Aperture to LR

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by CharlieBrandt09, Dec 23, 2014.

  1. CharlieBrandt09 macrumors 6502

    CharlieBrandt09

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2012
    Location:
    Southern NJ
    #1
    So, I realize this has probably been covered on here. But I did a search and couldn't find specific posts. I also couldn't find a great answer just by searching the web.

    I recently purchased a lens that came with free LR. I figured since I didn't have to pay for it - now would be a good time to migrate.

    I installed LR, ran the transfer plug-in, and it is telling me I need 300+GB to "transfer" my photos to LR. Why in the world would this make copies of all the photos, and not just "move" them?

    Am I doing this wrong? Should I just direct LR to my previous Aperture Library?

    I feel dumb. Sorry.
     
  2. flynz4 macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2009
    Location:
    Portland, OR
    #2
    Personally... I would save my aperture library to a safe location... and I would have LR make a total copy of your existing pictures. Why take the risk of corrupting something and not being able to move back to your known good Aperture library?

    With HDDs costing about $120/4TB... you are looking at about $10 of storage to keep your Aperture library safe.

    /Jim
     
  3. CharlieBrandt09 thread starter macrumors 6502

    CharlieBrandt09

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2012
    Location:
    Southern NJ
    #3
    So your suggestion would be to first export the whole Aperture library to an external HDD, then Import from there into LR. So, in essence, bypassing the LR migration tool altogether?
     
  4. flynz4 macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2009
    Location:
    Portland, OR
    #4
    Actually... since I posted... I did some more reading because I might need to switch to LR (even though I will hate to do so). I recommend reading the following:

    http://lightroomsolutions.com/articles/migrating-from-aperture-to-lightroom-where-do-i-begin/

    To answer your question. Yes. I would make a full backup of my current Aperture Library (actually a few backups onto different HDDs). I would want my entire library preserved on an Aperture Library until I know for sure that the conversion is intact.

    Then I would follow the advice in the article. First step seems to move to a full referenced library before you start the migration. There is also a lot of work that you may want to do to preserve your tags, project structure, geo-tagged data, etc. There is a lot of discussion in the article.

    I am going to wait until I see what the first two generations of Apple's Photos is like before I switch. I am not overly hopeful (to be honest)... but there are a few features that Apple is working on that would be a fantastic advancement in state of the art photo management. These are:
    1. Round Trip non-destructive editing
    2. Multi-user sharing
    If either (or both) really are implemented... then it may be worth it to stick with Photos. Like I said... I am not that hopeful, but waiting to switch will not be any more painful than it would be to switch today... and it makes sense for me to see what Photos brings... and worst case, I get to use (IMHO) the vastly superior Aperture in the mean time. I really do not like LR... but I will switch if necessary.

    /Jim
     
  5. MCAsan macrumors 601

    MCAsan

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2012
    Location:
    Atlanta
    #5


    Two very different ways to set up a digital asset manager (DAM) like Aperture, LR, and perhaps others. The first is a managed library/catalog whee all the original images are kept within the application's database package along with the jpg previews and info on the non-destructive edits that have been made.

    The second tyoe of library/catalog is referenced. The library/catalog contains the jpg previews, info on the edits, and a reference to where the original image (master) is stored in folders in the file system (not inside a database package).

    Aperture and iPhoto by default use a managed library. LR only supports a referenced catalog. So if you migrate from Aperture or iPhoto with a managed library to LR with a referenced library, LR will need to export the master image files out of the database package and into regular folders and subfolders in the Mac file system. That is why you may need to have more storage space when you export the master files and still have a large Aperture/iPhoto database full of images.
     
  6. Designer Dale macrumors 68040

    Designer Dale

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2009
    Location:
    Folding space
    #6
    I think you are misreading that a bit. The general procedure for safe file transfer of important things like photo libraries is to first make an exact copy of the existing library using the current app to an external drive, then toss that drive in a drawer as an insurance policy.

    After you do this, you have a secure copy of your library and can let either LR import from Aperture or have Aperture export to LR. Either way, if something gets screwed you can reinstall the app and load the library from the external copy.

    Dale
     
  7. CharlieBrandt09 thread starter macrumors 6502

    CharlieBrandt09

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2012
    Location:
    Southern NJ
    #7
    So, if I export my Aperture library into some other folder (whether it be on an external HDD or another location of my computer), its just moves, correct? It isn't copying those files to the new location?

    If I do that, from what I read, then I can point LR to reference that location.
     
  8. Designer Dale macrumors 68040

    Designer Dale

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2009
    Location:
    Folding space
    #8
    I'm concerned that something is going to get messed up trying to do this half Aperture and half LR. Make up your mind and use that app to set things up. Back up your Aperture library first like I mentioned before and then make the switch to LR using it's import or migration tools. They are different apps and LR knows what it wants best.

    Dale
     
  9. robgendreau macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2008
    #9
    It would be helpful if we knew if your Aperture library was a managed library or a referenced library. If you don't know, find out. LR only does referenced libraries.

    If you have a managed Aperture library by default LR's import plugin will COPY the photos from that library out to a folder structure, by date, in the Finder. That's basically what the folder structure of a managed library is anyway, it's just sorta hidden from you. Since it's copying, it would be redundant to make yet another copy or export, since that is exactly what the import plugin does. And you have an overall backup anyway, right?

    If you reference photos in Aperture, however, I also recommend you follow John Beardsworth's advice given in the URL above; instead of copying referenced photos, instead have LR leave them in place. Since LR always references photos, and since you've got those photos in Finder folders for a reason, leave 'em there. Again, it's only referencing, so if you've got a regular backup you're cool.

    Where a lot of Aperture switchers lose their bearings is with the virtual containers, the projects, albums and the like. Those get mapped to collections and collection sets in LR. But they'll be a bit different, since they don't map exactly since both programs have different rules for their containers, even though at the end of the day you get the same result. This is usually more of a problem for people who used a managed library, since all their organizational info is perhaps tied up in projects, etc. People who referenced files tend to have more structure in their Finder folders, so they don't get as lost. YMMV; it depends on the details...we'd have to know more to give advice on how to set things up for the easiest transfer.
     
  10. fcortese macrumors demi-god

    fcortese

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2010
    Location:
    Big Sky country
    #10
    There is another alternative; ApertureExporter (www.apertureexporter.com). It can be bought from Apple's App store and costs about $15. Adobe's transfer plug-in will not transfer any books, albums or any photos that you made adjustments to in Aperture. Keywords, stars will be but flags will not. If you want a picture that you made adjustments on to be transferred with those adjustments, you must first "bake" it by exporting it as a JPEG then importing it into Lr. AE does all of that for you and creates "flag" as a keyword for those flagged photos and will automatically bake any adjusted photo. You can also limit only say starred photos to be baked or not. Unfortunately, books are also lost with using AE. Albums are automatically created as folders so your Aperture hierarchy is protected and they are all kept together and not split into the folders section and collections section. Smart albums, I believe, become collections in Lr. But your photos that are in Aperture whether managed or referenced stay exactly where they are. So if you should choose to drop Lr, if Photos turns out to be superior, your photos are still where they have always been. The only difference would be in any new photos you import directly into Lr. These will have to be referenced either on you computer's HD or an external one and, of course, would not be part of Aperture. You would have to physically import them into Aperture. So it ia an option that is with exploring.
     

Share This Page