PDA

View Full Version : Apple Releases Aperture 3.4.5 with Import and Memory Card Bug Fixes




MacRumors
Jun 5, 2013, 01:17 PM
http://images.macrumors.com/im/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com/2013/06/05/apple-releases-aperture-3-4-5-with-import-and-memory-card-bug-fixes/)


http://images.macrumors.com/article-new/2013/06/aperture_lens_icon.jpgApple today released Aperture 3.4.5 (http://support.apple.com/kb/DL1657), bringing fixes for several issues related to the handling of memory card and camera import and handling, as well as general stability improvements.What's New in Version 3.4.5

- Addresses an issue that could cause Aperture to quit unexpectedly when deleting items from a camera or memory card after import
- Memory cards are now ejected correctly when using the Delete Items option after import
- Includes stability improvementsAperture 3.4.5 is a 523.15 MB download and requires OS X 10.7.5 or 10.8.2 or later, along with Aperture 3. Apple has also made the updated version available (http://www.appshopper.com/mac/photography/aperture) in the Mac App Store. [Direct Link (https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/aperture/id408981426?mt=12)]

Article Link: Apple Releases Aperture 3.4.5 with Import and Memory Card Bug Fixes (http://www.macrumors.com/2013/06/05/apple-releases-aperture-3-4-5-with-import-and-memory-card-bug-fixes/)



sulpfiction
Jun 5, 2013, 01:21 PM
Is aperture basically beefed up iPhoto?

kissmo
Jun 5, 2013, 01:22 PM
Is aperture basically beefed up iPhoto?

I don't know. I hope it includes some surprise update-ability for a newer version which will be available after the WWDC....

kirky29
Jun 5, 2013, 01:33 PM
Over 500MB for a few bug fixes... :-/

CmdrLaForge
Jun 5, 2013, 01:35 PM
Is aperture basically beefed up iPhoto?

Basically - no. It is more a professional app whereas iPhoto is a toy.

Digital Dude
Jun 5, 2013, 01:36 PM
Is aperture basically beefed up iPhoto?

Basically, yes and then some. If the darn thing' wasn't so slow I would come back as an active customer. It is very easy to use the basic functions but Lightroom continues to be on top. Honestly, I would like Aperture to my fav photo app but Apple just doesn't provide enough support.

Jacquesvw
Jun 5, 2013, 01:43 PM
Over 500MB for a few bug fixes... :-/

I thought the same, must be some pretty big bugs, :D

CmdrLaForge
Jun 5, 2013, 01:43 PM
Basically, yes and then some. If the darn thing' wasn't so slow I would come back as an active customer. It is very easy to use the basic functions but Lightroom continues to be on top. Honestly, I would like Aperture to my fav photo app but Apple just doesn't provide enough support.

Lightroom? Be ready for a $50/month subscription plan coming to you with the next major release. And if you stop to pay? Sorry, no more access to your photos. I guess you could pull them out of the file structure.

Northgrove
Jun 5, 2013, 01:48 PM
I hope Aperture will get a major update soon. It started feeling left behind in terms of attractive features with Lightroom 4, and even more so with LR 5 and its new editing tools.

Bending Pixels
Jun 5, 2013, 01:49 PM
Lightroom? Be ready for a $50/month subscription plan coming to you with the next major release. And if you stop to pay? Sorry, no more access to your photos. I guess you could pull them out of the file structure.

For clarification, Adobe has advised that LR5 will remain available as a separate purchase outside of the Creative Cloud, but also advised that CC members will get added features that retail owners won't. Also, Adobe was silent as to future releases of LR

AppleInLVX
Jun 5, 2013, 01:49 PM
Lightroom? Be ready for a $50/month subscription plan coming to you with the next major release. And if you stop to pay? Sorry, no more access to your photos. I guess you could pull them out of the file structure.

One of my photographer collegues assures me that Adobe has said they will not do this with Lightroom. I myself use Aperture, so I couldn't care less what they do. Although secretly I wish they would.. then I can stop listening to him brag about how much better Lightroom is all the time. Stupid Apple update non-schedule. :mad:

BobZap
Jun 5, 2013, 01:53 PM
Is anyone else not able to export and sync to flickr since yahoo overhauled it a few weeks ago? i was hoping the next aperture update would fix that.

nilk
Jun 5, 2013, 02:01 PM
Is aperture basically beefed up iPhoto?

It's a much better photo app that happens to compatible with existing iPhoto libraries. iPhoto became unusably slow once my collection grew past 100GB. Aperture handled that same collection without breaking a sweat. I switched to Aperture mainly because I started shooting with a DSLR, but it's so much better than iPhoto I should have switched a long time ago.

JarScott
Jun 5, 2013, 02:02 PM
I've used Lightroom for quite a while for all my photo editing needs but would anyone recommend Aperture over Lightroom? Advantages/disadvantages?

tgara
Jun 5, 2013, 02:15 PM
Is anyone else not able to export and sync to flickr since yahoo overhauled it a few weeks ago? i was hoping the next aperture update would fix that.

It works for me.... I was uploading images from Aperture to Flickr just last weekend without any problems. Perhaps you should check your settings with Flickr in Aperture.... something might have gotten glitched when Yahoo updated Flickr.

mtfbwy
Jun 5, 2013, 02:27 PM
Lightroom? Be ready for a $50/month subscription plan coming to you with the next major release. And if you stop to pay? Sorry, no more access to your photos. I guess you could pull them out of the file structure.

Lightroom continues on as a standalone product. I don't trust Apple enough to use Aperture considering what they've done in the past to the pro users (Final Cut Pro).

Chupa Chupa
Jun 5, 2013, 02:38 PM
Is aperture basically beefed up iPhoto?

Basically - no. It is more a professional app whereas iPhoto is a toy.

I don't think it's fair to iPhoto to call it a toy. Such connotation suggests it has no practical use at all.

I also think it speaks too highly of Aperture to call it a pro app. Once a upon a time it was, but Lightroom has eclipsed it to the point most pros have switched over. Aperture now is at best "pro-sumer".

But let's get to brass tacks. iPhoto is primarily a photo library with basic editing capabilities, including most RAW files. Aperture is primarily a RAW photo editor with photo library capabilities. They are distinct from one another even if some aspects overlap.

Even the most entry level DSLR shoots RAW. Aperture isn't that sophisticated or expensive that any joe off the street couldn't figure it out in 2 seconds.

fivedots
Jun 5, 2013, 03:14 PM
I don't think it's fair to iPhoto to call it a toy. Such connotation suggests it has no practical use at all.

I also think it speaks too highly of Aperture to call it a pro app. Once a upon a time it was, but Lightroom has eclipsed it to the point most pros have switched over. Aperture now is at best "pro-sumer".

But let's get to brass tacks. iPhoto is primarily a photo library with basic editing capabilities, including most RAW files. Aperture is primarily a RAW photo editor with photo library capabilities. They are distinct from one another even if some aspects overlap.

Even the most entry level DSLR shoots RAW. Aperture isn't that sophisticated or expensive that any joe off the street couldn't figure it out in 2 seconds.

While I agree that Lightroom > Aperture at this point, I would argue that both applications are prosumer by nature and not due to any lag in feature parity. RAW processing and photography is gradually becoming more and more prosumer each day. Unlike video production, the ceiling as far as features and complexity go plateaus much sooner. Hence, the same application is appropriate for both a professional and prosumer.

Mr.damien
Jun 5, 2013, 03:17 PM
I don't think it's fair to iPhoto to call it a toy. Such connotation suggests it has no practical use at all.

I also think it speaks too highly of Aperture to call it a pro app. Once a upon a time it was, but Lightroom has eclipsed it to the point most pros have switched over. Aperture now is at best "pro-sumer".

But let's get to brass tacks. iPhoto is primarily a photo library with basic editing capabilities, including most RAW files. Aperture is primarily a RAW photo editor with photo library capabilities. They are distinct from one another even if some aspects overlap.

Even the most entry level DSLR shoots RAW. Aperture isn't that sophisticated or expensive that any joe off the street couldn't figure it out in 2 seconds.

Sadly even if I am paying for Lightroom (CC user), I just can't use it. The interface is like it's made in flash, I just can't pass that. Feels like an App of 90s...

chfilm
Jun 5, 2013, 05:25 PM
hm I love Aperture for the general workflow and have all my photos in there, but since I bought a Canon 6D this year, it became near - useless and I had to start using lightroom, because the raw processor in Aperture RUINS the pictures out of the 6d, while in LR they look perfect. The denoise algorythm in Aperture is just so bad in comparison. It's really frustrating, I wish they would update that instead of forcing me to start two separate libraries.. :(

canadianpj
Jun 5, 2013, 05:46 PM
Is aperture basically beefed up iPhoto?

No, it is professional tool.

Michael Goff
Jun 5, 2013, 07:02 PM
Lightroom? Be ready for a $50/month subscription plan coming to you with the next major release. And if you stop to pay? Sorry, no more access to your photos. I guess you could pull them out of the file structure.

I love the smell of FUD in the morning.

cflem
Jun 5, 2013, 07:07 PM
I don't know. I hope it includes some surprise update-ability for a newer version which will be available after the WWDC....


Yes - that's called the "App Store."

Barabas
Jun 5, 2013, 07:54 PM
No, it is professional tool.

I guess it could be. However I would say most professionals use Capture One these days. Better RAW processing and ability to shoot tethered.

sososowhat
Jun 5, 2013, 08:20 PM
It's a much better photo app that happens to compatible with existing iPhoto libraries. iPhoto became unusably slow once my collection grew past 100GB. Aperture handled that same collection without breaking a sweat. I switched to Aperture mainly because I started shooting with a DSLR, but it's so much better than iPhoto I should have switched a long time ago.
My iPhoto Library is about 400GB and performance is perfectly acceptable on my 2010 iMac. Looking forward to getting a 1TB SSD & it should scream. Aperture performance for me is slower than iPhoto, though I've only recently started using it & don't know all the ins & outs.

bluespark
Jun 5, 2013, 09:56 PM
I guess it could be. However I would say most professionals use Capture One these days. Better RAW processing and ability to shoot tethered.

I can't speak to Capture One's RAW processing, but Aperture supports tethered shooting. See http://support.apple.com/kb/ht4176

CmdrLaForge
Jun 5, 2013, 11:45 PM
Lightroom continues on as a standalone product. I don't trust Apple enough to use Aperture considering what they've done in the past to the pro users (Final Cut Pro).

Correct. Today LR continues as a standalone product. Lets see for how long.

But what did they do to Final Cut Pro? Improved it in every possible way but completely messed up the introduction? Yes that I can agree upon.

chrono1081
Jun 6, 2013, 12:40 AM
I love the smell of FUD in the morning.

I wouldn't call it FUD, look what Adobe did with Creative Suite. No one in a million years thought that would happen.

SvenSvenson
Jun 6, 2013, 02:43 AM
Basically - no. It is more a professional app whereas iPhoto is a toy.

No - iPhoto is for casual users who want to do a bit more with their photos than simply keeping them on their camera or phone and upload them to Facebook, such as minor corrections (cropping, brightness etc) and adjustments, but who don't want or need the heavy-duty capabilities of something like Aperture such as levels, sharpening, colour correction and shooting in RAW.

Padaung
Jun 6, 2013, 04:26 AM
I would expect any new major update to Aperture to now be announced at a similar time to any new Mac Pro announcement.

So basically, who knows when. Maybe this year!!!

twisted panties
Jun 6, 2013, 04:50 AM
Quick Aperture Guide. Excludes entirely all sorts of Aperture facilities like vaults, which I don't use at all. I will explain the choices I make though. Here goes :

1.) The Aperture Database

Aperture uses SLQlite, a file-based database, to keep information about all the revisions, edits, EXIF, import dates, and any other data associated with each and every photo you allow Aperture to manage. The Aperture DB is also where versions are kept. More on those later. SQLlite is not a particularly fast DB, but it is simple and reliable ( usually ... ). It is file-based and has lots of tiny files held on disk. You absolutely must have this DB on an SSD. Every action you perform in Aperture updates this DB. Every time you open Aperture it runs a DB sanity check, and also whenever you close Aperture. Moreover, when you browse Aperture, you ( generally ... more later ) are browsing versions, not the original files. The versions are stored in the DB. So it's a MAJOR cause of slowness if the DB is on a spinning disk.

How to make sure the Aperture Database is on the SSD ? It's easy. It's the location of the Library that Aperture opens on startup. Start Aperture while holding down the Option key to reconfirm that the library you are using is stored on your SSD. Aperture defaults to the last library you worked on on startup, so just confirm. You can switch Libraries or open a new Library from the Aperture File -> Switch to Library menu.

A quick note before going further, on the purpose of this advice. The mission, if you will ! If you follow all these instructions, you will only need ONE Aperture Database, forever, and it will perform like lightning regardless of how many pics you import. Having one rather than multiple Aperture Databases makes finding, sorting and editing your photos much much easier. Which is the whole point of having a photo management system, after all.

Once you have your Aperture Library ( and thus Database ) open and confirmed on SSD, now you have choices where to store the original files. The default for Aperture is to store them in the same directory hierarchy as the Library, but "hidden" in a normal MacOS application Package container.

If you don't change this behaviour, and browse in Finder to your Aperture Library, you can right-click on it and select "Show Package Contents" just like any app in the Application directory. You will see all your original files under a Masters subdirectory of the Aperture Library. Again, this is normally hidden.

This default is not what I recommend.

The reasons are:

a.) It mixes your originals in with the Aperture Database, in a file hierarchy of Aperture's choosing. This is "simple", reliable, but not flexible. How to backup only the originals ? Difficult. How to share the originals read-only to a networked device ? Painful. How to recover the originals if Aperture collapses or you decide to use Lightroom in the future ? Nasty. How to move just the database without moving hundreds of gigabytes of photos ? Impossible.

b.) It means your Aperture Library will grow like crazy. The actual Aperture Database data will only grow at about 15% of the rate of growth of your actual picture files, depending on how large you choose your previews. There is no need to waste your SSD space with original files.

You can safely, and with no performance hit, store the originals on spinning disk away from your DB in a file hierarchy of your choosing. The originals are never written to once stored. All edits and previews are stored in the database, for fast browsing, but the originals are always left read-only and untouched. No writes means you don't need them on an SSD.

So splitting the Database from the Originals gains you manageability, expandability, and future proofing. if Aperture ever becomes broken, obsolete, or you just find something better, you can find all your original files, in your chosen location with your chosen hierarchy, safely unmolested on disk where you put them.

So ... store the originals on spinning disk ( large, cheap ) or even NAS if you must, and store the Aperture Database on SSD ( small, expensive ). This is called having Referenced Masters. The database just has a link, or reference, to the location of the actual original file, rather than containing the actual file.

2. ) Referenced Masters

All you have to do to ensure this, is on Import, under "Store Files", do NOT select "In the Aperture Library". Select anywhere else.

Under "Subfolder" you can choose your file hierarchy. Aperture gives you all sorts of possible hierarchy options, or you can make up your own by selecting "Edit". Remember to include the forward slash character when making your own ... there is a big difference between 2013/Jan/My Project/filename.JPG and a directory full of files called 2013JanMyProjectFilename.JPG. Don't ask how I know this.

THIS IS THE IMPORTANT BIT. THINK HARD ABOUT THE HIERARCHY !

It is changeable in the future if you change your mind, but it's time consuming. Better to get it right first time. You may already have a system, like "Image Year / Image Month / Image Name" which you could certainly use. I tend to import my files as "Projects" ( project name is right there on the Import pane ) and give them a meaningful name. Such as "2013 Jan - New Year Drunkenness". Then I simply store them under my preset "Current Year / Project Name". So I get a folder hierarchy like :

2012/2012 Jan - Project Name 1
/2012 Jan - Project Name 2
/2012 Feb - Project Name 1
2013/2013 Jan - Project Name 1

and so on. So I am including project metadata ( year / month / description ) in the actual directory name, as well as in the Aperture database. There is a reason for this redundancy. Which I will explain shortly.

The good thing is, once you have decided your hierarchy, you don't need to change it again. Aperture remembers, and all your subsequent imports will follow your rule. No extra clicking required.

As the hierarchy thing is the most important decision, I'll add a few "learning" points I made :-)

a.) Be careful of using "Image Year" or "Image [anything taken from EXIF]" as a subfolder. It sounds great - all photos arranged automatically by year/month taken ! But, potential problems. Firstly, imports often span two months. I'd end up with two folders, 2012/09/2012 Sep - Phuket and 2012/10/2012 Sep - Phuket. Which is confusing and a pain to manually navigate at the disk level.

That's why I hard code the date ( Year and Month ) in the name of the project too. It's so easy to scan through my photo collection at the disk level, just a year-ordered collection of subfolders with meaningful names. One day, if I ditch Aperture, or break it, or whatever, I don't have to rely on Aperture having the photo project metadata. That's the reason for the redundancy.

b.) EXIF may be unreliable or missing. So sometimes, a picture taking in 2004 on a camera that doesn't support EXIF, would be imported under the current year instead of 2004, as Aperture couldn't find any EXIF. Most confusing. Or a bunch of files restored from Windows backup DVDs would be imported under the year the files were created, not the photos taken. Nasty. If all your photos have reliable EXIF, no issue, but ... worth considering.

Think about the hierarchy and try a few test imports to get it how you want before doing your whole collection.

Spending time here, more than any other activity, will serve you well in the future.

c.) You can immediately check if a file you are looking at in Aperture is "Referenced" or not - it will have a little arrow and rectangle in the lower right corner of the preview. Right click and "Show Referenced File" or "Reveal in Finder" and you'll see the original untouched file, regardless of any edits. Very reassuring.

3. Minor and not so minor other things

Assuming you've got an Aperture Database on SSD, and Referenced Masters all setup to import into a good hierarchy on another disk, you are just about there. There are some minor and not so minor other things worth mentioning.

- The referenced masters should remain just that, masters. Untouched and not moved around. It's not the end of the world if you go in and change the location of the masters ( Aperture will just ask you where they are, next time it tries to show the file ) but it's unnecessary. Aperture lets you non-destructively do anything you want to your files, with complete "revert to master" at any time, precisely because these masters are held as inviolate. Obey this :-)

- if you REALLY want to change the hierachy at some point, do it from Aperture rather than with Finder. There is a command "File -> Relocate Originals" which can be used to do just that.

- Under Aperture Settings : General. Disable Faces until your Library is all sorted out. It takes some CPU while it works. Switch it back on if you need it after your Library is fairly stable. Enable gestures.

- Under Aperture Settings : Import. Select No Application for what to do when a camera is connected. Personal choice, but I don't like Aperture springing into life when I put an SD card in the slot. It's no bother to me to open Aperture when it's needed. I use "Camera Previews" but it's a non-issue if you don't use RAW.

- Under Aperture Settings : Previews. Check New Projects Generate Previews. Share Previews always. Then, most importantly, choose a smallish size for previews ! I use 1280x1280. The significance of your choice here is NOT MINOR ! Remember many chapters ago I talked about the Aperture Database, the thing that holds all your edits and so on ? Yes it contains the previews too ! Meaning, what you see on Aperture as you use it are previews, coming from the Database. NOT your original files. Pause. Got it ?

Every time you scroll, or select a new project to view, you are reading previews from the Aperture Database. Make them smallish. They will load faster. Aperture will operate faster. Your Aperture Database will remain a manageable size.

There is no downside. Every time you actually do an edit, it will load up the Master ( read only ) and write back a preview. If you want to export a preview, you can do so AT ANY SIZE. Aperture just tracks your edits and simply applies them to the full sized master as you export. Or you can export the ( always untouched ) Original master file. At any time. So there is no need to have huge previews.

Under Aperture Settings : Photo Stream. I switch it off. It was marginally useful but be aware it takes bandwidth ( uploading to Apple servers ) and a load of space ( 5GB ... ) in your Aperture Library to hold the stream. Use it if you need it, of course.

Under Aperture Settings : Web. The Facebook integration is slow. Changing the names of files uploaded on Facebook changed the names of those files in Aperture. Not what I wanted. I just switched it off. If I want to upload to Facebook, I just Export to my desktop and upload as normal.

Seems quicker.

- Raw files. Personal choice and far be it for a rank amateur like me, etc etc, but ... consider using RAW. I can't see a downside. It used to be necessary for non-pros to use JPG as raw files were too big, took too much disk space, too much processing power, weren't natively supported by the OS, and were a pain to manage. Well, none of that is true anymore. Macs read RAW files natively. Aperture allows you to manage the files beautifully. You have CPU and disk space to go.

And RAW is the negative to JPEGs print.

Aperture makes a JPEG "print" from each RAW with default settings as you import, or you can alter to suit your requirements ( a bit less noise, correct the white balance perhaps ). Once you've allowed the camera to output the JPEG though, you've lost the RAW ! Whatever sharpening, white balance, noise and colour choices were programmed in by the camera maker, that's it. They have no idea what look you are trying to capture. Sure you can alter a JPEG later, but you are altering the "print" - you've already discarded the negative. For someone with as much invested in quality equipment as yourself, I'd consider it. Even if you do nothing other than shoot RAW and never edit, at least you'll have that option open in the future.

Lecture over ;-)

And next ...

4. Folders and Projects and Albums and other stuff
Aperture allows you to arrange how you view your photos entirely separately from how you store them on disk. I use a simple "Folder -> Project" setup.

Each year is a Folder.
Each import is a Project.

When I Import, before hitting the "Import X photos" button, I first click on the folder ( "2013" for example ) before naming the Project in the Import pane. This makes sure the Project is shown under the right folder. It's no issue if you accidentally forget to click the folder first. Just drag the Project to the right folder afterwards.Remember I use names like "2013 Jan - Rabbit" as I want the folders on disk to maintain some project metadata, as redundancy.

Important : After you've imported, anything you do in the left-hand sidebar as far as arranging your photos in albums or projects, does not affect how they are stored on disk. It's entirely up to you how you use folders/projects/albums.

5. And finally some proper techie stuff :-)

Backups !

Obviously ensure that your Aperture Database AND your Referenced Masters ( wherever you store the original photos ) are backed up. Time Machine is the obvious choice. I'm completely insane about backups, so my system is doubtless over the top, but for your amusement :

Time Machine backs up the whole computer - SSD ( containing the OS, Apps, and Aperture Database ) and spinning disk ( Internal 2TB SATA drive, containing my development files and Aperture Masters.
Nightly, I use Carbon Copy Cloner to make a clone of the SSD to a spare internal SATA disk. Carbon Copy Cloner wakes up the computer at 2am, mounts the disk, clones the SSD, makes the clone disk bootable, dismounts the disk, and sleeps the computer. This gives me, at any time, a second bootable OS disk which is never more than 24 hours out of date. Yes I could do the "replace SSD and restore from Time Machine" thing, and have done in the past, but it takes time. Whereas holding down the B key on booting and selecting my clone disk takes no time at all. Overkill, but, I had the disk spare and it's put to comforting use.

Weekly, I use Carbon Copy Cloner to clone the entire Aperture Masters from the 2TB disk to yet another internal SATA disk. ( Love the internal storage capacity of the Pro ! ). Reason again, is speed of recovery. I have 1/2TB or so of photos. A Time Machine restore would take half a day. I like having a copy online. Also helps if I have a "senior moment" and blow up my 2TB disk accidentally while messing around.
Offsite backups in realtime to Safecopybackup.com of my entire Aperture Masters tree. This is my "house burns down, now what?" recovery option. Would be dog slow to recover, but I could recover. Enough said.

If you have a whole heap of disk, I'd recommend using some of it for backups. Over and above Time Machine. Maybe use an internal spinning disk for the Aperture Masters ( spinning disks are so cheap now ) and backup the lot to a NAS folder or something.

Aperture is a good product. Lots more functionality than iPhoto ( which is also a good product, simply more limited ) and I haven't touched most of it here.

Hope that helps someone.

cue003
Jun 6, 2013, 06:51 AM
@twisted, thanks for the detailed writeup.

.:Aleph:.
Jun 6, 2013, 09:41 AM
Has anyone here used Capture One?

jms969
Jun 6, 2013, 09:54 AM
Wow TP very nice...

JGRE
Jun 6, 2013, 10:01 AM
Basically, yes and then some. If the darn thing' wasn't so slow I would come back as an active customer. It is very easy to use the basic functions but Lightroom continues to be on top. Honestly, I would like Aperture to my fav photo app but Apple just doesn't provide enough support.

It isn't slow, it is faster than iPhoto, but you need at least 8GB of ram.

GuitarDTO
Jun 6, 2013, 10:23 AM
hm I love Aperture for the general workflow and have all my photos in there, but since I bought a Canon 6D this year, it became near - useless and I had to start using lightroom, because the raw processor in Aperture RUINS the pictures out of the 6d, while in LR they look perfect. The denoise algorythm in Aperture is just so bad in comparison. It's really frustrating, I wish they would update that instead of forcing me to start two separate libraries.. :(

They aren't forcing you to start two separate libraries. Why would you rely on Aperture to denoise anyways? I use Nik Software complete package, and Define 2.0 kills Aperture AND Lightroom at noise reduction. Additionally, your point about your 6d, why don't you change the default import RAW settings? The raw conversion in Aperture is perfectly fine, but it will be different with different cameras. You have to tweak to your liking initially, and save the default settings.

Overall I love Aperture, and after doing extensive comparison with Lightroom, I just preferred Aperture. Lightroom has a few key built-ins that top Aperture (Noise Reduc, and Distortion correction), but plugins take care of that for me.

Barabas
Jun 6, 2013, 10:36 AM
Has anyone here used Capture One?

I use Capture One almost daily. I still use Aperture for family photos, it's simple and I've used it for years. I like occasional GPS tagging and easy to share to Photo Stream. However when browsing through thousands of files and processing hundreds of them then Capture One is a must. The fine tuning of exposure and color is amazing.

Michael Goff
Jun 6, 2013, 10:37 AM
I wouldn't call it FUD, look what Adobe did with Creative Suite. No one in a million years thought that would happen.

Except it's FUD right now because there's no indication that they're going to do it.

.:Aleph:.
Jun 6, 2013, 11:02 AM
I use Capture One almost daily. I still use Aperture for family photos, it's simple and I've used it for years. I like occasional GPS tagging and easy to share to Photo Stream. However when browsing through thousands of files and processing hundreds of them then Capture One is a must. The fine tuning of exposure and color is amazing.

It really is at least a part of the great look of some professional photos.

What did Adobe do to the Creative Suite?

hollersoft
Jun 6, 2013, 01:06 PM
Quick Aperture Guide

<snip>

That is freaking awesome. Thank you so much for sharing your experience. Do you have that info on a blog somewhere that I could bookmark?

snberk103
Jun 6, 2013, 02:14 PM
Lightroom? Be ready for a $50/month subscription plan coming to you with the next major release. And if you stop to pay? Sorry, no more access to your photos. I guess you could pull them out of the file structure.

Oh really? Considering it is only $150 to purchase currently, I kinda doubt Adobe would make people pay that amount every 3 months. Photoshop on its own is only something like $19/month and it is much more expensive.

Plus, Adobe has already said that Lr will be available as a standalone product for the foreseeable future. Which makes sense to me. They have been positioning Lr as the gateway product. Make it as widely available as possible to photographers, get them hooked, send them promo emails with promo prices to Photoshop, get new subscribers. Adobe are smart cookies.... this is just basic good sales technique.

Has anyone here used Capture One?

Not daily, but my intention is to make it my main RAW convertor/editor. But it has an interface that I find bewildering at times. Though I just have to buckle down and spend the time on the curve. That said, the editing power of what it can do far surpasses what Lr and Aperture can do. I can say that with confidence, even only having scratched the surface.

For instance.... In Lr the colour correction panel allows you to pick one of half-a-dozen colours, and then you can adjust hue/saturation/colour for that colour. In C1 you can use the eyedropper to choose the colour from the photo. Adjust where on the colour wheel that sample is chosen from. Adjust how much for the adjacent colours/hues/tones you want to adjust. And then once you have the exact tone/hue/shade/colour picked, then you can adjust its properties. Oh, and you can do this on a masked layer.

There is a steep learning curve, but there are lot of videos on their website.

ozoneraider
Jun 6, 2013, 05:33 PM
THIS IS THE IMPORTANT BIT. THINK HARD ABOUT THE HIERARCHY !

It is changeable in the future if you change your mind, but it's time consuming. Better to get it right first time. You may already have a system, like "Image Year / Image Month / Image Name" which you could certainly use. I tend to import my files as "Projects" ( project name is right there on the Import pane ) and give them a meaningful name. Such as "2013 Jan - New Year Drunkenness". Then I simply store them under my preset "Current Year / Project Name". So I get a folder hierarchy like :

2012/2012 Jan - Project Name 1
/2012 Jan - Project Name 2
/2012 Feb - Project Name 1
2013/2013 Jan - Project Name 1

and so on. So I am including project metadata ( year / month / description ) in the actual directory name, as well as in the Aperture database. There is a reason for this redundancy. Which I will explain shortly.

The good thing is, once you have decided your hierarchy, you don't need to change it again. Aperture remembers, and all your subsequent imports will follow your rule. No extra clicking required.

As the hierarchy thing is the most important decision, I'll add a few "learning" points I made :-)

a.) Be careful of using "Image Year" or "Image [anything taken from EXIF]" as a subfolder. It sounds great - all photos arranged automatically by year/month taken ! But, potential problems. Firstly, imports often span two months. I'd end up with two folders, 2012/09/2012 Sep - Phuket and 2012/10/2012 Sep - Phuket. Which is confusing and a pain to manually navigate at the disk level.

That's why I hard code the date ( Year and Month ) in the name of the project too. It's so easy to scan through my photo collection at the disk level, just a year-ordered collection of subfolders with meaningful names. One day, if I ditch Aperture, or break it, or whatever, I don't have to rely on Aperture having the photo project metadata. That's the reason for the redundancy.

b.) EXIF may be unreliable or missing. So sometimes, a picture taking in 2004 on a camera that doesn't support EXIF, would be imported under the current year instead of 2004, as Aperture couldn't find any EXIF. Most confusing. Or a bunch of files restored from Windows backup DVDs would be imported under the year the files were created, not the photos taken. Nasty. If all your photos have reliable EXIF, no issue, but ... worth considering.

Think about the hierarchy and try a few test imports to get it how you want before doing your whole collection.

Spending time here, more than any other activity, will serve you well in the future.

I'm trying to get my head around this in the instance that you have a project overlapping two months. 2012/2012 Jan Phuket and /2012 Feb Phuket doesn't seem right since your project would still end up in two separate folders. I'm sure it's obvious but could you please make it painfully obvious for me?

twisted panties
Jun 6, 2013, 10:41 PM
I'm trying to get my head around this in the instance that you have a project overlapping two months. 2012/2012 Jan Phuket and /2012 Feb Phuket doesn't seem right since your project would still end up in two separate folders. I'm sure it's obvious but could you please make it painfully obvious for me?

There is a default ( and tempting ) folder hierarchy something like :

Image Year / Image Month / Project Name / Image File

The first two are taken from the EXIF data, and for projects that last one day, it is never a problem. So that wedding shoot or school sports day, gets stored in a folder like

2013/6/Sports Day/IMG00001.jpg or similar.

However, for longer projects like a holiday, the duration can often span a month boundary. So you may end up with :

2013/5/Phuket Vacation/IMG00100.jpg and
2013/6/Phuket Vacation/IMG00101.jpg

It's not Aperture's fault. It is doing exactly what you asked it to do. Using the EXIF data to sort your files on disk. It just may not be what you actually want. Personally I don't want to have to navigate back up the folder tree to see other files from the same holiday.

I can remember what I did last month, but not necessarily what I did last September ( or was it October ? ). Hence my own personal system for on disk folders as simply YEAR / PROJECT NAME ( no EXIF involved ).

For PROJECT NAME ( when I import the photos, it is just the name you use as, logically, "Project Name" under Destination in the import panel ) I use consistent naming such as "2013 Jun - Phuket". The files are then imported on disk as simply :

2013/2013 Jun - Phuket/IMG.....(all of them, even the ones taken in late May )

I find this easier to use, as all my Phuket snaps will be in one directory. There is redundancy there in the naming ( YEAR is in the project name, as well as in the folder name ) but this, as mentioned in the original post, is to permit future re-organisation without Aperture should I choose to, or should it become necessary.

I also found I simply like having the whole year as a folder, without having to traverse up and down the months as subfolders too. As I have photos going back decades, I just find it easier to select, say, 1998 and see ALL my projects, rather than have to dive into 1998/Jan, 1998/Feb and so on.

Anyway, each to his own of course. Aperture allows you to use any system you like. I was just trying to point out a potential "gotcha" if relying on EXIF dates for folder creation.

All of the above applies to how Aperture stores your files on disk and has no effect on how you arrange your pics in folders or albums to view in Aperture.

However, it was part of the "mission" that my system would be easy to use in the absence of Aperture, should I choose to move to something else ( or it breaks ), or for my family who don't use Aperture but like to browse the photos through the shared ( read-only ) disk directory on their Macs.

Remember, re-arranging the folder names or album names in Aperture after you have imported them, has no effect whatsoever as to how they are stored on disk. You have to use the Relocate Originals to that if you change your mind later. Hence the importance I attach to getting a folder hierarchy you are happy with right at the beginning.

A test import really is a good idea to make sure it looks correct before importing many projects.

Hope it's clearer ?

TP

----------

That is freaking awesome. Thank you so much for sharing your experience. Do you have that info on a blog somewhere that I could bookmark?

Sorry no, it was taken from an email I wrote to a friend who was looking for a how-to on Aperture with specific suggestions. Rather than a "this is all the things Aperture can do !" but no guidance as to what to do.

As I mentioned, it was purely what I do, and I don't use half the functionality Aperture offers, but my system works for me.

Feel free to use any of the text for any ( non commercial - don't swipe it for an eBook ! ) purpose. Hope it helps some.

TP

----------

It isn't slow, it is faster than iPhoto, but you need at least 8GB of ram.
It works okay with 4GB but the speed is to a large extent determined by the speed of it's database. Making that smaller ( by using smaller previews for example ) or faster ( by placing it on SSD ) helps enormously. iPhoto is much less flexible here, which is why when your photo library starts to get large, Aperture or other solutions start to help.

A common cause of "Aperture is slow" is simply that the database ( "Library" in Aperture parlance ) is enormous ( due to the user choosing huge previews ) and slow, because they choose the Aperture default of storing images in the Aperture Library, which means it is on the same disk as the DB. It is good tech practice to separate DB activity ( rapid small file read/writes ) from other disk activity where possible. Aperture allows you do this, as outlined in my post. It makes a huge difference.

TP

ozoneraider
Jun 7, 2013, 11:47 AM
I can remember what I did last month, but not necessarily what I did last September ( or was it October ? ). Hence my own personal system for on disk folders as simply YEAR / PROJECT NAME ( no EXIF involved ).

For PROJECT NAME ( when I import the photos, it is just the name you use as, logically, "Project Name" under Destination in the import panel ) I use consistent naming such as "2013 Jun - Phuket". The files are then imported on disk as simply :

2013/2013 Jun - Phuket/IMG.....(all of them, even the ones taken in late May )

Hope it's clearer ?

TP

It is. I have been using the YEAR/MONTH method and have found it problematic in that scenario. Your technique eliminates that problem (as well as a few others) and I will experiment with renaming my originals. Thanks for sharing this.

kissmo
Jun 10, 2013, 05:32 AM
Yes - that's called the "App Store."

I ment the library portability/upgrade-ablility or whatever... Just fooling myself with dreams.... :)

robogobo
Jun 10, 2013, 07:00 AM
Is aperture basically beefed up iPhoto?


Not at all, but the trolls would have you believe so.

nilk
Jun 11, 2013, 05:07 PM
My iPhoto Library is about 400GB and performance is perfectly acceptable on my 2010 iMac. Looking forward to getting a 1TB SSD & it should scream. Aperture performance for me is slower than iPhoto, though I've only recently started using it & don't know all the ins & outs.

Interesting. I'm using a 2007 Mac Pro (see sig) w/ 16GB of RAM and only HDD's. I find Aperture uses a lot of RAM, but it seems to cache photos for faster access once it gets going (which I guess is part of why it uses a lot of RAM).

I imagine an SSD would indeed make it scream. I'm saving up $$$ for a large SSD, too.

twisted panties
Jul 7, 2013, 12:45 AM
That is freaking awesome. Thank you so much for sharing your experience. Do you have that info on a blog somewhere that I could bookmark?

I didn't, but I just posted it up here :

http://porlm.com/photo/apple-aperture (http://porlm.com/photo/apple-aperture/)

TP

Abisu
Aug 11, 2013, 10:20 AM
:oQuick Aperture Guide. Excludes entirely all sorts of Aperture facilities like vaults, which I don't use at all. I will explain the choices I make though. Here goes :

1.) The Aperture Database

Aperture uses SLQlite, a file-based database, to keep information about all the revisions, edits, EXIF, import dates, and any other data associated with each and every photo you allow Aperture to manage. The Aperture DB is also where versions are kept. More on those later. SQLlite is not a particularly fast DB, but it is simple and reliable ( usually ... ). It is file-based and has lots of tiny files held on disk. You absolutely must have this DB on an SSD. Every action you perform in Aperture updates this DB. Every time you open Aperture it runs a DB sanity check, and also whenever you close Aperture. Moreover, when you browse Aperture, you ( generally ... more later ) are browsing versions, not the original files. The versions are stored in the DB. So it's a MAJOR cause of slowness if the DB is on a spinning disk.

How to make sure the Aperture Database is on the SSD ? It's easy. It's the location of the Library that Aperture opens on startup. Start Aperture while holding down the Option key to reconfirm that the library you are using is stored on your SSD. Aperture defaults to the last library you worked on on startup, so just confirm. You can switch Libraries or open a new Library from the Aperture File -> Switch to Library menu.

A quick note before going further, on the purpose of this advice. The mission, if you will ! If you follow all these instructions, you will only need ONE Aperture Database, forever, and it will perform like lightning regardless of how many pics you import. Having one rather than multiple Aperture Databases makes finding, sorting and editing your photos much much easier. Which is the whole point of having a photo management system, after all.

Once you have your Aperture Library ( and thus Database ) open and confirmed on SSD, now you have choices where to store the original files. The default for Aperture is to store them in the same directory hierarchy as the Library, but "hidden" in a normal MacOS application Package container.

If you don't change this behaviour, and browse in Finder to your Aperture Library, you can right-click on it and select "Show Package Contents" just like any app in the Application directory. You will see all your original files under a Masters subdirectory of the Aperture Library. Again, this is normally hidden.

This default is not what I recommend.

The reasons are:

a.) It mixes your originals in with the Aperture Database, in a file hierarchy of Aperture's choosing. This is "simple", reliable, but not flexible. How to backup only the originals ? Difficult. How to share the originals read-only to a networked device ? Painful. How to recover the originals if Aperture collapses or you decide to use Lightroom in the future ? Nasty. How to move just the database without moving hundreds of gigabytes of photos ? Impossible.

b.) It means your Aperture Library will grow like crazy. The actual Aperture Database data will only grow at about 15% of the rate of growth of your actual picture files, depending on how large you choose your previews. There is no need to waste your SSD space with original files.

You can safely, and with no performance hit, store the originals on spinning disk away from your DB in a file hierarchy of your choosing. The originals are never written to once stored. All edits and previews are stored in the database, for fast browsing, but the originals are always left read-only and untouched. No writes means you don't need them on an SSD.

So splitting the Database from the Originals gains you manageability, expandability, and future proofing. if Aperture ever becomes broken, obsolete, or you just find something better, you can find all your original files, in your chosen location with your chosen hierarchy, safely unmolested on disk where you put them.

So ... store the originals on spinning disk ( large, cheap ) or even NAS if you must, and store the Aperture Database on SSD ( small, expensive ). This is called having Referenced Masters. The database just has a link, or reference, to the location of the actual original file, rather than containing the actual file.

2. ) Referenced Masters

All you have to do to ensure this, is on Import, under "Store Files", do NOT select "In the Aperture Library". Select anywhere else.

Under "Subfolder" you can choose your file hierarchy. Aperture gives you all sorts of possible hierarchy options, or you can make up your own by selecting "Edit". Remember to include the forward slash character when making your own ... there is a big difference between 2013/Jan/My Project/filename.JPG and a directory full of files called 2013JanMyProjectFilename.JPG. Don't ask how I know this.

THIS IS THE IMPORTANT BIT. THINK HARD ABOUT THE HIERARCHY !

It is changeable in the future if you change your mind, but it's time consuming. Better to get it right first time. You may already have a system, like "Image Year / Image Month / Image Name" which you could certainly use. I tend to import my files as "Projects" ( project name is right there on the Import pane ) and give them a meaningful name. Such as "2013 Jan - New Year Drunkenness". Then I simply store them under my preset "Current Year / Project Name". So I get a folder hierarchy like :

2012/2012 Jan - Project Name 1
/2012 Jan - Project Name 2
/2012 Feb - Project Name 1
2013/2013 Jan - Project Name 1

and so on. So I am including project metadata ( year / month / description ) in the actual directory name, as well as in the Aperture database. There is a reason for this redundancy. Which I will explain shortly.

The good thing is, once you have decided your hierarchy, you don't need to change it again. Aperture remembers, and all your subsequent imports will follow your rule. No extra clicking required.

As the hierarchy thing is the most important decision, I'll add a few "learning" points I made :-)

a.) Be careful of using "Image Year" or "Image [anything taken from EXIF]" as a subfolder. It sounds great - all photos arranged automatically by year/month taken ! But, potential problems. Firstly, imports often span two months. I'd end up with two folders, 2012/09/2012 Sep - Phuket and 2012/10/2012 Sep - Phuket. Which is confusing and a pain to manually navigate at the disk level.

That's why I hard code the date ( Year and Month ) in the name of the project too. It's so easy to scan through my photo collection at the disk level, just a year-ordered collection of subfolders with meaningful names. One day, if I ditch Aperture, or break it, or whatever, I don't have to rely on Aperture having the photo project metadata. That's the reason for the redundancy.

b.) EXIF may be unreliable or missing. So sometimes, a picture taking in 2004 on a camera that doesn't support EXIF, would be imported under the current year instead of 2004, as Aperture couldn't find any EXIF. Most confusing. Or a bunch of files restored from Windows backup DVDs would be imported under the year the files were created, not the photos taken. Nasty. If all your photos have reliable EXIF, no issue, but ... worth considering.

Think about the hierarchy and try a few test imports to get it how you want before doing your whole collection.

Spending time here, more than any other activity, will serve you well in the future.

c.) You can immediately check if a file you are looking at in Aperture is "Referenced" or not - it will have a little arrow and rectangle in the lower right corner of the preview. Right click and "Show Referenced File" or "Reveal in Finder" and you'll see the original untouched file, regardless of any edits. Very reassuring.

3. Minor and not so minor other things

Assuming you've got an Aperture Database on SSD, and Referenced Masters all setup to import into a good hierarchy on another disk, you are just about there. There are some minor and not so minor other things worth mentioning.

- The referenced masters should remain just that, masters. Untouched and not moved around. It's not the end of the world if you go in and change the location of the masters ( Aperture will just ask you where they are, next time it tries to show the file ) but it's unnecessary. Aperture lets you non-destructively do anything you want to your files, with complete "revert to master" at any time, precisely because these masters are held as inviolate. Obey this :-)

- if you REALLY want to change the hierachy at some point, do it from Aperture rather than with Finder. There is a command "File -> Relocate Originals" which can be used to do just that.

- Under Aperture Settings : General. Disable Faces until your Library is all sorted out. It takes some CPU while it works. Switch it back on if you need it after your Library is fairly stable. Enable gestures.

- Under Aperture Settings : Import. Select No Application for what to do when a camera is connected. Personal choice, but I don't like Aperture springing into life when I put an SD card in the slot. It's no bother to me to open Aperture when it's needed. I use "Camera Previews" but it's a non-issue if you don't use RAW.

- Under Aperture Settings : Previews. Check New Projects Generate Previews. Share Previews always. Then, most importantly, choose a smallish size for previews ! I use 1280x1280. The significance of your choice here is NOT MINOR ! Remember many chapters ago I talked about the Aperture Database, the thing that holds all your edits and so on ? Yes it contains the previews too ! Meaning, what you see on Aperture as you use it are previews, coming from the Database. NOT your original files. Pause. Got it ?

Every time you scroll, or select a new project to view, you are reading previews from the Aperture Database. Make them smallish. They will load faster. Aperture will operate faster. Your Aperture Database will remain a manageable size.

There is no downside. Every time you actually do an edit, it will load up the Master ( read only ) and write back a preview. If you want to export a preview, you can do so AT ANY SIZE. Aperture just tracks your edits and simply applies them to the full sized master as you export. Or you can export the ( always untouched ) Original master file. At any time. So there is no need to have huge previews.

Under Aperture Settings : Photo Stream. I switch it off. It was marginally useful but be aware it takes bandwidth ( uploading to Apple servers ) and a load of space ( 5GB ... ) in your Aperture Library to hold the stream. Use it if you need it, of course.

Under Aperture Settings : Web. The Facebook integration is slow. Changing the names of files uploaded on Facebook changed the names of those files in Aperture. Not what I wanted. I just switched it off. If I want to upload to Facebook, I just Export to my desktop and upload as normal.

Seems quicker.

- Raw files. Personal choice and far be it for a rank amateur like me, etc etc, but ... consider using RAW. I can't see a downside. It used to be necessary for non-pros to use JPG as raw files were too big, took too much disk space, too much processing power, weren't natively supported by the OS, and were a pain to manage. Well, none of that is true anymore. Macs read RAW files natively. Aperture allows you to manage the files beautifully. You have CPU and disk space to go.

And RAW is the negative to JPEGs print.

Aperture makes a JPEG "print" from each RAW with default settings as you import, or you can alter to suit your requirements ( a bit less noise, correct the white balance perhaps ). Once you've allowed the camera to output the JPEG though, you've lost the RAW ! Whatever sharpening, white balance, noise and colour choices were programmed in by the camera maker, that's it. They have no idea what look you are trying to capture. Sure you can alter a JPEG later, but you are altering the "print" - you've already discarded the negative. For someone with as much invested in quality equipment as yourself, I'd consider it. Even if you do nothing other than shoot RAW and never edit, at least you'll have that option open in the future.

Lecture over ;-)

And next ...

4. Folders and Projects and Albums and other stuff
Aperture allows you to arrange how you view your photos entirely separately from how you store them on disk. I use a simple "Folder -> Project" setup.

Each year is a Folder.
Each import is a Project.

When I Import, before hitting the "Import X photos" button, I first click on the folder ( "2013" for example ) before naming the Project in the Import pane. This makes sure the Project is shown under the right folder. It's no issue if you accidentally forget to click the folder first. Just drag the Project to the right folder afterwards.Remember I use names like "2013 Jan - Rabbit" as I want the folders on disk to maintain some project metadata, as redundancy.

Important : After you've imported, anything you do in the left-hand sidebar as far as arranging your photos in albums or projects, does not affect how they are stored on disk. It's entirely up to you how you use folders/projects/albums.

5. And finally some proper techie stuff :-)

Backups !

Obviously ensure that your Aperture Database AND your Referenced Masters ( wherever you store the original photos ) are backed up. Time Machine is the obvious choice. I'm completely insane about backups, so my system is doubtless over the top, but for your amusement :

Time Machine backs up the whole computer - SSD ( containing the OS, Apps, and Aperture Database ) and spinning disk ( Internal 2TB SATA drive, containing my development files and Aperture Masters.
Nightly, I use Carbon Copy Cloner to make a clone of the SSD to a spare internal SATA disk. Carbon Copy Cloner wakes up the computer at 2am, mounts the disk, clones the SSD, makes the clone disk bootable, dismounts the disk, and sleeps the computer. This gives me, at any time, a second bootable OS disk which is never more than 24 hours out of date. Yes I could do the "replace SSD and restore from Time Machine" thing, and have done in the past, but it takes time. Whereas holding down the B key on booting and selecting my clone disk takes no time at all. Overkill, but, I had the disk spare and it's put to comforting use.

Weekly, I use Carbon Copy Cloner to clone the entire Aperture Masters from the 2TB disk to yet another internal SATA disk. ( Love the internal storage capacity of the Pro ! ). Reason again, is speed of recovery. I have 1/2TB or so of photos. A Time Machine restore would take half a day. I like having a copy online. Also helps if I have a "senior moment" and blow up my 2TB disk accidentally while messing around.
Offsite backups in realtime to Safecopybackup.com of my entire Aperture Masters tree. This is my "house burns down, now what?" recovery option. Would be dog slow to recover, but I could recover. Enough said.

If you have a whole heap of disk, I'd recommend using some of it for backups. Over and above Time Machine. Maybe use an internal spinning disk for the Aperture Masters ( spinning disks are so cheap now ) and backup the lot to a NAS folder or something.

Aperture is a good product. Lots more functionality than iPhoto ( which is also a good product, simply more limited ) and I haven't touched most of it here.

Hope that helps someone.

phrehdd
Aug 11, 2013, 04:10 PM
For clarification, Adobe has advised that LR5 will remain available as a separate purchase outside of the Creative Cloud, but also advised that CC members will get added features that retail owners won't. Also, Adobe was silent as to future releases of LR

I have read similar that LR5 will remain separate as the masses of CS6 users and legacy software users get turned in one direction, run off the cliff like lemmings as they enter into the subscription cloud world. I'll keep my CS6 PS, my Lightroom (probably move to Aperture or Capture One) and hope there are enough 3rd party tools to add to CS6 PS over the next few years.

It is a shame that many of us (myself included) feel Apple puts various software in the last to be addressed list with updates and advancements. I think Aperture is a very decent software and it would be a shame to see it fall by the side with the slowness of Apple to support and develop it further.

Gordonhbm
Oct 15, 2013, 09:34 AM
Twistedpanties
Thanks for your posts on the way you handle imports and your preferred hierarchy. I found this very helpful.

I am now in the position that I have nearly filled my ssd (256GB) on my Mackbook air. I need to set up an external drive for my masters. Unfortunately I have not been anything like as sensible as you in my hierarchy and although I have probably about 30k of images - all jpg's - i would like to adapt your methods.

Should I set about renaming masters before changing from managed to referenced for the masters? This looks a massive task to me. I am not even sure how to establish exactly what hierarchy I have been using!

Is there a way that I could set up what I want in the aperture library and then have aperture/apple/iphoto use this to rename my masters and then set up my referenced masters on another, external, disc?

I would also be interested to see how you have your library set out in aperture.
I look forward to any advice from you and other members of the forum.