When batch renaming files, Bridge used to automatically advance the sequence number to the next number after the current sequence, which let you select the next group of images and they would automatically get the next numbers in the sequence. Say, files A to F are renamed to imgxxx, I would get img001 to img006. When I'd go to rename the next files, G to M, , the Batch Rename would automatically apply 007 as the next starting number, so the first renamed file would be img007.

This worked until around 2017 or 2018.

Now it picks some random number that's of no use to me.

See the included images. In the first image, I have the files highlighted that I want to rename. In the second image, I have to enter 31931 to get the correct sequence number to match the original file number (1931). I'm renaming both JPG and CR2 files, so the count should increase by 6, so when I select the next batch of images, I should see it fill in 131937, which would be the next number since the last renamed file is numbered 0311836. The third image shows the results highlighted.

The 4th image shows what Bridge thinks the next number should be. 31943? Where di that come from? In the 5th image I had to enter the correct number, 031937. Image 6 shows the next batch, which starts at 1945. Batch Rename should automatically pick 031945, like it would for over a decade before, but nope, image 7 shows it picked 31953.

Fix this so it works like it used to. I had to avoid newer versions of Bridge because this was a hassle. And now I can't even go back to the older versions because someone at Adobe decided it would be useful (it wasn't) to delete my older versions that worked right.

The way it worked for years before 2017 or 2018 (I can't even provide the version it changed because it's been deleted) is the proper way it should work. This gets old real fast when working with hundreds of images. I tend to rename them in batches of about 50-100 since Batch Rename has frequently skipped images or mixed up their orders in larger batches in the past.

Oh, and get a better bug report system. Five short lines of text might have been fine in the early 80s.