Aperture: Delete master but keep version?

[Hello.there]

Yet another Aperture question.

I'm struggling to understand how I can delete a Master but keep versions of the Master....without deleting the Master and all Versions, if you know what I mean?

I have a bunch of Masters that I would be happy to delete, so long as I can keep the adjusted versions.....is this possible?

Thanks.

 

[Grimace]

Yet another Aperture question.

I'm struggling to understand how I can delete a Master but keep versions of the Master....without deleting the Master and all Versions, if you know what I mean?

I have a bunch of Masters that I would be happy to delete, so long as I can keep the adjusted versions.....is this possible?

Thanks.

Export the adjusted version to a TIFF, jpeg, etc - then reimport it to the library. You can then delete the old Master.

The master is the unedited version to which adjustments are made in invisible "layers" (sorta) - but the actual original is never altered. Unless you never need the photo again, I would recommend keeping the master.

 

[Hello.there]

Export the adjusted version to a TIFF, jpeg, etc - then reimport it to the library. You can then delete the old Master.

Why didn't I think of that?

That's brilliant Grimace, THANK YOU!

 

[kkat69]

The master is the unedited version to which adjustments are made in invisible "layers" (sorta) - but the actual original is never altered. Unless you never need the photo again, I would recommend keeping the master.

That's the way I understood the 'versions' that they are just previews with the adjustments made to the master. So if you made adjustments repeatidly, those adjustments aren't seperate images taking up space, it's just the preview that gets updated.

 

[Grimace]

That's the way I understood the 'versions' that they are just previews with the adjustments made to the master. So if you made adjustments repeatidly, those adjustments aren't seperate images taking up space, it's just the preview that gets updated.

Exactly, even making a new, separate version is just a preview of the master with the 40kb worth of new data applied on top. Non-destructive and and doesn't take up a ton of space!

 

[ChrisA]

I have a bunch of Masters that I would be happy to delete, so long as I can keep the adjusted versions.....is this possible?

Why do you want to do this? Do you want to save disk space? If you are shooting raw format and using only aperture adjustments on the image then you will not save any space. Those versions are only a very small files that records the possition of the adjustment sliders. The version image does not exist untill you cal it up to display or export.

Some versions are the result of a round trip through Photoshop or a plug-in and these are stored as actual raster files and can stand alone but the normal case with Aperture is non-destuctive edits

 

[Hello.there]

Why do you want to do this?

Because I have lots of masters that are of no use to me anymore, eg they've been cropped heavily, lots of necessary adjustments. It's not a space issue, I just don't see the need to keep versions of a photo (including the master) that I don't want and won't be looking at any more.

It just makes more sense to me, as suggested above, that I make the version I like the new master copy by exporting and then importing it.

 

[canoeman]

Because I have lots of masters that are of no use to me anymore, eg they've been cropped heavily, lots of necessary adjustments. It's not a space issue, I just don't see the need to keep versions of a photo (including the master) that I don't want and won't be looking at any more.

It just makes more sense to me, as suggested above, that I make the version I like the new master copy by exporting and then importing it.

I think the most conservative thing might to be just delete any versions you don't want and leave the master, especially if it's raw. If you export and then reimport a tiff, that image will be larger than the original master. I have gotten to just adjusting the version that shows up in the viewer (what some consider a master), not making a duplicate version, and knowing that I can always see the master by hitting the M. You can also just hit the 9 key and not have to look at it anymore, although it's still there.

 

[stevetmq]

See quote below: I get this a lot not just in forums but in shops as well.

What is it about peoples obsession with wanting to know "Why" can they not be satisfied with "I just do"? "How" is the inportant part.

Why do you want to do this? Do you want to save disk space? If you are shooting raw format and using only aperture adjustments on the image then you will not save any space. Those versions are only a very small files that records the possition of the adjustment sliders. The version image does not exist untill you cal it up to display or export.

Some versions are the result of a round trip through Photoshop or a plug-in and these are stored as actual raster files and can stand alone but the normal case with Aperture is non-destuctive edits

 

[Fujiko7]

See quote below: I get this a lot not just in forums but in shops as well.

What is it about peoples obsession with wanting to know "Why" can they not be satisfied with "I just do"? "How" is the inportant part.

Because sometimes knowing why someone wants to do something helps you better answer their question.

One point to the OP: if you delete the RAW master and reimport a .tiff, that's not a new "master" as you seemed to suggest. You could still work on it but you can't do as much as you could on a RAW file.

If it's not a space issue I don't see what you'd gain by deleting the masters.

 

[cupcakes2000]

I agree.

There is only ONE actual photo. The master. The others the 'versions' are simply adjustment files. When you click it, your seeing the master, with the adjustments over the top.
So, if you use stacks, you might have the unedited version, a b&w version, a different crop version etc. All these versions are just adjustment data overlayed on the master, which is safely tucked away hidden for when you need it.

When you wish to export, obviously this then exports a copy of the master with the adjustments permanently added.

If I where you, and didn't want loads of images that I never looked at, I would delete all the versions that i didn't like, and keep in a stack the original version plus the edit you like. put the edit at the top of the stack and close it! that way, its there but you can't see it, you're clutter free, and you haven't chucked anything important out.
I really don't know how many times I've been gutted cos I couldn't re edit something from the original.

DONT THROW THEM AWAY!!!!!!!!!

 

[Ruahrc]

What is it about peoples obsession with wanting to know "Why" can they not be satisfied with "I just do"? "How" is the inportant part.

Because often understanding why someone wants to do something reveals their understanding (or more typically, lack of understanding) of a given subject, and why what they're trying to do is either impossible or not the best solution.

In this specific case, the versions are not actual copies of the master photo. It is impossible to do what the OP asks because by the definition of a non-destructive workflow, deleting the master deletes all versions of the photo too. Because there is only one copy of that photo on the drive, or in the database.

Ruahrc

OP- I'm not exactly sure how the master/version relationship in AP works (is it the same as virtual copies in LR?), but if you only want to keep one version of the file, then can you not just copy all the editing settings from the version you like, and then apply them to the master photo? Now the "master" photo looks like your favorite copy, and you can then erase all versions you don't want to keep or see.

 

[Fujiko7]

OP- I'm not exactly sure how the master/version relationship in AP works (is it the same as virtual copies in LR?), but if you only want to keep one version of the file, then can you not just copy all the editing settings from the version you like, and then apply them to the master photo? Now the "master" photo looks like your favorite copy, and you can then erase all versions you don't want to keep or see.

No, because that would just be another version.

 

[Ruahrc]

No, because that would just be another version.

So no matter what you do in AP, it always has a "master" entry of a file with no edits, and is the as-shot picture?

 

[Fujiko7]

Yup.

 

[TheDrift-]

As someone has already suggested the only way i know is to export the versions, then re-import them as a separate project.

Once this is done you could delete the masters.

I do something similar only instead of deleting the masters I archive them off to storage, given the low cost of storage I would give this some consideration over deleting the masters,

You never know when you might need the master file again, or some new product might be released that could help further improve one of the versions, or you need a new skill.

EG Before I got into to photoshop I remember I binned a lot of photos after a shoot because they didn’t have good catch lights in the eyes…then you realise how easy they are to add in PS and I wish I had kept them.

 

[Falko]

Because sometimes knowing why someone wants to do something helps you better answer their question.
<snip>
If it's not a space issue I don't see what you'd gain by deleting the masters.

I've searched quite a bit to find a solution for the OP's question. To explain my "why" (in the hopes that someone will be able to suggest a better solution) here's my reason:
My photos are a lot of point and shoot shots. I get a lot of red eye. Aperture has a really nice red eye removal tool, so I like to blast through my photos (usually about a hundred) and just get rid of the red eye. Then I send the photos to family or whatever.

I _never_ want to see the photo with the red eye again. So I can't understand why it's such a chore for me to get rid of the Master that has this flaw. Other programs would have a very simple "Save Changes" option, but not Aperture. For me the non destructive editing design is more annoying than helpful.

I would give anything to have a "Save Version as Master" option, or something similar, to get a "better" Master free of flaws.

Any suggestions?

Thanks,
Falko

 

[Somepix]

Select Master and Versions, and make a pile (in french "piles". Hope it's the same in english). Anyway : command - K. Put the version you want to see on top of the pile moving it to the left. And don't delete the master.

 

[Falko]

Select Master and Versions, and make a pile (in french "piles". Hope it's the same in english). Anyway : command - K. Put the version you want to see on top of the pile moving it to the left. And don't delete the master.

Thanks for the quick response!

I think it's "stacks" in English.

But after doing all this, which photo file do I email to my relatives? The one I want to view on my desktop background? I still have to export the version, leading to two files with the same photo, yet one completely unwanted.

It's all well and good if I do everything in Aperture, but I don't. I want a single file that has the picture without red-eye...

Oh, and incidentally, during my search, I realized that I am using referenced Masters, instead of importing everything into the Aperture library. But the library seems even worse, because now all my files are hidden in a database, and I can't access them from other programs.

Cheers,
Falko

 

[LumbermanSVO]

If you are using referenced masters then your files will stay put when importing and you need to keep them in that location. If you are using a managed library then your files are getting imported into the library package file.

You can email pictures directly from Aperture unless you are using a web based email client, so no need to export a file.

Are you creating multiple versions of a file when you start editing?

 

[OreoCookie]

I'm struggling to understand how I can delete a Master but keep versions of the Master....without deleting the Master and all Versions, if you know what I mean?

I have a bunch of Masters that I would be happy to delete, so long as I can keep the adjusted versions.....is this possible?

No, and I think this is because you misunderstand what versions are: Aperture works destruction free, i. e. it never touches your master. If you create versions, Aperture creates small text files (which are a few kB in size) which contains the edits (the »slider settings« if you want). Even if you only edit your masters, Aperture will create such a text file (consider it version 0). To use an analogy from analog photography: the master is the digital negative.

So you will not save any space by deleting versions. And if you delete the master, your versions will be deleted with it.

 

[Somepix]

.... and use Projects, Albums, and Ratings. It's way easier than export and re-import.

 

[Falko]

You can email pictures directly from Aperture unless you are using a web based email client, so no need to export a file.

I need to upload to hotmail, so I guess I need to export a file.

Are you creating multiple versions of a file when you start editing?

Nope, just editing the first picture I see (I'm assuming it's the original version)

So here's the solution I've come up with:
- I fix the red eye on all the photos I need to, marking them with a star or whatever.
- I export all those photos into a subdirectory.
- Then I delete the entire project from Aperture, go into Finder and move the exported photos back into the original directory (overwriting the photos with red eye).
- Then I go back into Aperture and recreate my project.
- Voila, an entire project with no red eye on the Master photos.

It's cumbersome, but it works. I would obviously only do this the first time I import the photos to avoid overwriting any other edits.

Is there some kind of hidden danger to what I'm doing?

 

[Bear]

I need to upload to hotmail, so I guess I need to export a file.


Nope, just editing the first picture I see (I'm assuming it's the original version)

So here's the solution I've come up with:
- I fix the red eye on all the photos I need to, marking them with a star or whatever.
- I export all those photos into a subdirectory.
- Then I delete the entire project from Aperture, go into Finder and move the exported photos back into the original directory (overwriting the photos with red eye).
- Then I go back into Aperture and recreate my project.
- Voila, an entire project with no red eye on the Master photos.

It's cumbersome, but it works. I would obviously only do this the first time I import the photos to avoid overwriting any other edits.

Is there some kind of hidden danger to what I'm doing?

If your originals are in raw format, you lose a lot of editing ability by converting them to TIFF.

In your example, you correct for the red eye and then make new masters. If you go back and adjust (for example) brightness and contrast on those new masters, that will affect the corrected eyes.

 

[OreoCookie]

Nope, just editing the first picture I see (I'm assuming it's the original version)

So here's the solution I've come up with:
- I fix the red eye on all the photos I need to, marking them with a star or whatever.
- I export all those photos into a subdirectory.
- Then I delete the entire project from Aperture, go into Finder and move the exported photos back into the original directory (overwriting the photos with red eye).
- Then I go back into Aperture and recreate my project.
- Voila, an entire project with no red eye on the Master photos.

It's cumbersome, but it works. I would obviously only do this the first time I import the photos to avoid overwriting any other edits.

Oh boy, something has gone seriously wrong in your workflow: you are so fixated on the »original« that you sidestep the workflow suggested by Aperture (and Lightroom).

Is there some kind of hidden danger to what I'm doing?

To answer your question: there are no hidden dangers, the risks to your solution is in plain sight:
(1) Your workflow is destructive: if you eff up an aspect of editing the original, you cannot revert after re-importing. If you shoot in RAW, you also lose a lot of color information since I assume you export your images as jpg. If you export them as tiff, the resulting files are much larger than the RAW file you started with which slows down your workflow (e. g. the 16 megapixel RAW files of my D7000 weigh in at about 20 MB each, perhaps 25; a 16 bit tiff of the same resolution takes up 91 MB of space!). If you decide to render one photo in two different ways in the end, it takes up 182 MB instead of 25 MB!

Allowing for a fully non-destructive workflow is the most significant advance that was introduced with Aperture 1.0, i. e. the principle that you never, ever, ever touch the original.
(2) Your workflow is a lot more complicated than it needs to be.
(3) You don't quite understand what a master is: what you do with your workflow is to make the rendered file the new master.

I also don't see any upside to working this way: you can always create a version from the rendering of the master where you have already removed the red eyes.