Moving from LightRoom to Bridge/CS3
zweiblumen
Registered Users Posts: 369 Major grins
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'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?
Travis
0
Comments
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.
Welcome to Bridgefolks!
Thanks!
Select image(s) -> Metadata -> Save Metadata to File(s) :ivar
Don't know why I couldn't find that...
Dgrin FAQ | Me | Workshops
A former sports shooter
Follow me at: https://www.flickr.com/photos/bjurasz/
My Etsy store: https://www.etsy.com/shop/mercphoto?ref=hdr_shop_menu
Briefly: yes
www.tednghiem.com
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.
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
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...
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.
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.
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.
A former sports shooter
Follow me at: https://www.flickr.com/photos/bjurasz/
My Etsy store: https://www.etsy.com/shop/mercphoto?ref=hdr_shop_menu
You're a DB guy but you don't trust a database
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.
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
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.
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 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.
My photos
"The future is an illusion, but a damned handy one." - David Allen
You're right, it's SQLite. I was a bit distracted with the whole ER thingie last nite...
Isn't that DNG?
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
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?
Pictures | Website | Blog | Twitter | Contact
Make sure you have LR1.2 update...
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.
Pictures | Website | Blog | Twitter | Contact
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.
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.
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.
Pictures | Website | Blog | Twitter | Contact
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,
-Jon
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