Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Aperture 3: Managed vs Referenced (poll)?
- Thread starter belltree
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Managed. Because it just works.
(And because iView has traumatized me for life, I just don't want to reconnect library items to their files anymore
)
(And because iView has traumatized me for life, I just don't want to reconnect library items to their files anymore
)
I use Referenced, because my primary photography computer is a MacBook Pro with a 160Gb SSD in it the library and thumbnails live on the SSD so I can import and view photos while I'm out and about, and the RAW files live on an external HD that lives at home.
Managed. One of the key reasons I use Aperture is to manage my photos... so I don't have to mess with the file system and finder to do so.
I did use referenced though a few months back I could see the original picture files but the library file had gone.
Still not got round to importing them all and messing about as its going to be a royal PITA to do it.
Now I just use managed... its one file to look after and make sure its backed up so fingers crossed with 3 copies of it I should be ok in the future
Still not got round to importing them all and messing about as its going to be a royal PITA to do it.
Now I just use managed... its one file to look after and make sure its backed up so fingers crossed with 3 copies of it I should be ok in the future
what is the advantage to go managed? I don't see the point of moving all your picture in your library.
Any sped improvement or something?
Any sped improvement or something?
(1) All the file management is done by Aperture then. It renames them, sorts them, creates folders and subfolders whenever necessary.
(2) If you want to back up all your photos, all you need to make sure is that your Aperture library is backed up.
If you use referenced images and store your Aperture library and images on separate disks, then you may see speed ups since you increase throughput and the two drives may seek independently.
Managed because I have a 2TB drive with in the iMac, connected to a 2TB ext drive for Time Machine back-up.
However.....if I had a MacBook Pro with less space and used multiple libraries then I'd go the referenced route, again making sure I have bullet proof back-up scheme either way.
The needs dictate the solution.
However.....if I had a MacBook Pro with less space and used multiple libraries then I'd go the referenced route, again making sure I have bullet proof back-up scheme either way.
The needs dictate the solution.
I use managed libraries. I have a personal, work and then individuals for weddings. Having managed also means 1-click back-ups using the Vault.
Referenced. I guess I'm just overly cautious about my files in a proprietary database. As my referenced files exist in my own directory structure on the HDD I can always find a file easily if I want without firing up Aperture if I'm not in the mood. Also, if I choose to switch to another software program my files are ready to be accessed by it (no need to export from Aperture). This is a big time-saver especially if I want to demo software like Photo Mechanic, for example.
The files are not contained in a proprietary database, they are contained in regular directories. The Aperture library and the projects are bundles (just like applications in OS X), i. e. they are regular directories that appear as a single file in the Finder. You can navigate to your photos if necessary: right-click any bundle and select Show Contents. You can now easily find your photos, the directory structure corresponds to the structure in your library. In that sense, it's no different than iTunes which can also manage your music files.
Managed files here.
I can import the images to the folder structure within Aperture and then let Aperture sort everything else.
Also to back up I just make sure that I regularly update the vault. If I have a special project I need to make an extra backup of then I can export the masters and write them to DVD.
I can import the images to the folder structure within Aperture and then let Aperture sort everything else.
Also to back up I just make sure that I regularly update the vault. If I have a special project I need to make an extra backup of then I can export the masters and write them to DVD.
Referenced. The reason is that I have a large library (800GB) and I want it to be future proof. If I want to move to Lightroom, my library is neatly sorted into catagory/year/month/project. My referenced library is stored on a mirror raid and automatically backed up to an off site copy. I do dual imports with the primary import going onto a fast scratch drive. When I am done with the project, I delete the copy from the scratch drive and re-link to the Raid library.
Having lost some photos to iphoto many many years ago I am very reluctant to put any faith in managed libraries (corrupt library left the files intact but buried in the iphoto library structure which is so hard to navigate I ended up giving up on getting most of them back (nothing important)
Having lost some photos to iphoto many many years ago I am very reluctant to put any faith in managed libraries (corrupt library left the files intact but buried in the iphoto library structure which is so hard to navigate I ended up giving up on getting most of them back (nothing important)
By the way, you know you can mix and match referenced and managed, right? You can, for instance, keep recent projects on your MacBook Pro's harddrive and then move it to your external harddrive after finishing working on it. You can change this even on a per-file basis.
Why isn't "Both" available?
I use referenced for my photo archive since I keep them on a server and want easy access from any system, however i start with managed when I take them. Each of my photo outings (since adopting Aperture) has its own managed library.
I use referenced for my photo archive since I keep them on a server and want easy access from any system, however i start with managed when I take them. Each of my photo outings (since adopting Aperture) has its own managed library.
No, because the referenced files cannot be altered in Aperture. It's actually a feature. When I used referenced libraries I do all the renaming/organization in Finder (or Adobe Bridge) before importing into Aperture.
Not that I know of. But you could add a keyword to photos in an album and use that to filter a project based on the pictures being in an album or not.
