Skip navigation
Lorenzo Colloreta 32 posts
Sep 21, 2009
Currently Being Moderated

15 minutes and already missing Output Module in Bridge CC!

Jun 18, 2013 12:49 AM

As simple as the subject.. please.. bring it back!

 

Adobe Output Module was an essential tool in Bridge, possibly the key feature to show people why to use Bridge.

 

Any good news in the near future?

 

 

L.

 
Replies 1 2 3 Previous Next
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 18, 2013 1:11 AM   in reply to Lorenzo Colloreta

    http://helpx.adobe.com/bridge/using/whats-new.html

     

    Basically, you now use Photoshop or Lightroom instead.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Omke Oudeman
    3,999 posts
    Nov 27, 2004
    Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 18, 2013 1:34 AM   in reply to Dave Merchant

    Basically, you now use Photoshop or Lightroom instead.

     

     

    I'm sorry but this is really one of the most unhelpful answer I ever read.

     

    You mean, they screwed up Bridge by dumping the Output Module (and export panel and synchronized windows) and now we should be satisfied with the very old and obsolete Contactsheet script from about 10 years old without offering the options available that we were used to in AOM??

     

    But he, never mind Bridge, forget about it, switch to Lightroom…

     

    You really must be joking and should be ashamed of your self. The fact that you have the title of MVP and +++ does not mean you have the right to tell people to drop Bridge. You clearly have no insight in the dedication users in this forum have to Bridge as unmissable part of their workflow!

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Omke Oudeman
    3,999 posts
    Nov 27, 2004
    Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 18, 2013 1:49 AM   in reply to Lorenzo Colloreta

    Any good news in the near future?

     

     

    Here is a copy of part of the article Lesa Snider wrote on MacWorld.com, it sure gives hope for the future:

     

     

     

    Adobe Bridge CC

    Bridge CC is now a separate installation from Photoshop CC, making it even less discoverable than before (and you must install it to get the Mini Bridge panel in Photoshop). Also, in order to optimize Bridge CC for “…modern operating systems and display resolutions,” Adobe unfortunately removed some useful, relatively new features. The most glaring omission is the Adobe Output Module (AOM) for creating Web galleries and PDFs. And if you go searching for the Export panel—useful in converting multiple images from one format to another and quickly posting images on Flickr and Facebook—you won’t find it, either. Also missing is the New Synchronized Window command, which let you have two instances of Bridge open at the same time.

     

    Will any of these omitted features return in future versions? Only time will tell, though Adobe says its team is working on a separate, downloadable output solution. While it’s understandable for Adobe to focus its efforts on paid products, that’s no excuse for the emasculation of Bridge. If your current workflow depends on the AOM, keep using Bridge CS6. But if you’re new to the program or have never used those features, you won’t miss them, and you’ll be pleasantly pleased by the zippier performance of Bridge CC.

     

     

    Here is the link for the complete review:

    http://www.macworld.com/article/2041626/review-photoshop-cc-struts-its -actions-filters-and-enlargements-but-leaves-bridge-in-limbo.html

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 18, 2013 7:32 AM   in reply to Omke Oudeman

    Omke Oudeman wrote:

     

    I'm sorry but this is really one of the most unhelpful answer I ever read.

    Dave answers posts in the Forum section frequently.  I have commented that he is out of touch with the users needs and has a hard line support for Adobe's current position.  He denies this.  His statement today reinforces that opinion.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Omke Oudeman
    3,999 posts
    Nov 27, 2004
    Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 18, 2013 8:01 AM   in reply to Curt Y

    His statement today reinforces that opinion.

     

     

    Thanks, it was a bit unusual for me to respond this way but his answer to a very legitimate statement of the OP really made me very, very mad

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 18, 2013 8:08 AM   in reply to Curt Y

    Nothing in my previous reply indicates whether or not I agree with the changes made in Bridge CC. I'm repeating what the documentation says, hence the link. Bridge used to be a repository for tools that didn't have anywhere else to go, but those features are being actively migrated out to the main applications and it's reverting to the original intention of a lightweight file browser and XMP editor.

     

    If you don't like Adobe's policy on this matter, http://www.adobe.com/go/wish

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 18, 2013 8:47 AM   in reply to Dave Merchant

    Ha! I've never seen that URL before (I always assumed we used the feedback website). I wonder if there's another similar URL for people not subscribing to CC, where the subdirectory begins with an F.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Omke Oudeman
    3,999 posts
    Nov 27, 2004
    Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 18, 2013 8:49 AM   in reply to Dave Merchant

    Nothing in my previous reply indicates whether or not I agree with the changes made in Bridge CC.

     

    Also nothing that you disagree

     

     

    Bridge used to be a repository for tools that didn't have anywhere else to go, but those features are being actively migrated out to the main applications and it's reverting to the original intention of a lightweight file browser and XMP editor.

     

     

    No, Bridge always was meant to be the 'central station' for the complete Suite, the fact each department at Adobe has its own rules, wishes and ideas (read, not able to work together properly despite the ongoing effort of PM's like John Nack and Tom Hogarty to turn the tide) has stopped its development, lack of resources did the rest despite also great efforts of a small team in China trying to make the best out of it.

     

    The China team also put a lot of effort in the transition to 64 bit but without proper resources they missed the opportunity to add needed improvement and repairing bugs.

     

    Now Adobe decided that due to these bugs (asked for, begged for to repair) it was easier to delete the complete features instead of repairing. Also HiDPI support was a reason to dump it. I have no objection at all to extra support for future hardware, fact is that the vast majority of users does not have such a screen and it will take years before everyone owns such technology.

     

    So yes, make AOM optional so users can decided themselves if they prefer HiDPI support on their HiDPI screens without AOM or with AOM that does not show HiDPI.

     

    There have been timeless requests to improve AOM and Bridge, having forum posts like yours with links to dull statements of the company itself does not help at all, strong protest does.

     

    And you should know yourself that an old script that was abandoned in CS4 (read, replaced by the AOM) and due to some strong yelling of wrong people brought back this very simple script. They hired the original writer (X-Bytor) to make it again available for CS6.

     

    Until AOM appeared in CS4 I was pleased with the contact sheet II script and X-Bytor really had made something useful for that time period. Yet instead of hire the mans talent to make more out of AOM they only let him rewrite an old script.

     

    It can only produce separate pages that need to be saved after ready, not to mention the effort it takes to create a multi-paged document out of it. As said, at its time great but that was 10 years ago, we got a bit further in technology…

     

    Pointing to LR is not useful, the great thing about Bridge (at least that was the goal) that all files used in the Master Suite where readable and visible. Due to different teams and in my opinion unwilling people this still has not been achieved.

     

    LR is a tool for photographers, not for designers, moviemakers etc etc. Repeating such useless company statements that completely denies the existence of other users then photographers for Bridge is not only pointless but also not very wise (to put it mildly)

     

    Bridge still can be the vital key of the Suite, but if people like you keep denying this and put it away as some simple tool for left overs because clearly you don't see the power of the tool itself.

     

    Already many people made Bridge CS6 key of their workflow, LR is not only a very different animal, it simply can't do what Bridge in its previous state (CS6) is capable of.

     

    Just try to imagine what power Bridge already could have if just all product managers at Adobe had their minds set to it.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 18, 2013 8:53 AM   in reply to Omke Oudeman

    Hear hear!

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 18, 2013 8:56 AM   in reply to Lorenzo Colloreta

    Not responding with anything useful, just agreeing with your rant, installed CC this afternoon and discovered the Output module gone, probably the main thing I use bridge for.

    I don't want to use Photoshop or Lightroom or other raster related products to output my mixed vector and raster files for PDF contact sheets.

     

    Can we PLEASE have it back?

     

    I've sold my soul to Adobe, please don't make me regret it on the first day!

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Sven Brencher
    30 posts
    Apr 25, 2009
    Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 18, 2013 9:02 AM   in reply to Lorenzo Colloreta

    I miss this too, but I just leave Bridge CS6 on my computer. So I have Bridge CC for High DPI support and Bridge CS6 when I need to create PDF contact sheets.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 18, 2013 9:04 AM   in reply to Sven Brencher

    Good idea. I have not yet uninstalled it. But it's ridiculous.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 18, 2013 9:24 AM   in reply to Lorenzo Colloreta

    http://helpx.adobe.com/bridge/using/whats-new.html#community

     

    This is a joke. They gutted this software and called it an "Upgrade". 

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 18, 2013 9:32 AM   in reply to hami1car

    hami1car wrote:

     

    http://helpx.adobe.com/bridge/using/whats-new.html#community

     

    This is a joke. They gutted this software and called it an "Upgrade". 

    Did they even fix the repeat extraction bug?

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 18, 2013 10:19 AM   in reply to Lorenzo Colloreta

    Couldn't agree more. It was the simplest and most powerful way to construct a pdf of images that I could find. I missed it within 5 mins - it was the first things I checked!!@!!!

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Omke Oudeman
    3,999 posts
    Nov 27, 2004
    Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 18, 2013 10:27 AM   in reply to simonwb

    I missed it within 5 mins - it was the first things I checked!!@!!!

     

     

    Stay tuned, they are working on it as it seems, see this link and read the bottom lines

     

    http://helpx.adobe.com/bridge/kb/pdf-presentation-web-gallery-availabl e.html

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 18, 2013 10:29 AM   in reply to Omke Oudeman

    "The Bridge team is working on providing a separate, downloadable solution to reinstate the output functionality after Bridge CC is available."

    I wonder how many people are in the "team".

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 18, 2013 10:38 AM   in reply to Omke Oudeman

    OK, good news. Do you know how long the 'working on it' normally takes? I wonder if it is worth me creating another method in, say, In Design or waiting?

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 18, 2013 10:38 AM   in reply to Yammer

    Also be great to know if after means 'after 1 week' or '6 months'.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 18, 2013 10:40 AM   in reply to simonwb

    They've been working on a fix for the repeat extraction bug since December 2011.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Omke Oudeman
    3,999 posts
    Nov 27, 2004
    Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 18, 2013 11:12 AM   in reply to Yammer

    They've been working on a fix for the repeat extraction bug since December 2011.

     

     

    I'll understand the sarcasm…

     

     

    Also be great to know if after means 'after 1 week' or '6 months'.

     

     

     

    If I had to bet I would put my money on 1 week and certainly not 6 months, the Bridge team is a small team, yet filled with very dedicated people!!

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 18, 2013 11:15 AM   in reply to Yammer

    Oh

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 18, 2013 11:18 AM   in reply to Omke Oudeman

    I suppose it depends on their 'to do' list.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 18, 2013 2:40 PM   in reply to Lorenzo Colloreta

    This deletion is inexcusable Adobe.  Although very Apple like, just deleting something because they feel they know what is best for us and we will have to conform to a different workflow yet again. 

     

    Don't give your customers any reason to look elsewhere Adobe.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 18, 2013 6:38 PM   in reply to Limbo Design

    Agreed.

    - The Export workflow has become essential to my work. Luckily Bridge CS6 stayed on my Mac, although i am not sure why i have two versions of bridge now on my Computer.

     

    They say Adobe CC is cheaper than the constant updates of desktop versions; CC installation issues have cost me so much time, i might switch back to desktop versions in the future ...

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 18, 2013 7:11 PM   in reply to Jens Gaethje

    You should have CS6 Bridge and CC Bridge.  Just like always with new versions.

     

    Unless Adobe changes policy there will be no more desktop versions.  CS6 was the last of its kind.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 19, 2013 11:14 AM   in reply to Curt Y

    This is nothing but a joke! I don not want to keep 2 versions of the same software on my Mac indefinitely. I am planning to run both concurrrently until Apple release OSX 10.9 – at which point a fresh install of everything seems like a good piece of housekeeping. Come on Adobe pull you fingers out – how many more things are you going to break in the name of 'progress'? Been very supportive of this whole CC thing whilst many colleagues have been critical. Less than a day and I have egg on my face!

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 19, 2013 11:31 AM   in reply to RollDotHome

    From all the posts I read if you only have one version of PS on your computer you are setting yourself up for frustration.  This is especially true if photography is your business.

     

    An update can, and frequently does, cause havoc.  A fall back position is welcome until Adobe fixes problem.  Storage is cheap today so no reason you need more space. 

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 19, 2013 11:53 AM   in reply to Curt Y

    Photoshop files (or files generated by Photoshop – TIFF, JPEG etc) are pretty much backward compatable. Files generated by InDesign, Illustrator particularly, are not. The issue here is with Bridge which in some ways is the glue that holds the suite together and it's sorely lacking in functions at this point in time. Acrobat is not in the standard upgrade cycle but is upgraded when it's ready – why could they not have done the same with Bridge?

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Omke Oudeman
    3,999 posts
    Nov 27, 2004
    Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 19, 2013 2:05 PM   in reply to RollDotHome

    Photoshop files (or files generated by Photoshop – TIFF, JPEG etc) are pretty much backward compatable. Files generated by InDesign, Illustrator particularly, are not.

     

    That is partly through, PSD, tiff and jpeg are relatively old world standards, they tried to introduce jpeg2000 but that did not succeed very well. ID and AI have the option to downgrade compatibility in the save dialog, as does Microsoft with Office to get the 'x' version for their documents as a standard but still offers a downgrade compatible save option.

     

    Some file types need newest versions to contain all the new options. It is not always a way to force people to upgrades although it sure plays its role

     

     

    The issue here is with Bridge which in some ways is the glue that holds the suite together and it's sorely lacking in functions at this point in time.

     

    Exactly my point, it could be a very powerful glue if everyone at Adobe does want it to be, sadly enough this still is not the case, despite loads of feature requests Bridge has not really changed other then to 64 bit (which is a major operation btw) and some small improvements. Basically it does not offer more and better options then the CS4 edition. Deleting important functions without offering good (read better) alternatives is indeed a frustratingly stupid move made by bean counters and to high up sitting management.

     

     

    Acrobat is not in the standard upgrade cycle but is upgraded when it's ready – why could they not have done the same with Bridge?

     

    That is a legitimate question you probably won't get an answer on. Any listed company at the stock exchange isn't allowed to provide such details about future updates etc.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 21, 2013 12:37 PM   in reply to Lorenzo Colloreta

    http://helpx.adobe.com/bridge/using/whats-new.html#community

     

    I can't believe they got rid of it. Really really really really really really dumb. What a waste of an hour today to acompish the SAME task as yesterday.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 23, 2013 11:45 AM   in reply to IceBoxStudios

    Simply do not understand why this has been taken out of Bridge?

     

    The Contact sheet is not a good replacement, the LR print is not either!

     

     

    What's the reasoning behind this decission?
    You have a product with features that are used by us every day. Why take this out?

     

     

    A real bad decission not based on user needs!

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 23, 2013 2:26 PM   in reply to Lorenzo Colloreta

    This... makes me so sad. The whole reason I use Bridge is because we create contact sheets on a daily basis. A few minutes ago I tried creating a contact sheet using the way Adobe now suggests, by going through photoshop, but it took... well it took long enough that I'm now typing on this forum and it's still flashing away in the background.

     

    Why did they do this?! Adobe LR is not a good solution. I don't upload all of my images to LR (specifically because you have to load them instead of just viewing them... drives me nuts for sorting images on the network). So I guess it's goodbye to bridge, hello to googling programs that make contact sheets efficiently.  /endrant/

     

     

    Aha... photoshop just finished making that contact sheet.

    And I should have made the thumbnails a little bigger.

    From scratch we go!

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 25, 2013 9:10 PM   in reply to Lorenzo Colloreta

    I'm also missing this feature, but as Omke points out, Adobe is currently working on it. No idea why would they remove it, but I saw this video: http://tv.adobe.com/watch/adobe-evangelists-julieanne-kost/should-i-us e-lightroom-or-bridge/ (I know is a Lightroom vs Bridge workflow video) where Julieanne Kost talks about the reasons why Adobe made Bridge in the first place, for me it shed some light on Adobe's POV on Bridge.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 30, 2013 10:55 AM   in reply to Søren Langkilde Madsen

    Just discovered this today as well. I had very specific settings I used for my contact sheets in Bridge. Do not want to take the extensive time required to learn how to do this now in Lightroom. I also agree with the comments that it was FAR more convenient with Bridge because it simply looks at a group of images. You must IMPORT the images into LR, which is then added to the catalog. Completely unnecessary.

     

    Adobe needs to remind itself of the VALUE of Bridge. They seem to see it as their red -headed stepchild, giving it only short shrift attention. When will Adobe REALLY add some actual every day photographers onto their advisery groups so their ivory tower programmers (r.e. Julieannne Kost) can be brought back to reality.

     

    I began using Creative Cloud early this year. I'm paying now more per year than I was previously. I am getting tired of Adobe forcing unwanted things upon me, and completely ignoring how much time and effort is required when major features of a program are simply eliminated.

     

    I'm currently trying to find the settings in LR that will emulate the contact sheets I've been making in Bridge for years. It's not easy or intuitive, that's for sure.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 30, 2013 12:01 PM   in reply to scott-david-weaver

    When will Adobe REALLY add some actual every day photographers onto their advisery groups

     

    Adobe have done just that and they are the cause of the problem!

     

    A number of them are staunch sponsors of Lightroom;

    have been involved with Lr from the beginning;

    seem to understand little of the needs of the graphic arts industry in general (beyond the needs of amateur photographers);

    and their extremely vociferous voices carry far too much weight within the halls of Adobe!

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 30, 2013 12:09 PM   in reply to CameraAnn

    I don't know. I hear J. Kost in her videos claim that LR was created FOR photogs BY photogs. Can hardly believe that, as the program seemed so unintuitive to me after having used PS and Bridge for many years.

     

    I know that Martin Evening said he questioned the need for the LR program when Adobe approached him about it. I think he was quite satisfied working with PS and Bridge until them. I don't know him, this is just an impression from his early comments. He is, of course, a huge LR supporter at this point.

     

    My main issue is with Adobe abruptly changing things and seeming to care little about the problems they are creating among the user base, who are mostliy professionals to whom time is money. "Ivory Tower" programmers have little understanding of things like this. They're on salary...

     
    |
    Mark as:
1 2 3 Previous Next
Actions

More Like This

  • Retrieving data ...

Bookmarked By (1)

Answers + Points = Status

  • 10 points awarded for Correct Answers
  • 5 points awarded for Helpful Answers
  • 10,000+ points
  • 1,001-10,000 points
  • 501-1,000 points
  • 5-500 points