I have my raw images in their original location but referenced inside Apreture. I dont wish to add caption data whilst in Aperture as it does not save it in the original but as part of the database. This is in case I move the originals, or copies of them elsewhere at anytime, I would like the metadata to be within the file. So having sucessfully editied the images is there a way to get Aperture to re-read the original, a sort of refresh button. I know its probably heavily frowned upon editing the originals like this. But I have my reasons, and I do have backups nice and safe.
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
A question for the Aperture experts
- Thread starter Boblister
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
I have my raw images in their original location but referenced inside Apreture. I dont wish to add caption data whilst in Aperture as it does not save it in the original but as part of the database. This is in case I move the originals, or copies of them elsewhere at anytime, I would like the metadata to be within the file. So having sucessfully editied the images is there a way to get Aperture to re-read the original, a sort of refresh button. I know its probably heavily frowned upon editing the originals like this. But I have my reasons, and I do have backups nice and safe.
I thought IPTC info was placed inside the file. Shows what I know. I think if you "exported" the files you get what you want, a file with your edits inside. I'm pretty sure when you do the export there are options for where the meta data goes, in the file or in one of those Adboe style side car files
No the master files are totally untouched in Aperture and never written too as far as I am aware. But apart from name and comments I want to add I am starting to geocode a lot of my shots. I could take the images out of the database and re-import them after modification I supppose. I was just hoping for a way to tell Aperture to relook at them. I dont really want to commit to Aperture for ever in case something better comes along.
No the master files are totally untouched in Aperture and never written too as far as I am aware. But apart from name and comments I want to add I am starting to geocode a lot of my shots. I could take the images out of the database and re-import them after modification I supppose. I was just hoping for a way to tell Aperture to relook at them. I dont really want to commit to Aperture for ever in case something better comes along.
Why? When the images are inside Aperture's library they act as if the meta data is embedded and later when you want to use them inside some other application you have to export the image and then it is embedded. Why would anyone care how the Aperture library is organized internally. In fact caring about that is very bad. Apertures default is to keep the library inside a "bundle" that is closed up so you can't see the image files in the finder. This is by far the best way to use Aperture. I'd say off hand that every single forum post where a person has asked or help about Aperture is because someone thought they could manage image files therm selves outside of Aperture's library. Apple added that ability but using it requires that you know a lot and don't make any mistakes.
The best way to use Aperture is to let it manage your files. If you can't let it then you are best off using Adobe Bridge or Lightroom. Both of those applications acct just like Finder but with some extra freatures.
It contradicts with Apple's philosophy to leave original files literally untouched.
Every time you move from one solution to another, you will have to redo a lot of things by hand -- unless there is a way to import information. I had to rebuild my iView database from scratch (which was also a good thing) and I've lost all my tagging information.
It's much easier if you just let Aperture do its job and let the pictures manage it for you. Later on, you can still export them quite easily, if you have to. Lightroom or iView are no different, mind you (have a look at the threads started by people who want to move from Lightroom to Aperture or the other way around). And some people think that most of their info is contained in the physical location of the files while it's all the metadata which has always been in a database of sorts (be it an iView catalog or Apertures SQL lite database).
Every time you move from one solution to another, you will have to redo a lot of things by hand -- unless there is a way to import information. I had to rebuild my iView database from scratch (which was also a good thing) and I've lost all my tagging information.
It's much easier if you just let Aperture do its job and let the pictures manage it for you. Later on, you can still export them quite easily, if you have to. Lightroom or iView are no different, mind you (have a look at the threads started by people who want to move from Lightroom to Aperture or the other way around). And some people think that most of their info is contained in the physical location of the files while it's all the metadata which has always been in a database of sorts (be it an iView catalog or Apertures SQL lite database).
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.