the basics are there within the first day. Photoshop and Bridge on the other hand can take a very long time to achieve competence.

Note: I like both equally. But many of us use LR for most of the work and Photoshop when we need to do extensive retouching.

Tomato, tomahto ..

[brennanw50166403]

Can you view images in LR without importing them? NO! Takes the the efficiency and time saving straight into 500 extra steps to do anything. Don't forget the cataloging!

[Kim_Letkeman]

500 extra steps ... another exaggeration.

Any reasonably competent photographer (competent as in acting with professionalism) will be importing from a card or cards into a fully defined folder structure after one or more shoots. Perhaps by date, or perhaps organized around topics. Makes little difference, although importing into a date structure is simpler when using metadata to create dynamic collections etc.

So the difference between Lightroom and Bridge where importing is concerned is minimal. This is how it is done in Bridge (again, competent photographer assumed): How to Import and Organize with Adobe CS5 Bridge - YouTube

In Lightroom, the steps are very similar with very similar results.

Now, you seem enamoured with the fact that you can use Bridge as a browser. That's just a ridiculous reason to heap derision on Lightroom. If all you want to do is browse photos, there are better browsers than Bridge. On the other hand, if you want to properly manage your photos, then both Bridge and Lightroom can do that, but LR has become extremely popular for very good reasons.

[brennanw50166403]

I think a dynamic collections, quick collections, key wording, are very necessary to tell photos from "Alaska" and " a dog" apart. You could name the folder "Alaska" for photos of Alaska. Or create a dynamic smart quick collection named "Alaska".

If Adobe CC crashes anymore than it already does hopefully other software will take it's place.

When I become a competent photographer I will let you know.