Aperture Libraries - Advice?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by ipedro, Jul 12, 2010.

  1. ipedro macrumors 68040

    ipedro

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2004
    Location:
    Toronto, ON
    #1
    I've been using Aperture since 1.0 and have a library of 40,000 + photos. After installing Aperture 3, the app is simply unusable at times. I can't run Safari + Aperture at the same time because together they use up 4GB of RAM, the amount I have on my MBP.

    Some people have suggested that I split my library into smaller ones and I'm willing to give it a try but I have a few questions before going ahead with it.

    The major advantages of having a single library and questions I have regarding them using separate libraries:

    - You can use smart folders to look through your entire body of work and identify the best photos, or all the photos taken at a specific location
    Q: I'm already willing to drop this advantage as I'm pretty sure smart folders in one library won't fetch photos from another. Am I correct?

    - You can back up all your work at once in one Vault
    Q: Will a vault back up all your libraries or just the one you presently have open?

    - You can sync photos from your library to your iPhone
    Q: Will iTunes enable you to choose to sync photos from different libraries or just one?

    I'm an event photographer and most of my photos are from nightclubs, although I do have studio work, some weddings and private parties. I'll split those up into different libraries and hope they make a difference.

    An additional question: When I create a new library for a certain folder of projects, will that folder be moved to the new library or simply copied? If the latter, is it safe for me to delete the original folder once the new library is made?
     
  2. AndyGordon macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2009
    Location:
    Cambridgeshire, UK
    #2
    Hi,

    Do you have faces running in Aperture? This will spend a lot of system resources as it works through your library
     
  3. cosmokanga2 macrumors 6502a

    cosmokanga2

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2008
    Location:
    Canada, where we live in igloos.
    #3
    You are correct. I am hoping that a later update to Aperture has some form of searching multiply libraries and such.

    Just the one you are currently working in.

    Not sure.

    It will be copied although you can select copy masters or not when exporting the library. You then can delete the original copy of the folder.
     
  4. flosseR macrumors 6502a

    flosseR

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2009
    Location:
    the cold dark north
    #4
    Hey, here is something I started doing...and I am actually writing a multipage guide about it. Aperture performance is stellar since I did that and my library size is under 10GB, with over 110G of actual files.

    Create a separate folder for your RAW files and organize them by folders, ALL OF THEM. Once you have the folders, open your library and relocate the masters to those folders. You can even rename and organize the folders automatically by project name etc.
    Once you have moved your RAWs and you work with only reference files, your library is tiny (in comparison), you have all your metadata, you have all your photos in a library and you still have room to grow.
    Only caveat so far: you have to back up your RAW folder structure separately through time machine or whatever.
    Try it, I won't move back from this way or working :)
     
  5. toxic macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2008
    #5
    before you do anything fancy, you could try defragging the disk that has the Aperture library on it.
     
  6. ipedro thread starter macrumors 68040

    ipedro

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2004
    Location:
    Toronto, ON
    #6
    I thought I'd first do a clean sweep through my library before splitting it into separate ones and so far, I've gotten rid of 5,000 photos and Aperture is already running faster.

    This tells me that Apple needs to work on the efficiency of the app. Instead of having deliberate separate libraries, why not have it done in the background? For example, each project would be self contained and other projects (libraries) would be loaded only as they were clicked on.
     
  7. ipedro thread starter macrumors 68040

    ipedro

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2004
    Location:
    Toronto, ON
    #7
    Isn't OS X in charge of doing that in the background? From what I know, Mac OS X automatically moves files into continuous portions for each file, eliminating the need to do this manually like on Windows.
     
  8. flosseR macrumors 6502a

    flosseR

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2009
    Location:
    the cold dark north
    #8
    it does to a large extend. I still would move to referenced files... less loading, and you can have the large data somewhere else and have your smaller library always with you..
     
  9. ipedro thread starter macrumors 68040

    ipedro

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2004
    Location:
    Toronto, ON
    #9
    flosseR, in Activity monitor, how much RAM (real and virtual) does it show Aperture using at rest?

    I ask this because there appears to be a severe memory leak. When mine starts up, it's using about 800MB of each and steadily climbs to about 1.5GB. That's a lot for an app that's just sitting there.
     
  10. flosseR macrumors 6502a

    flosseR

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2009
    Location:
    the cold dark north
    #10
    It has been idling all night to check what you were saying:
     

    Attached Files:

  11. ipedro thread starter macrumors 68040

    ipedro

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2004
    Location:
    Toronto, ON
    #11
    Thank you very much for checking that.

    500MB is a lot more reasonable.

    Mine:

    [​IMG]

    My memory usage is off the charts...
     

Share This Page