I've done searches and have found some answers to some questions, but I thought I'd ask here whether you guys think Aperture 3 would be worth it for me, given my workflow: My main camera is a Canon DSLR with which I shoot Canon RAW, and I have various other devices (P&S cameras, iPhones, other people's camera's, etc.). My workflow right now is that I copy photos from all these to my 2008 Macbook Pro (2.2GHz, 2GB RAM) and store them in folders organized by year and event name. I process the RAW files using Canon DPP, and the JPG files using GIMP. I periodically transfer these folders to a separate "archive" server and share them back out via NFS read-only. I don't use iPhoto, because it doesn't have as powerful editing capabilities as DPP or GIMP, and the total size of my library is now at 61GB, which is more than I have available on my MBP. Hence the "archive" server. What I'd like to do, and what I'm asking, is whether Aperture 3 offers: - Access to my entire photo library, whether on the local disk or on read-only NFS drives. If I make an edit to a file in the read-only "archive," is it stored as an extra copy on my local hard drive, such that the originals are not modified? And if I move some folders from my local drive to the "archive" server, can Aperture find them there? - A single interface for editing photos, whether they are RAW or JPG. - A way to modify the metadata within a RAW or JPG file and store custom fields there (maybe IPTC data). In general, my current workflow works for me, but with Aperture being discounted on the Mac App store, is it worth it to buy?