By the way, there has never been a program that I have used more in my lifetime than Adobe Bridge.
I use it everyday. Its the first thing I see when I boot my computer, and Its the last thing I see when I shut my computer down after working 34 hours straight on a tight deadline.
I have tried many other photo cataloging software, but I always come back to Bridge.
Can you please help me with controlling the Cache more effectively? Thanks!
For Adobe to implement feature requests they have to have a lot of users requesting the same thing. There is a feature request poll that one can start to add to but do not know address.
I think your best bet, and a whole lot faster, would be to contact the people on the Bridge Scripting forum and see it there is a script that will do it, or if someone will write one.
Have never done any scripting but seems like your request would be quite simple to implelment.
If you get a script that works post back here as others might be interested also.
Hey Curt, I appreciate you taking your time out to help me. I agree with you, scripting makes me very nervous. I am not going to spend much more of my time trying to do the work for Adobe.
With an ever-increasing Cache being a huge problem, I would think that Adobe would want to add a tool that would help their users better their Adobe experience. But I could be wrong.
Today, I was going through an old image file in bridge with a client on my laptop. I had just cleared my cache this morning to help speed up my system. By cleaning the cache, I freed up almost 40 gigs of harddrive space. But thats because I like to keep my most recent images at 100% preview. When dealing with hundreds of photo folders each year, I can't keep tabs on which folders need the cache cleared and which don't; so everything gets dumped from time to time. A Cache Manager tool that lets me either schedule a cache cleaning on a folder, or keep it permanent, would be a huge help. And I don't think that it is unreasonable for me to ask this of Adobe.
I am kind of sad, because I had hoped by now that Adobe would have improved the cache; but they haven't. I suggested this to Adobe over 3 years ago and nothing has been done; not even an acknowledgment by Adobe. I bet you a Bourbon Street Lucky Dog that they won't even acknowledge the issue now!
I am shooting upwards of 100,000 shots per year and I process everything through Bridge and the Cache is a huge problem for me. I can see that could be a huge problem for others too.
Maybe its time for me to start looking for another program to do this job. Does anybody have any suggestions?
The feature requests forum is now obsolete, and the preferred method for requesting features is the feedback system at http://feedback.photoshop.com/photoshop_family.
This forum always was just a user-to-user forum, and 99.9% of the time you are just talking to other users, often just as frustrated as you are about the lack of progress on Bridge over several versions. Occasionally, you get an Adobe employee in here, but usually they disappear just as quickly as they appeared, and things aren't usually followed up satisfactorily.
As Curt says, if you do make a reasonable feature request, nothing will happen unless this is backed up by a significant number of users. Unfortunately, Bridge isn't a priority for Adobe, neither is it used extensively by CS users. I know plently of people who maybe only fired it up a few times.
It's not all doom and gloom though. We just got a 64 bit version in CS6, and the metadata error has finally gone (although you have to effectively pay for the fix). I'm still looking for better full-screen previews, and a fix to the recaching problem, but it looks like I'll have to wait for CS7 for that! :-D
Edit: and I just checked - they fixed the Folders pane right-click bug in CS6 too.
A Cache Manager tool that lets me either schedule a cache cleaning on a folder, or keep it permanent, would be a huge help. And I don't think that it is unreasonable for me to ask this of Adobe.
If you submit a feedback poll where Yammer pointed you, and it gets a couple of hundred (thousand?) users agree you might get Adobe's attention.
I agree with Yammer that Bridge is a low priority project with Adobe. Think their target audience is the casual user with a few hundred photos added each year. Your use pattern is more specialized and you either have to adapt with scripts or move to another product IMO.
The size of cache takes a lot of people by surprise. It can grow humongous if you use HQ thumbs and save 100% previews. One can dump the cache in preferences, but many are reluctant to to this as they think it will delete all their keywords and edits. In addition, to do a search you have to re-index all your files, which can take a long time.
If you have "export cache to folders" checked, dumping the cache in preferences only dumps the central cache. To dump the folder cache you have to visit each folder and click on Tools/cache/purge cache for xxx folder. Again, most people do not recognize this. This technique purges both the central and folder cache for this folder only.
It the 100% previews are the problem for you it would seem like a simple task for the script people to write one that would delete it after xx days as the 100% previews are held in a specific folder.
Bridge is not a good digital asset manager. You are probably in that arena dealing with several hundred thousand images. Omke uses a DAM as it does some functions better than Bridge, but Bridge is still his main program. Can't remember the name, but if you read these posts you might have seen it.
Bump, for Bump Sake!
I can't tell you how much I need for Adobe to improve the Cache Manager in Bridge! : /
could you post a link to your feature request thread, if you created one on the Feedback site?
It might get more coverage that way.
I am all over the board. Just look at any thread titled 'Bridge Cache'. My new tactic is to annoy the living hell out of the forum until I get a response from an Adobe Employee. I am sick and tired of asking for Adobe to fix the Cache in Bridge.
I have read and re-read your request and I am at a loss to see how the common user would benefit from this, or even how they would implelment it.
Currently the 100% cache is in one folder. To acomplish what you want Bridge would have to have multiple cache folders for 100% previews with a time period for each folder.
Not a programer, but seems like for your use a script, with an embedded time stamp, would work a lot better. THe script forum people could probably help you out. I would go there and see if it is possible.
What you would need is a code for your images to represent the days you want the cache to be on your drive. For example image0023410_27.jpeg could represent and image where the cache is deleted for that image after 27 days.
Or, you could just have the cache purged for a speciific folder so the folder would get a name Ann Wedding_27. Probably the easiest way is to delete the entire cache for folder. Perhaps the script can even reindex it.
Or another route is to make the folder 9-14_Ann Wedding. You would then keep a watch on dates so on 9-14 go to Tools/cache/purge cache for 9-14_Ann Wedding. You would then have to re-index so it would be included in any search. I listed the date first so it would be sorted by date rather than Ann and therefore easier to manage folders for this purpose.
You can continue your fight for what you want, but even if Adobe thought it was a great idea it would take at least several years to code and put into new version, tested, and released. About the only code changes they make in current versions are bug fixes. Best to figure this will be a long process and find an alternative in the meantime. At least that is my opinion.
Hey Curt, I appreciate your helpfulness.
All I want is an acknowledgment from Adobe. Anything. They can lie to me and I'll be somewhat satisfied.
Right now, I am basically manually dumping the Cache on each folder, but I forget sometimes. I am running a very fast, up-to-date computer with 24-gigs of premium RAM, super-fast processor and video card, but recently upgraded to higher-rez cameras, so it is still taking forever to load the previews into Adobe because the camera files are much bigger. I have a dedicated harddrive for just Cache and Scratch, but the larger that the Cache grows, the more that Bridge slows down and gets a bit buggy. I shot 3 events this last week, I had a total of 16 uploaded folders with over 6,000 images between them. It took 11 hours to load the previews into the cache. In order to speed it up, sometimes I have to dump the entire cache. Its a pain in the ***. I know that I am not the only Adobe Bridge user that has to deal with this and it is frustrating that Adobe won't even acknowledge this. I hate to say this, but I am not a fan of 3rd party plug-ins or scripts... too many bad experiences in the past with them!
I may copy and paste some of the stuff you see above, so please forgive me if you read it in two different places.
You might look into SS drives. They are extremely fast and some of the previous problems have been worked out.
Hey Curt, I appreciate your helpfulness.
All I want is an acknowledgment from Adobe. Anything…
Well, you're not very likely to get that here.
Cache management has always been the Achilles heel of this Bridge application. Add to that the fact that Bridge is practically Abandonware as far as Adobe is concerned, and it's clear that Bridge does not remotely get the resources from Adobe that it would need to mature into a more useful application. That is just reality.
Far from being perceived as a money maker, Bridge is nothing more than a glorified file browser, which it actually was in its first iterations, when it was nothing more and nothing less than Photoshop's File Browser. With the advent of Lightroom, Adobe has even less incentive to shift programming and financial resources to Bridge.
If you need a capable, robust DAM (Digital Asset Manager), look elsewhere.
It would be a dream come true if Adobe were to change its direction in Bridge, but I'm afraid that for the foreseeable feature we can look forward to nothing more than venting our frustration here, and Adobe couldn't care less.
Adobe couldn't care less.
Its sad but true. : (