Mini Bridge in Photoshop CC 2020

[rpcrowe]

I didn't use Mini Bridge very often but I liked it for doing composites. It was easy for me to have thumbnails of the various images with which I plan to work along the bottom of the workspace.

Apparently, PS CC2020 no longer supports Mini Bridge (at least I could not find it under the FILE menu) but, my wife's copy of PSE 2020 has thumbnails along the bottom of the workspace.

I really liked having the thumbnails right at hand and liked being able to drag and drop into the image that I am compositing.

Is there any way to do this or something like this without Mini Bridge.

I guess that I am asking how to arrange images for compositing in Photoshop CC 2020...

[Geoff F]

I had looked at Mini Bridge a few times but never saw any point in it when full Bridge did the same things plus so much more.

You can do what you want in Bridge but I will have to open the programme and have a think about the actual method. I tend to use copy and paste instead.

[pschlute]

You can achieve the same result by opening the two images you want to work on in Photoshop and by using the move tool simply drag one image (or part of that image) into another. Click and hold the image you want to move and drag the cursor up to the tab of the second image. When the second image shows in your workspace drag down again and release.

[Manfred M]

Peter beat me to it. The only "issue" is that the images have to be open in a separate Photoshop tab.

Like Geoff, I had never quite figured out why I would want to use Mini-Bridge when Bridge was so much more powerful.

[pschlute]

I have never looked at Bridge although i get it with my Photography plan. As I use LR to catalogue my images is there any point in using Bridge too ?

[Manfred M]

I have never looked at Bridge although i get it with my Photography plan. As I use LR to catalogue my images is there any point in using Bridge too ?

I don't use Lightroom because I don't use the catalogue. I use Bridge / Adobe Camera Raw; I prefer the user interface and the flexibility. I also use various other Adobe software; Premiere Pro, Illustrator, InDesign, Audition, etc. so Bridge is how a access all of these.

[Geoff F]

I have checked the Bridge operation to refresh my memory about this method for creating and using images in a collection. In reality it is quite easy to do but more difficult to describe how to perform the operation.

Basically, in Bridge, go to the left side of the Bridge workspace and select Collections. Create a new collection (from + folder at the bottom).

Find your required original images. You can use the Folders menu which is also on the left side. Select and drag your required images into the new Collections folder. You can select and drag a number of images at the same time.

To use these images stored in the new Collection, simply drag a thumbnail into your working area. Images may require resizing etc.

You may wish to resize and move around the Bridge window area to suit your screen size.

Regarding Lightroom etc. I have tried it a few times but found the whole software to be weird and unnecessarily complicated compared with the simplicity of Bridge which does everything that I have ever required for image management and storage etc.

[DanK]

It seems to me that the bottom lines in the LR/ACR debate boil down to two:

1. If you don't make use of the additional functions of LR and plugins available for it, they are a wash: anything you can do in one, you can do in the other. The control panels are very similar, but the overall layout is different. So, whichever you are familiar with is likely to seem easier to you. LR is much easier for me than ACR not because it is better, but because it is more familiar to me.

2. If you do want to make use of the additional functions LR and its plugins offer, LR becomes far more capable. The obvious example is the cataloging functions, but that isn't the only one. LR has a superb print module that allows you to store any combination of parameters you want (paper medium, printer firmware settings, paper size, margins, etc.) as a template. For example, if I want to print on 13 x 19 Canson Baryta, with room for signature, I simply call up that template, and every setting is taken care of. My one test of uprezzing showed no difference between LR and Photoshop. Some additional capabilities are quite specialized. For example, if you focus stack with Zerene, as I do, LR is a great deal faster. I can call up one image in a stack, correct the WB (I shoot macro under halogens) and occasionally something else, sync that to the entire stack, and export the entire stack to Zerene with a plugin. LR will create the TIF files needed, with parameters I have set in advance and stored in its plugin manager, execute Zerene, and load the TIFFs into it. The whole process takes only a few keystrokes.

I'm not proselytizing. However, I think it is worth sorting out these two different aspects of the comparison for people who, unlike several of us here, still need to choose.

[pschlute]

As someone who used Photoshop Elements before LR, one thing I found invaluable was that importing my existing Elements catalogue meant that all the keywords and collections I had created over the years were carried over into LR.

I tend not to do much editing* in LR as Photoshop is more familiar to an Elements user. The Adobe plan gives me both so I am very happy.

* I do find the HDR merge and graduated filter tools easier to use in LR.

[Manfred M]

* I do find the HDR merge and graduated filter tools easier to use in LR.

Both are found in Adobe Camera Raw (ACR) as well and so far as I can tell, the functionality and speed are identical to Lightrooms (LR). I've found the same to be true with Photomerge, used to create panoramas. The old Photoshop version is not as talented or fast as the ACR / LR version, but there have been instances where the final product is superior (i.e. Photomerge failed in ACR / LR but worked in Photoshop).

[DanK]

I experimented with the HDR in photoshop only once but was so put off by the distortions of color that I never used it a second time. By contrast, I have been very pleased with the ACR/LR functions. I prefer exposure fusion--the automated version of manual blending--to HDR because it does nothing at all to colors, and I had been using a Lightroom plugin for this (LR Enfuse). I have found that the LR merge-to-HDR function produces results reasonably similar to exposure fusion, with no obvious color distortions.

[Gallifings]

I experimented with the HDR in photoshop only once but was so put off by the distortions of color that I never used it a second time. By contrast, I have been very pleased with the ACR/LR functions. I prefer exposure fusion--the automated version of manual blending--to HDR because it does nothing at all to colors, and I had been using a Lightroom plugin for this (LR Enfuse). I have found that the LR merge-to-HDR function produces results reasonably similar to exposure fusion, with no obvious color distortions.

huge thanks for recommendations.
do you have any photos to share as an example? thanks again

[DanK]

huge thanks for recommendations.
do you have any photos to share as an example? thanks again

Sorry, I don't. I deleted the PS HDR one from my website and don't have my main photo catalog with me.