Unaccurate file properties (size, weight)

Question

Hello,
Bridge displays unaccurate properties of files. When I compare the same picture in Bridge and Apple Finder, the same file has different properties, such as size (Bridge seems to show an older version of the file?) ,weight and resolution.
I've tried purging the cache, but nothing changes. I've also tried opening the same folders and files in two different computers (Win and Mac) and I have the same problem with Bridge.
Another strange thing: When I open a file with inadequate properties from Bridge to Photoshop, it opens with the same wrong (old?) properties! While the file opened in Ps from it's actual location opens with accurate properties.
Why doesn't Bridge refresh the files properties?  What did I miss?
Below is a picture of the comparison of the same exact picture from the same folder, opened in Bridge and Finder.
(On Windows, I have the latest version of Bridge CC and Photoshop installed, and on Mac I have Bridge and Ps CS 5.)
Thank you so much for your answers.

Answer 1

I edited my message,
Yes I saw that later on. Problem is, I mostly use email to follow this forum and edits are not send again as a new post, nor do I get a warning the post is edited. Hence I did not see it but had your original message still present in my mail
You mention not using ACR for cropping or resizing purposes, may I ask what's the best way in your opinion?
Personally I use fixed sizes in PS. Standard size, square and 2/3 and 1/3 for panorama. I also use the shortcuts Front image (I) and Rotate (X) if needed when cropping. There are a lot of options in the crop settings and also a lot with Right mouse click menu in active crop.
I also use the resample option to keep the same ratio and pixel size. This might sound scary for some people but over the years PS has made a great job of massively improving image interpolation. So in this way I end up with same ratio and size of files which provides me a nice overview and about the same file size for PSD and Tiff (for me with EOS 1DX 18 MP in 8 bit around 50 MB each.
I know it is not non destructive but if needed I can always go back to the original DNG file. And I use limited settings in ACR because most of my edits are done in PS with actions that create lots of adjustment layers and layer mask to make editing very easy and fast with stunning results. Especially using many sliders all the time is very time consuming and boring
Personnally, I use a combination of both ACR and P; but, just like you, I find ACR cropping presets "lousy", but I do like the fact that I can overview several files, or a whole folder at a time, and setting my resizing in just one click, while in PS I'd have to go to each file individually to check my resizing. (In the case I want my picture to go from rectangle to square, for example), which, when you have hudnreds of picture to resize, is impossible.
Everyone has it own needs for a specified workflow so you always have to find the one that suites you the best. You can indeed use one click to apply ACR settings for crop to all selected files so for that ACR is the best one.
You couldn't even script the process in PS, because each picture has to be checked individually, in case you crop too much of the subject.
To a certain extend you can, open a bunch of files (depending on size max 20 or 30 for fast processing) and just create a new action, name it and start record your wished crop and apply, stop record. Then undo this on the first file, Choose menu file / automate / batch and start the acton on the opened files. As long as the files are still open you can always undo. For a proper oversight use menu Window / Arrange / Tile (adjust one file to fit in the window then same menu but Match all (I have created shortcuts for this myself) and you see them all in one screen  
Besides the overview of my resizing, what I also like and never found in PS is that I can set a limit to my file weight during a saving process of a batch of files. Unfortunately, this option doesnt comme in the batch processing of Photoshop, not even the image processor. But mayve I'm missing something?
Again, to a certain extend using fixed pixel amount and save as Tiff or PSD file size (that is what you mean with weight I presume?) will be in about the same range. But when it comes to jpeg this is just not possible. Take two images of the same pixel amount, one with much grey or 3/4 blue sky and one with for example a wild flower meadow. Use jpeg 10 on both for example and the one with the flowers will have probably 20 to 40 % more KB or MB just because the difference of the many colors in the subject. Jpeg means compression which means deleting surrounding pixels that look the same as the middle one, reopening the file will calculate those pixels again and shows them about properly. The higher the quality of compressing the more accuracy you get. The many different colors need to keep far more original pixels then the blue sky or grey wall