I end up with two Libraries when migrated to Photos.

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by sh0an, Apr 12, 2015.

  1. sh0an macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2015
    #1
    So I imported my Aperture library to the new Photos app in order to have it a try. Didn't like it much. In my map Pictures, in Finder - there is now two libraries, one for Aperture and one for Photos. Both have the same size. Why is that?

    I then went back to continue using Aperture. But it turns out that all pictures now are gone - so I go and import my old Aperture library. All good and so. But then go check the Pictures folder in Finder and turns out there is now a second Aperture library.. much much smaller in size.

    Advice? Anyone had the same experience?
     
  2. DarthVader! macrumors member

    DarthVader!

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2013
    #2
    Photos converts your library and is not compatible with Aperture. The process keeps a version of your library that is compatible so you can access it with Aperture.
     
  3. sh0an thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2015
    #3
    So my Aperture library is about 70GB. Now there is a Photos library at 70GB as well. They both actually take this space or are they just two ways of seeing the same pictures?
     
  4. DarthVader! macrumors member

    DarthVader!

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2013
    #4
    Two different libraries holding the same picture that two different apps will use.
     
  5. DHKaplan macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2008
    #5
  6. sh0an thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2015
    #6
    Maybe Im a little slow here. But this means, even though there are two libraries in Finder showing 70 + 70 GB - there is actually only one place and they only take 70GB in total?
     
  7. DHKaplan macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2008
    #7
    Yes, sort of. There is only one copy of your photos, but the database for each program takes up some room, but no where near the amount of the photos. I'll repeat that after you've imported, you can still use both programs, but the changes made in one won't appear in the other... beware!

    Supposedly you can delete either database and the remaining one will work with its own program (you may want to rename the iPhotos db which was renamed during the migration). I have good backups (hopefully) so I may try to delete the new one, BUT I am not recommending anyone else try this...

    I will keep track of how big the supposed Photos library is (somewhere over 100G), and how much my drive gains after the delete, if I do get up the courage to do it.
     
  8. DHKaplan macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2008
    #8
    Here's definitive proof:
    Photos library: 123.23G
    iPhotos migrated library: 126.31G

    Available on Drive: 691.05G

    I deleted the Photos library and emptied the trash.

    New Available on Drive: 694.70G

    *AND* iPhoto works just great. I did rename the file, but don't think that makes any difference.
     
  9. sh0an thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2015
    #9
    Sweet! Nice to hear.

    I think I'll continue using Aperture for some time though.
    Good to hear that the additional library don't take any extra space.
     
  10. DHKaplan macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2008
    #10
    I'm sticking with iPhoto because I can't find an alternative that will handle my 100+G of photos and keep the events/albums I've already created. Maybe the next update of Photos will be better, sigh.
     

Share This Page