Why do solo photographers still use Bridge?

[Geoff F]

My philosophy is "Don't fix it if it ain't broke!" and Bridge "ain't broke" for me! I played with LR one time and found that I did not like it. Perhaps it was a learning curve thing but, I evaluated what LR could do and what BR could do and I decided that Bridge was what I needed. I have had absolutely no problems with BR as the entry portion of my workflow

Same with me.

If Bridge does everything I need with so little effort why faff around with something complex like Lightroom when I edit everything with Photoshop CC anyway.

Lightroom comes with the CC package but, after a few attempts which just took me round in ever decreasing circles, it now sits on the desktop unused. If I could get just the Photoshop part of CC that is the way I would go.

[jisner]

Are you really interested in why some people here use Bridge rather than LR? (I don't, for what it is worth.) It seems that you want to argue the case for LR.

I wanted to understand peoples' reasons for using Bridge. I should have left it at that and not engaged in Lightroom advocacy.

[Saorsa]

I use the Windows 10 file manager to manage my files. I can keyword, star, insert comments in exif, lotsa stuff but many don't work at the OS level.

[Mike Buckley]

I want to understand peoples' reasons for using Bridge. I should probably have left it at that and not engaged in Lightroom advocacy.

It definitely would have been better in my mind if you hadn't twice disparaged people who are reluctant to learn how to use new software.

[jisner]

It definitely would have been better in my mind if you hadn't twice disparaged people who are reluctant to learn how to use new software.

I'm not aware that I did that. If you are offended by anything I said, I apologize.

I will start another thread similar to this one: "Why do solo photographers still print from Photoshop?" I'll try to avoid giving offense.

[Manfred M]

I will start another thread similar to this one: "Why do solo photographers still print from Photoshop?" I'll try to avoid giving offense.

I'm not really sure what this really adds to the knowledge base here, other than trying to be provocative, seems rather pointless.

People do what works for them. I always print from Photoshop, because I happen to be working in it at the time I finish getting my image print ready (output sharpening). Does going to Lightroom or some other piece of software, like Capture One add anything useful to the workflow?

If the answer is no, why are you asking?

[Stagecoach]

This year I started to process multiple images simultaneously in ACR, which is achieved by making multiple files selections in ViewNX2, then right clicking and choosing Open With > "Photoshop CC 2017" (which loads them all in to ACR).

Thank you Dave !

I also use a ViewNX - ACR - PS workflow.

A recent tip in a post of yours that detailed how the preferences in ACR could be set to automatically open jpegs in ACR saved me a considerable amount of time this last weekend when working through 700 images and doing quick edits on those that needed it.

With this latest one I now know the quick method to place multiple image in ACR from ViewNX when needed

Grahame

[jisner]

If the answer is no, why are you asking?

Because the answer is not "no."

[Mike Buckley]

Thank you for your apology, John. Very classy of you.

[pnodrog]

I wanted to understand peoples' reasons for using Bridge. I should have left it at that and not engaged in Lightroom advocacy.

John years ago (early 90's) an innovative growing software company producing tools for software developers sent out a questionnaire in an effort to find out why there was such a low uptake on their new and improved tools. They promised to send the results back to anyone returning the questionnaire.

It turned out that programmers (a group they expected to be very adaptive) once they were familiar with and became productive using the tools they had, resisted learning new tools unless they were very significantly better than what they were using. The programmers were far more interested in the challenges of the work they were doing rather than how efficiently they did it. Learning new tools was often viewed as an unnecessary distraction.

Probably the same for most photographers.

[Mike Buckley]

Interesting information, Paul!

As a follow up to that, it seems to me that for some hobby photographers, learning the capabilities of various software programs is part of the hobby. The people who enjoy that process seem to passionately enjoy it. The others would rather make do with whatever software they have learned to use so long as it seems to be good enough at meeting their needs. I'm in the latter camp but I respect and appreciate the passion of those who are in the former camp.

[jisner]

Doesn't that depend on whether one is using BR in conjunction with ACR? The ACR and LR interfaces for many of the develop functions are quite similar, and some are identical.

Lightroom's Develop module has the same functionality as ACR in Bridge, since both Lightroom and Bridge use ACR as the underlying engine. So there would be no learning curve at all if Develop was the only Lightroom module you used! However Lightroom was designed to encompass the entire photographic workflow, from capture to print or export, and there are modules for each stage of the workflow. Lightroom also works hand-in-hand with Photoshop when you need Photoshop for things that can't be done in Lightroom. So when I say Lightroom has a steep learning curve, I'm talking about learning to follow Lightroom's workflow, which includes a very different way of managing your photos.

I am not someone who believes you should do everything in Lightroom. I use minimal Develop features (exposure, white balance, capture sharpening...), go to Photoshop for serious retouching, then return to Lightroom to print or export. This "round-trip" workflow is popular with Lightroom users.

[jisner]

The programmers were far more interested in the challenges of the work they were doing rather than how efficiently they did it. Learning new tools was often viewed as an unnecessary distraction.

I was one of those programmer artistes until my job was outsourced to a more efficient worker