Moving from LightRoom to Bridge/CS3

[zweiblumen]

Not sure if this is the correct thread, please move as necessary.

I've been using LR for the past 4 months, but I've been shown the light with Bridge/CS3. I know I could use both, but I'm interested in keeping my workflow as simple as possible.

So, my question... How do I get the xmp data from LR into Bridge? I see that Bridge writes .XMP files in the same dir as the photo. IIRC LR keeps all of that data in a DB. Any suggestions?

[Nikolai]

Not sure if this is the correct thread, please move as necessary.

I've been using LR for the past 4 months, but I've been shown the light with Bridge/CS3. I know I could use both, but I'm interested in keeping my workflow as simple as possible.

So, my question... How do I get the xmp data from LR into Bridge? I see that Bridge writes .XMP files in the same dir as the photo. IIRC LR keeps all of that data in a DB. Any suggestions?

I beleive there is some obscure export function in LR. I did it once, it works. Play with one image, you'll find it in no time. :deal

Welcome to Bridgefolks! :clap

[zweiblumen]

I beleive there is some obscure export function in LR. I did it once, it works. Play with one image, you'll find it in no time. :deal

Welcome to Bridgefolks! :clap

Thanks! :barb :barb
Select image(s) -> Metadata -> Save Metadata to File(s) :ivar

Don't know why I couldn't find that... :bow

[DavidTO]

I moved this thread to Finishing School. :D

[mercphoto]

Is Bridge vastly improved in CS3? I always found it frustrating to use in CS and CS2 for all but the smallest of photo jobs. Get too many photos in any given directory and it starts to crawl. Nice filtering options, nice Photoshop and batching integration, but the lack of performance killed me.

[Nikolai]

Is Bridge vastly improved in CS3? I always found it frustrating to use in CS and CS2 for all but the smallest of photo jobs. Get too many photos in any given directory and it starts to crawl. Nice filtering options, nice Photoshop and batching integration, but the lack of performance killed me.

Briefly: yes :deal

[Moogle Pepper]

Was there something that you didn't like about LR that made you jump to Bridge?

[SloYerRoll]

Briefly: yes :deal:scratch

[Nikolai]

:scratch
Yes = Bridge was vastly improved in CS3 compared to CS2 (File browser in CS was a joke)

[CatOne]

Yes = Bridge was vastly improved in CS3 compared to CS2 (File browser in CS was a joke)

Sure. But really, it's atrociously sucktastic compared to Lightroom. Every time I have to open Bridge I throw up a little in my mouth.

[zweiblumen]

Was there something that you didn't like about LR that made you jump to Bridge?

Adding CS3 to my work flow. I don't/didn't use any of the features in LR that aren't in Bridge. Both have the same problems opening large directories (though mine aren't THAT huge, I generally max out at about 300 on a given day). Using Bridge simplified my work flow by allowing me to edit in ACR the same way I would in LR and then go on to PS much more easily.

I have to say, that if I had bought LR and did not own a copy of CS3, I probably wouldn't have made the change. The cost of the software would outweigh the convenience of work flow. However, I happen to have a copy of CS3. So, it was pretty simple.

HTH

[Nikolai]

Sure. But really, it's atrociously sucktastic compared to Lightroom. Every time I have to open Bridge I throw up a little in my mouth.
Bill,
I said it before and I say it again: being a DB/software guy, I inherently do not trust the software that relies on two sources (DB and FS) at the same time. Call me paranoid... :deal
I don't care how much slower Bridge is/may be, as long as I know that it operates over NTFS, which is as reliable as any file system can be.
OTOH, I also happen to know that LR uses MySQL engine, which I personally treat on par with MS Access. OK for the non-important stuff, but I wouldn't trust my images solemnly to it. :dunno
Only IMHO...

[LiquidAir]

Bill,
I said it before and I say it again: being a DB/software guy, I inherently do not trust the software that relies on two sources (DB and FS) at the same time. Call me paranoid... :deal
I don't care how much slower Bridge is/may be, as long as I know that it operates over NTFS, which is as reliable as any file system can be.
OTOH, I also happen to know that LR uses MySQL engine, which I personally treat on par with MS Access. OK for the non-important stuff, but I wouldn't trust my images solemnly to it. :dunno
Only IMHO...

If you have Lightroom write out .XMP files next to your RAW files then the database can be recontructed from the file system any time you want to. After a year and almost 11,000 images, I have found the way Lightroom handles the mirrored data to be quite robust.

[Nikolai]

If you have Lightroom write out .XMP files next to your RAW files then the database can be recontructed from the file system any time you want to. After a year and almost 11,000 images, I have found the way Lightroom handles the mirrored data to be quite robust.

I know. But it's a hassle. I prefer a single data source.

[LiquidAir]

I know. But it's a hassle. I prefer a single data source.

If you use Lightroom as a simple file brower, I guess I can see preferring Bridge. For me, one of the big wins of using Lighroom is that the way browse my photos no longer has to match the way I store them on disc. I now largely use metadata to find my images which frees me organize my file system for optimal storage, archival and backup.

[mercphoto]

If you use Lightroom as a simple file brower, I guess I can see preferring Bridge. For me, one of the big wins of using Lighroom is that the way browse my photos no longer has to match the way I store them on disc. I now largely use metadata to find my images which frees me organize my file system for optimal storage, archival and backup.
That's the big selling point to programs like iView Media Pro, it allows multiple views of your data set (image collection) very much like a data base allows multiple views of the same tables. File browsers cannot do that. The one thing I don't like about iVMP is its kinda clunky interface to Photoshop.

[CatOne]

Bill,
I said it before and I say it again: being a DB/software guy, I inherently do not trust the software that relies on two sources (DB and FS) at the same time. Call me paranoid... :deal


You're a DB guy but you don't trust a database :wink

Plus, as was already mentioned, you can save the info in XMP sidecar files (LR can do it automatically, actually), if you want. It's slower, but then again Bridge is as well.


I don't care how much slower Bridge is/may be, as long as I know that it operates over NTFS, which is as reliable as any file system can be.
OTOH, I also happen to know that LR uses MySQL engine, which I personally treat on par with MS Access. OK for the non-important stuff, but I wouldn't trust my images solemnly to it. :dunno
Only IMHO...

LR doesn't actually use MySQL as the engine. It uses an embedded database called SQLite. Still, sure, it doesn't support big, Oracle-style transactions, but that also makes it like 100 times faster (er, has 100 times less latency) than Oracle.

I really don't have any concerns about data integrity with LR for the above reasons, also you can set LR to prompt you to do a database integrity check and backup on a regular basis (I have mine set to a week). And if you should somehow lose the database (and not have XMP files saved), you still don't lose your data... you just lose the metadata, ratings, and adjustments for any files where you haven't yet written out the XMP files (I leave auto-update of XMP off as it's a lot faster).

LR is WAY faster than brige for sorting, rating, and quick adjustments (Heck, Bridge doesn't do adjustments... it opens up ACR for RAW files). It's much better at this quick stuff. I really only ever open up Photoshop if I absolutely NEED to do an edit that requires masking, or if I want to do a panorama. 95% of all editing I need to do can be done in LR, and that makes it way way faster than using Photoshop (whose complex interface I've never really grokked, which is rough considering I'm a computer guy :wink ).

Anyway... of course there's no reason I'd say you need to use LR if it doesn't interest you, but IMO concerns about data integrity are unfounded. Aperture's the same way.

[Terrence]

Nik: I'm quite surprised you don't like MySQL. I'd think it would be your cup of tea. Have to chat on that one.

SQLite is a nice, lightweight compromise between flat files and a true RDBMS. I do have some worries about how robust it is for large collections, but for my meager 4k images it is doing well. Since the database is a flat file, it is very easy to recreate and backup. The backup in LR is fast enough, that I backup once a week and I'm going to work on an automator so I can run backup daily.

The differences between Bridge, Photoshop and Lightroom are nicely covered at Adobe's site (http://www.adobe.com/products/photoshoplightroom/productinfo/faq/lr_bridge.html) for anyone interested. The biggest difference betwen BR and LR is LR's management of image data is tailored for photographers, so only the photography-oriented fearures of BR are in LR.

Like most technology choices, I think this comes down to preference and comfort. There really is no "right" way as far as I can see. For me, LR works great because Photoshop is a small part of my workflow for a small percentage of my images, so "right click, open in Photoshop" doesn't cramp my style. For someone (like Nik or zweilbumen) who use Photoshop for most of their workflow and most of their images, Bridge makes total sense.

Use the tools that get the job done in a way that works for you.

[Nikolai]

LR doesn't actually use MySQL as the engine. It uses an embedded database called SQLite. Still, sure, it doesn't support big, Oracle-style transactions, but that also makes it like 100 times faster (er, has 100 times less latency) than Oracle.

You're right, it's SQLite. I was a bit distracted with the whole ER thingie last nite...

[Pindy]

I know. But it's a hassle. I prefer a single data source.

Isn't that DNG?

[Nikolai]

Isn't that DNG?
Short answer: no :wink

[billg71]

Thanks! :barb :barb
Select image(s) -> Metadata -> Save Metadata to File(s) :ivar

Don't know why I couldn't find that... :bow

That be it! Just for curiosity, why the move? I use LR/PSE5/CaptureNX and don't really have any experience with Bridge/PSxxx. Is there really that much of a benefit?

TIA,

Bill

[BradfordBenn]

This thread is quite interesting as I am pretty happy with my workflow but am starting to see the wholes in the data path that I have setup. I think I will turn on the write the XMP files.

Assuming I do that, can I move between them easily? I prefer the spray paint and erase feature of the keyword tools in Lightroom. Has anyone found a way to do it in Bridge?:scratch

[Nikolai]

This thread is quite interesting as I am pretty happy with my workflow but am starting to see the wholes in the data path that I have setup. I think I will turn on the write the XMP files.


Make sure you have LR1.2 update...:deal

[BradfordBenn]

Make sure you have LR1.2 update...:deal

Yup.

I will admit that I am easing into it at the moment after reading all the info. I just got CS3 at the office (I am not a photographer, it is a hobby for me) so I am using Bridge there and seeing how it works. So far my big complaint is the speed.... I got no patience. However I do like that at work I can see more formats.

[SloYerRoll]

Yup.

I will admit that I am easing into it at the moment after reading all the info. I just got CS3 at the office (I am not a photographer, it is a hobby for me) so I am using Bridge there and seeing how it works. So far my big complaint is the speed.... I got no patience. However I do like that at work I can see more formats.Lol if you think Bridge CS3 is bad. You would have thrown Bridge CS2 of a cliff! Vast improvements over CS2.

One thing Adobe believes (and it's mostly true) is that if your using digital media like this. You have a machine that has the capacity to handle this.

Most photogs and graphic designers have whoop tail machines that launch Br in under 2 seconds and launch PS in under 3.

[LiquidAir]

Most photogs and graphic designers have whoop tail machines that launch Br in under 2 seconds and launch PS in under 3.

If you do any siginificant amout of photo processing, you owe it to yourself to use a RAID for your primary drive. These days you can install a 1TB RAID 0 in your computer for not much over $250. In terms of bang for the buck, that's the best deal going in computer upgrades.

[BradfordBenn]

Lol if you think Bridge CS3 is bad. You would have thrown Bridge CS2 of a cliff! Vast improvements over CS2.

One thing Adobe believes (and it's mostly true) is that if your using digital media like this. You have a machine that has the capacity to handle this.

Most photogs and graphic designers have whoop tail machines that launch Br in under 2 seconds and launch PS in under 3.

I had CS2 on demo and thought Bridge was horrible then. When we went to order it, CS3 was shipping.

In terms of power my work machine, it ain't bad but the big complaint I have is the 5,400 RPM hard drive. However couple that with it being a laptop with Dual Core 2GHz 4GB RAM it is pretty cool.

But I will say this, I have learned that being able to preview the drawing before opening it is probably worth the time savings. I am usually looking at drawings in Illustrator, EPS, or TIF format.

[zweiblumen]

That be it! Just for curiosity, why the move? I use LR/PSE5/CaptureNX and don't really have any experience with Bridge/PSxxx. Is there really that much of a benefit?

TIA,

Bill

I'm not familiar with CaptureNX at all, and I've not used Elements, though I have a vague awareness of it. So, I can't really say if there's a benefit. I just know that this workflow is working well for me (the Bridge/CS3 flow). I was using LR/CS, and opening things in CS because such a hassle that I just stopped using it. If I hadn't learned so many useful tools at the workshop using CS3, I doubt I would have changed. And there's a small chance I'll go back to LR and just use CS3 when I want to use those features, but right now I'm getting a lot of bang for my buck out of layers and masks. Regional work FTW.

HTH,

[SloYerRoll]

But I will say this, I have learned that being able to preview the drawing before opening it is probably worth the time savings. I am usually looking at drawings in Illustrator, EPS, or TIF format.Ya that's where Bridge is great. I have allot of .eps, .ai, .this & .that files that I can browse just like I'm viewing a picture thumbnail. Bridge is still in my quick launch app. Just not clicked on as much these days.


-Jon

[CatOne]

Lol if you think Bridge CS3 is bad. You would have thrown Bridge CS2 of a cliff! Vast improvements over CS2.

One thing Adobe believes (and it's mostly true) is that if your using digital media like this. You have a machine that has the capacity to handle this.

Most photogs and graphic designers have whoop tail machines that launch Br in under 2 seconds and launch PS in under 3.

Using the fact that CS3 is so much better than CS2 and therefore must be good is like saying a crap from a poodle is smaller than the crap from a german shepherd and therefore it must smell okay :huh

[LiquidAir]

Using the fact that CS3 is so much better than CS2 and therefore must be good is like saying a crap from a poodle is smaller than the crap from a german shepherd and therefore it must smell okay :huh

Honestly though, reading a 10MP RAW image off the disc and rendering it is going to take a while no matter how good the code is. One of the fundamental differeneces between Lighroom and a file browser is that Lightroom keeps a prerendered cache of recently viewed images so, once the cache is built, you can view 10MP RAWs at 2MP JPEG speeds.

[SloYerRoll]

Using the fact that CS3 is so much better than CS2 and therefore must be good is like saying a crap from a poodle is smaller than the crap from a german shepherd and therefore it must smell okay :huhI don't know. I don't smell crap!:rofl

[schmoo]

Honestly though, reading a 10MP RAW image off the disc and rendering it is going to take a while no matter how good the code is. One of the fundamental differeneces between Lighroom and a file browser is that Lightroom keeps a prerendered cache of recently viewed images so, once the cache is built, you can view 10MP RAWs at 2MP JPEG speeds.

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I thought Bridge cached thumbs, too? :ear

[SloYerRoll]

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I thought Bridge cached thumbs, too? :earBr doesn't pre-render files.
When you browase to a folder in Br, it references the XML data in said folder (or wherever you store your XML) and it 'looks' at the image like it's doing it for the first time.

I'm not sure, but I think Br caches each image as long as the application is running. As soon as you quit or exit. It dumps this cache.

[LiquidAir]

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I thought Bridge cached thumbs, too? :ear

Lightroom caches a large enough version of each image to generate a full screen preview which means you can run through a folder white balance, adjusting exposure, and contrast really quickly. It only needs to go to the orginal RAW when you zoom into actual pixels.

[jdryan3]

Lightroom caches a large enough version of each image to generate a full screen preview which means you can run through a folder white balance, adjusting exposure, and contrast really quickly. It only needs to go to the orginal RAW when you zoom into actual pixels.

Now if I can just figure out what all those sliders do... :dunno

[SloYerRoll]

Now if I can just figure out what all those sliders do... :dunnoOnce you figure them out. Lr is so cool! I promise it get's easier. When I first used Lr. I HATED it. Now I have no idea how I would get on w/o it.

-Jon

[NavyMoose]

If you do any siginificant amout of photo processing, you owe it to yourself to use a RAID for your primary drive. These days you can install a 1TB RAID 0 in your computer for not much over $250. In terms of bang for the buck, that's the best deal going in computer upgrades.

RAID 0 ain't raid. R = redundant. RAID 0 isn't redundant. RAID 0 is only striping. :deal If you want speed and protection, you need RAID 0 + 1.

[LiquidAir]

RAID 0 ain't raid. R = redundant. RAID 0 isn't redundant. RAID 0 is only striping. :deal If you want speed and protection, you need RAID 0 + 1.

For many of the reasons pointed out in this thread, RAID 1 is not a substitue for backups. If you are careful about backing up your working data to an offline or remote drive, all a RAID 1 does for you is save you the time of a restore when your working drive goes south.

[BradfordBenn]

Well after spending more time in Lightroom, I keep coming back to this thread to try and figure out the best way to do some things like the sidecar or not to sidecar the XMP info.

Anyone got any comments? The challenge I am having right now is that I want to do keywording in LR and do "Green eye" removal of the dog pictures in Photoshop and keep everything in sync.

[CatOne]

Well after spending more time in Lightroom, I keep coming back to this thread to try and figure out the best way to do some things like the sidecar or not to sidecar the XMP info.

Anyone got any comments? The challenge I am having right now is that I want to do keywording in LR and do "Green eye" removal of the dog pictures in Photoshop and keep everything in sync.

If you need the info/changes to be available to bridge automatically, the you want to check the "auto-save to XMP" box. I think 1.3 or 1.3.1 finally fixed the performance issues associated with this.

I don't use Bridge at all so it's not an issue for me.

[BradfordBenn]

If you need the info/changes to be available to bridge automatically, the you want to check the "auto-save to XMP" box. I think 1.3 or 1.3.1 finally fixed the performance issues associated with this.

I don't use Bridge at all so it's not an issue for me.

Thanks. I am not using Bridge either but notice that when I do edits in PhotoShop CS3 I am losing keywords (but it could just as easily be operator error).

Next question, now that I checked it, is there a way to make sure that the change took place? In other words can I search for the XMP files?:scratch

[zweiblumen]

Thanks. I am not using Bridge either but notice that when I do edits in PhotoShop CS3 I am losing keywords (but it could just as easily be operator error).

Next question, now that I checked it, is there a way to make sure that the change took place? In other words can I search for the XMP files?:scratch

Yes, the .xmp files should be located in the same directory as the images.

[BradfordBenn]

Thanks, I will check that out tonight.

[photocat]

Once you have finished your initial processing changes in LR, all you have to do is export. I export them as jpeg, and keep them in a folder with the original raw files, the folder called Export. So each Raw folder by date and subject has inside an exportdate and subject, that way I have jpeg to work with, and I keep the original files clear, as LR uses non destructive processing. It keeps the originals original, you can always revert to the initial NEF (Nikon) file.

I then burn a DVD of the originals and the export folder with it. I might keep the export folder on my computer for a while, till I am done working with it on short time, but I do have original RAW files and a JPEG worked on version.

I use LR and photoshop... never use bridge.

[BradfordBenn]

Yes, the .xmp files should be located in the same directory as the images.

Is there a different location/extension in Mac world?:dunno I looked and I did a spotlight search.

[SloYerRoll]

Because .xmp files are usually hidden. I don't know which OS your running, but the following should sort you out:

To view all the hidden files in finder. Open terminal and type in the following command:

defaults write com.apple.finder AppleShowAllFiles TRUE
killall Finder

Wow. Looks like mac has all those ugly files that windows has too. They just make it tougher to see them.

To hide all the hidden files again (make Finder act the way it did before):

defaults write com.apple.finder AppleShowAllFiles FALSE
killall Finder

*BTW, all you did was change false to true or vice versa.

[CatOne]

Because .xmp files are usually hidden. I don't know which OS your running, but the following should sort you out:

Wow. Looks like mac has all those ugly files that windows has too. They just make it tougher to see them.


:scratch :scratch :scratch

OS X does not hide .xmp files by default.

It's just that the XMP files may not be generated -- if you use Lightroom you need to tell it to write to XMP files (instead of to its built in database), and if you're using Bridge there's an explicit setting for it to use the xmp sidecar files instead of storing the information in the cache. Not exactly sure of the setting though... I use LR for this :wink

[SloYerRoll]

Maybe this was a setting I changed a while back and don't remember it. All my .xmp files are hidden though. I can see them in Br. But not in Windows Explorer.

Oh well, it's not that then:wink

[BradfordBenn]

Okay. So I tried the Show Hidden Files, nothing visible.

So I did a search/spotlight for xmp - nothing

So I here is the way I have stuff set in LR 1.3.1
http://bradfordbenn.smugmug.com/photos/239689843-M.png
and I created a few new image edits to make sure that it might need to be updated. Does it only take effect on catalog creation?

[SloYerRoll]

I'm guessing a bit here. But I'm pretty sure you can tell bridge to either write the .xmp files in the same folder as the images are stored or you can have one central location where all your .xmp files save themselves.

Anyone know about this on a Mac?

[DavidTO]

I'm guessing a bit here. But I'm pretty sure you can tell bridge to either write the .xmp files in the same folder as the images are stored or you can have one central location where all your .xmp files save themselves.

Anyone know about this on a Mac?


Yeah. Why would it be any different? Answer: no reason! :deal

[SloYerRoll]

Just making sure :D

[jdryan3]

It's just that the XMP files may not be generated -- if you use Lightroom you need to tell it to write to XMP files (instead of to its built in database), and if you're using Bridge there's an explicit setting for it to use the xmp sidecar files instead of storing the information in the cache. Not exactly sure of the setting though... I use LR for this :wink

I'll have to follow this thread. I set my XMP files to being local in the folder (going back several versions) because if you used the 'file browser' and moved the image file (like .CR2) to took the associated XMP with it. Could shuffle images around all day long and retain the link.

But it seems if you commit to LR and its database of XMP data, you can't switch back and forth between LR to manage you images and using Bridge or File Manager / Finder. You would hose either Lightroom's tracking of the images or break the link between the image file and the XMP sidecar. Is this correct?

[BradfordBenn]

Okay so I did a search again, still can't find any. :dunno Maybe the catalog has to be started that way?