Lightroom gives you more flexibility, especially if you like to use the keyboard instead of the mouse. 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. In Bridge, tagging is mostly about typing and clicking check boxes. Some points in favor of Lightroom are the extensive keywording options that it has over Bridge. 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. Do you primarily use Bridge, or Lightroom? Ian - the tone of your reply seems to suggest you are "not so enamored by Lightroom". 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. Or, is there some well-populated repository of Bridge scripts that I am not aware of? (definitely *not* "The Exchange"). 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.
#Adobe bridge for photo manament mac 2016 software
Sounds like I should be using Bridge instead of Lightroom (and Adobe should be reconsidering Lr software design ).īridge has a powerful, scripting language, which is more than can be said for Lr. So far as editing images go, ACR is faster than Lr at pretty much everything. This seems like a glaring omission in Lightroom. I'm sure some people really appreciate this.Īlso, unlike Lr, metadata can be 'appended' or 'replaced', which a pretty major benefit to those who make extensive use of metadata. Seems like another Lr area that is ripe for improvement.Īlso, unlike Lr, the UI is very flexible in so far as panels can be moved around. 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. it can use the embedded previews, thus making it way faster than Lr. I know a lot more about Lightroom than Bridge. (I thought one of the advantages of Lightroom (over Bridge) was the database, and consequent speed for lib filtering and what have you). I stand corrected - my apology for disseminating misinformation. This was long before many of the current pre release testers (Lr and Bridge) even knew Lr existed. The external folk who drove Lr in the direction it eventually went were the same folk who drove Bridge.
#Adobe bridge for photo manament mac 2016 code
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. Bridge has a powerful, scripting language, which is more than can be said for Lr. Also, unlike Lr, metadata can be 'appended' or 'replaced', which a pretty major benefit to those who make extensive use of metadata. Also, unlike Lr, the UI is very flexible in so far as panels can be moved around. For example, it can use the embedded previews, thus making it way faster than Lr. In 'some' respects, Bridge is better and faster than Lr for some users. Lightroom uses an image database, Bridge just "wings it" without the database.Īctually, Bridge does use a database.
0 kommentar(er)
