Aperture: Managed vs. Referenced

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Grimace, Nov 19, 2007.

  1. Grimace macrumors 68040

    Grimace

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2003
    Location:
    with Hamburglar.
    #1
    In a recent thread, some of us were discussing how we organize our Aperture libraries, between Managed or Referenced.

    When I started with Aperture, I saw the ability to reference the albums but I had so few that I never elected that option; and then forgot about it.

    What do you all do? Anyone want to share:

    1. Number of images
    2. Number of projects
    3. Basic computer specs
    4. Managed or referenced

    Thanks!!
     
  2. Westside guy macrumors 601

    Westside guy

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2003
    Location:
    The soggy side of the Pacific NW
    #2
    I don't shoot as much as some, but...

    I've got 1699 images in roughly 70 projects. I let Aperture manage the library so I don't have to think about it, then every so often I relocate the masters - so it's kind of a hybrid approach.

    I'm using a 15" Macbook Pro Core 2 Duo 2.16GHz with 2GB of RAM. With my personal stuff I usually just work on the MBP's screen; with work photos I can take advantage of my 20" monitor.
     
  3. DCBass macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2004
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    #3
    I only use Aperture for personal photos, so I only have one project with 6500 photos.

    I reference all my masters, since I like to keep my own photo structure. This is primarily because we have a mixed mac/pc household.

    After I take some pics, I usu import them into iPhoto so I can easily rate and delete them. Then, I export them into their proper folder and import these into Aperture. Then, they are deleted from iPhoto.

    I'm not sure if this is the smoothest way to go about things. Does anyone else out there with referenced masters of personal photos with a smoother workflow than mine?

    DCBass
     
  4. Grimace thread starter macrumors 68040

    Grimace

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2003
    Location:
    with Hamburglar.
    #4
    I just spent many hours transferring everything I have to referenced hard drives. Not much performance gain (at least on my system.) On a laptop, it might make a big difference. Now I'm transferring everything back...

    I prefer the value of vaults, even if they are several hundred GB. It's cleaner and easier and my data seems to stay well under the largest hard drive size (as both grow larger.)
     
  5. M@lew macrumors 68000

    M@lew

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2006
    Location:
    Melbourne, Australia
    #5
    When I used Aperture I referenced the photos. It made them easier to access for other things.
     
  6. Clix Pix macrumors demi-goddess

    Clix Pix

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2005
    Location:
    8 miles from the Apple Store at Tysons (VA)
    #6
    1) I import my CF cards to my Mac Pro to a folder on the desktop

    2) Review and cull images in Photo Mechanic

    3) Take ONLY the images I want to process into Aperture

    4) After processing, export jpg versions to another folder on desktop

    5) Send jpgs to Smugmug or Zenfolio

    6) Back up images to external HD

    7) Update Aperture Vault


    My Mac Pro is the Quad, with 8 GB RAM and the 1900XT graphics card. Not sure how many projects I've got in there right now -- 30, maybe?
     
  7. stcanard macrumors 65816

    stcanard

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2003
    Location:
    Vancouver
    #7
    My external drive has a directory structure whose top level is a numbered / named backup disk folders (optical disks):
    Aperture/BackupDisc1 Aperture/BackupDisc2 etc

    Everything sits on my external drive except the current backup disc directory which is on my local drive. My procedure is this:

    1) Import the photos (referenced) from the card into a project under the current backup disc. I let Aperture handle the naming convention, just a directory with the folder name

    This is so I can let Time Machine take care of the referenced masters, and I don't have to have my external plugged in while working on current projects

    2) Cull the images in Aperture using rating / reject

    3) Once the directory gets close enough to the size of an optical disk, I burn it, move the directory onto my external drive, and reconnect

    I find on a laptop this keeps a nice balance of knowing I always have a backup, and its reasonably easy to work with current projects. With a 60GB internal drive there is no way I could keep everything in a managed project locally.
     
  8. Grimace thread starter macrumors 68040

    Grimace

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2003
    Location:
    with Hamburglar.
    #8
    For those of you that are using the referenced model, I wondered how you do backups.

    Example:
    Drive 1: Aperture Library itself - no RAW masters
    Drive 2: Referenced Masters

    You can put a Vault of the Aperture Library (sans referenced masters) on another drive (say for example Drive 2) in case Drive 1 dies. But you'd also have to have a backup on the referenced masters in case Drive 2 dies (either on Drive 1 or Drive 3...)

    How are you guys using multiple drives to do backups? Like most people, I can't afford to have a HD die on me.
     
  9. Westside guy macrumors 601

    Westside guy

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2003
    Location:
    The soggy side of the Pacific NW
    #9
    At the moment my referenced masters are on the same disk as the Aperture library. It's not currently a space issue, but I'm just planning ahead in case Apple doesn't get around to providing a hack-free way to handle multiple libraries by the time I've filled my disk. It's easier to divide stuff up now than to wait until I have to do it.

    Now if Apple does start offering the ability to handle multiple libraries within Aperture, I'll go back to using completely managed masters.
     

Share This Page