| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/17/2010 03:29:57 PM · #1 |
I still haven't made friends with bridge for organizing files.
Here's my recent problem:
I'm creating a calendar for my family. I have pulled together about 50 photos in a collection called "calendar". The problem is: I've pulled together the photos, but I'm modifying them for the calendar -- different crops, adjustments, etc.
However, when I save the modified file under a different name, it doesn't put it in the same collection. Then I have to go search for those modified files all over again. It will remember a few of the recent files, but when I'm working with 50, opening pictures using the "recent files" option isn't very helpful. Is there anyway to save the modified file into the same collection? Or into a new collection? I could use save as and just put them all in a new folder on the hard drive, but I really would like to keep them with their originals.
thanks
|
|
|
|
12/17/2010 05:38:54 PM · #2 |
|
|
|
12/17/2010 05:40:43 PM · #3 |
| I don't think I understand the problem, but if you do a Save As in Photoshop, even if you use the same file name, you will at least see which folder the file is going to. But I don't know what that has to do with Bridge, so I'm pretty sure that's not useful information. Sorry! |
|
|
|
12/17/2010 10:17:01 PM · #4 |
I hesitated to post this opinion, but it's probably worth noting that Bridge is really not an organizational tool. Not a good one anyway. For this, Lightroom is a far superior solution. I do understand that Lr is rather expensive, and it has its own learning curve. But if you shoot a lot of stuff that you want to keep organized, and if an efficient, non-destructive workflow (none of Lr's edits actually change your original files) is important, it is well worth considering. Just recognize that it has a interface that does take some getting used to.
Message edited by author 2010-12-17 22:17:24. |
|
|
|
12/17/2010 10:44:10 PM · #5 |
Don't hesitate. I tried a trial version of lightroom when it first came out, and I loved some of it, but was irritated that I had to save the files out and still work on them in photoshop to do simple things like burning and dodging. I didn't particularly understand their organizing system, but didn't explore it very much.
I just keep thinking that there are things I must be missing in bridge -- organizer (elements) was so incredibly useful. I really liked it. I'd still be using it instead of bridge except that I can't open the files into photoshop from organizer, so that makes it useless. Surely people who use photoshop must want to organize and categorize their files...?
|
|
|
|
12/17/2010 11:10:23 PM · #6 |
| Should have read your topic before creating my own asking for feedback about ACDSee Pro. Part of the reason I'm looking at ACDSee is because of the same sorts of frustrations you are experiencing with LR (amongst others). IMO, a lot of the PP software seems to be becoming more and more 'clever' but less and less user friendly. FWIW, if you are looking for an easy to use and inexpenseive organizer/basic editor, then ACDSee 12 is well worth looking at. However, it lacks a RAW 'developer' and a few other features, which is why I'm considering the (more expensive) Pro version. |
|
|
|
12/18/2010 10:20:31 AM · #7 |
Originally posted by vawendy:
Don't hesitate. I tried a trial version of lightroom when it first came out, and I loved some of it, but was irritated that I had to save the files out and still work on them in photoshop to do simple things like burning and dodging. I didn't particularly understand their organizing system, but didn't explore it very much.
I just keep thinking that there are things I must be missing in bridge -- organizer (elements) was so incredibly useful. I really liked it. I'd still be using it instead of bridge except that I can't open the files into photoshop from organizer, so that makes it useless. Surely people who use photoshop must want to organize and categorize their files...? |
With LR 3 (and 2 - I use 2) there are now selective adjustments that can be done which, to me, are far more flexible and easy to use than the dodge and burn tools in PS.
|
|
|
|
12/18/2010 10:56:26 AM · #8 |
| I wasn't following your post at all Wendy, then I looked at my own Bridge set up and realised I don't even have collections showing, didn't even know it existed. Can't help, as I don't know what it's even supposed to do, so sorry for that! I may go and play for a few minutes, see if it's useful. |
|
|
|
12/18/2010 11:12:03 AM · #9 |
Originally posted by cpanaioti:
With LR 3 (and 2 - I use 2) there are now selective adjustments that can be done which, to me, are far more flexible and easy to use than the dodge and burn tools in PS. |
Yes!
The implementation of the gradient tool takes a little getting used to, it's... well... different. But it works well once you get the hang of it, and being non-destructive is one hell of an advantage. The other *huge* spot editing advantage is the ability to copy/repeat cloning for sensor dust. I face dust issues regularly because I do a lot of small-aperture work (macro, microscopy) where dust shows up easily, and my (work) camera moves around a lot, so it gets dusty on a regular basis.
Lr does take getting used to but it is a fantastic organizational tool once you have mastered it. I strongly recommend for anyone trying out Lr to get a book and really learn the features. You won't go back to anything else. FWIW, I was not initially a fan of Lr; I thought it was a resource hog, and the interface was buggy and slow. That all changed with Lr 2.x, and I have not looked back. |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 11/07/2025 03:46:39 AM EST.
