Photo Management (iPhoto / Aperture / Lightroom)

[flynz4]

My question is how big is the iPhoto/Aperture library file that you've had no problem moving or copying?

My Aperture library is over 400GB and lives on my iMac SSD. I've had no problems copying it to portable HDDs to use with my MBA.

I also clone it every night to an array (Pegasus R4) which is my media drive... and then again later at night, my media drive is backed up to a desktop 3TB single spindle drive.

I've never seen a problem.

/Jim

 

[carves]

I guess what I really don't understand is this: why the seperate database? It seems so fragile, and do you really think you'll still be using compatible software in 50 years? All the edits and tags you made may well disappear along the way.

What I'd really like is if these were just photo browsers that analyze the photos and tag the metadata directly on the file, rather than in a database, and then uses spotlight-like indexing to be able to find them, even if you move them around- just tell it what folders you like to store your photos in. You could do your standard naming convention on the folders if you like, or just put everything in one enormous folder if you don't care. There's no import or export; it just notices there are new pics in your folder. Why on earth wouldn't they have it work that way? It seems just as effective, but much more robust and future-proof.

 

[glenthompson]

I guess what I really don't understand is this: why the seperate database? It seems so fragile, and do you really think you'll still be using compatible software in 50 years? All the edits and tags you made may well disappear along the way.

What I'd really like is if these were just photo browsers that analyze the photos and tag the metadata directly on the file, rather than in a database, and then uses spotlight-like indexing to be able to find them, even if you move them around- just tell it what folders you like to store your photos in. You could do your standard naming convention on the folders if you like, or just put everything in one enormous folder if you don't care. There's no import or export; it just notices there are new pics in your folder. Why on earth wouldn't they have it work that way? It seems just as effective, but much more robust and future-proof.

The database relieves you the problem of managing the files and folders of a file based system. I don't care where my pictures are stored how how Aperture manages as long as I can get to them and logically organize them as I like.

You can use a referenced library in Aperture and maintain your own file system. The database maintains all the metadata and edits but the pictures are in your own file system. If you muck around with the file structure Aperture can get confused and you then have to tell it where you moved your cheese.

 

[carves]

The database relieves you the problem of managing the files and folders of a file based system. I don't care where my pictures are stored how how Aperture manages as long as I can get to them and logically organize them as I like.

You can use a referenced library in Aperture and maintain your own file system. The database maintains all the metadata and edits but the pictures are in your own file system. If you muck around with the file structure Aperture can get confused and you then have to tell it where you moved your cheese.

Ahhh....but if you had a system that ran like I suggested, you still have the option of putting everything in one folder that you don't even bother managing and your problem of managing files is just as relieved. It just makes it such that you can reorganize your files in there if you choose, or can move to a different photo management software if you want and not lose all the tags you created. The information you add to the file should stay with the file rather than in a database; the database should merely find the pictures you want to view based on that information.

 

[glenthompson]

Ahhh....but if you had a system that ran like I suggested, you still have the option of putting everything in one folder that you don't even bother managing and your problem of managing files is just as relieved. It just makes it such that you can reorganize your files in there if you choose, or can move to a different photo management software if you want and not lose all the tags you created. The information you add to the file should stay with the file rather than in a database; the database should merely find the pictures you want to view based on that information.

If the metadata is stored in the file you either need a copy of it in the application or you have a lot of data to read when searching for stuff. If another program changes the data in a file, how does your photo app know about it? Lots of difficulties with this approach.

 

[flynz4]

Ahhh....but if you had a system that ran like I suggested, you still have the option of putting everything in one folder that you don't even bother managing and your problem of managing files is just as relieved. It just makes it such that you can reorganize your files in there if you choose, or can move to a different photo management software if you want and not lose all the tags you created. The information you add to the file should stay with the file rather than in a database; the database should merely find the pictures you want to view based on that information.

Everything you are asking for is already in Aperture. Let's take them one by one:

• One folder - You can create one project in Aperture, and place everything there if you chose to. Of course, you do not need to.
• Reorganization of files - Once again... with Aperture, you can reorganize your originals any way you want. You can move them from project to project (each photo lives in one and only one project. You can create new copies of originals if you want, but certainly not necessary... and you can locate them anywhere you want on your disk(s)
• Moving to a new photo management system - All of your originals are sitting there in POFF (Plain old finder format). This is true irrespective if you use a managed or referenced library. If it is managed... they are there inside the package in the "masters" subfolder
• Not losing Tags - When you tag photos in Aperture... the EXIF data in the original file is modified to include all of the tags you generate... hence, they are captured inside the file exactly as you want
• Information staying with file rather than the database - as mentioned above... that is exactly true. Not only for tags, but also for geo-references as well.
• Database should find the files you want - of course... this is the prime mission of Aperture, and it does exceptionally well.

Of course... Aperture does about a billion other things... and IMHO it does it better than any other database out there. I do use very general databases... one in particular that is spectacular for Macs is DevonThink Pro Office (DTPO). I could choose to use DTPO exactly as you suggest... but as remarkable of a program that it is... DTPO would pale compared to Aperture when it comes to images.

/Jim

 

[snberk103]

Ahhh....but if you had a system that ran like I suggested,.... The information you add to the file should stay with the file rather than in a database; the database should merely find the pictures you want to view based on that information.

1) Speed is one reason a database is used. If you have a photo library that is large... it is not uncommon to have libraries that are in the hundreds of GB or even into the TB range ... the program would need to search through the entire library to find an image. A database is a tiny fraction of the size, so searches are fast.

2) Since photos are stored in virtual folders in a database, it is fast and simple to virtually place an image into multiple folders, while having just one real copy. With the system you are suggesting the photo would either need to be copied into each real folder, ballooning storage needs - and also making it difficult to synchronize edits across the multiple copies. Or the virtual folder metadata would need to be written into all of the photos in that virtual folder. If you decide to move/delete/rename that virtual folder the application would need to search every image in the library to find the metadata to be changed.

3) Current DAMs don't change the original file at all on import or during editing. This makes it just about impossible to corrupt the original image. A system that wrote metadata to the image file would risk damaging that file, making the image itself unreadable.

 

[maflynn]

Given the front page news story, the answer is a lot easier not. Avoid Aperture since Apple is killing it off

 

[carves]

Search engines and spotlight seem pretty snappy, so it's just a matter of having the metadata live on the .jpg. If you don't want to have permenant edits, just have it apply them when it finds the untouched photo. I guess the biggest difference is that it finds the photos, and tags would live on the photo. You could still do all the same stuff, such as having virtual folders and albums without creating copies.

They could even use their existing database and just have OSX keep a record of any changes you make to that folder so it can automatically fix the database (but I'd still prefer the tags live on the photo as well)

 

[MCAsan]

Given the front page news story, the answer is a lot easier not. Avoid Aperture since Apple is killing it off

OK, I was asleep....what press release or published arctic.e says Apple is officially killing Aperture?

 

[rhett7660]

OK, I was asleep....what press release or published arctic.e says Apple is officially killing Aperture?

Just head on over to the front page of this site or the main forum.

https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/1749116/

 

[MCAsan]

Just head on over to the front page of this site or the main forum.

https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/1749116/

Done that, read it, and deleted Aperture app, library, and vault. Glad I still had been importing my photos in to the LR referenced library.

The fat lady has indeed sung, the curtain has fallen, and it is time for the formal wake. Farewell Aperture.

 

[r0k]

Everything you are asking for is already in Aperture. Let's take them one by one:

• One folder - You can create one project in Aperture, and place everything there if you chose to. Of course, you do not need to.
• Reorganization of files - Once again... with Aperture, you can reorganize your originals any way you want. You can move them from project to project (each photo lives in one and only one project. You can create new copies of originals if you want, but certainly not necessary... and you can locate them anywhere you want on your disk(s)
• Moving to a new photo management system - All of your originals are sitting there in POFF (Plain old finder format). This is true irrespective if you use a managed or referenced library. If it is managed... they are there inside the package in the "masters" subfolder
• Not losing Tags - When you tag photos in Aperture... the EXIF data in the original file is modified to include all of the tags you generate... hence, they are captured inside the file exactly as you want
• Information staying with file rather than the database - as mentioned above... that is exactly true. Not only for tags, but also for geo-references as well.
• Database should find the files you want - of course... this is the prime mission of Aperture, and it does exceptionally well.

Of course... Aperture does about a billion other things... and IMHO it does it better than any other database out there. I do use very general databases... one in particular that is spectacular for Macs is DevonThink Pro Office (DTPO). I could choose to use DTPO exactly as you suggest... but as remarkable of a program that it is... DTPO would pale compared to Aperture when it comes to images.

/Jim

Sorry but Aperture got euthanized while we were discussing its merits in this very thread. I hope 2 things happen: 1 - unlimited free photo storage in iCloud and 2 - Aperture features get ported to the new Photos app. If not, I might have to consider... an ADOBE product (LR). Oh say it ain't so!

 

[flynz4]

Sorry but Aperture got euthanized while we were discussing its merits in this very thread. I hope 2 things happen: 1 - unlimited free photo storage in iCloud and 2 - Aperture features get ported to the new Photos app. If not, I might have to consider... an ADOBE product (LR). Oh say it ain't so!

While the general tone on the internet blogs is quite negative... there is a great thread over on ApertureExpert that holds promise that this change might actually propel Apple's photo management into new levels not possible with the current generations of products... by any vendor.

It is way too early to tell. I have to admit, that my first reaction was: Oh crap... I am really going to have to start using LR. I own, and have used LR... and IMHO... it is so vastly inferior to Aperture that the thought of moving to it disturbs me. However... there is reason to believe that photos.app, or it future iterations might just be fantastic. Some of the basic principles it might bring in include:

• Photo primitives (inc RAW) being integrated into the core OS
• Non-distructive manipulation and editing by any 3rd party application
• Built on a foundation of sharing

All three of those are massive... so I have calmed down. I'll continue to use Aperture well into Yosemite and maybe beyond... and see how the world adapts to this new architecture. Apple actually has a pretty good track record of ejecting legacy, and driving core innovation forward.

It is too early to tell what will happen yet, but it is too early to freak out... and likewise, too early to be overly optimistic. In the mean time, I'll continue to use Aperture... because IMHO no other program comes close.

/Jim

 

[maflynn]

there is a great thread over on ApertureExpert that holds promise that this change might actually propel Apple's photo management into new levels not possible with the current generations of products... by any vendor.

Perhaps but I think so far the thinking is that it will be mostly iCloud based which is extremely expensive compared the competitors and I have almost 200GB of images. That's not something I want to be stored up on the cloud.

Secondly, apple's recent track record with releasing new apps. They've decided to release bare bone versions then take time to update them. I'd rather have a fully functioning app from day one - something that LR has.

Thirdly, apple's focus is less on the professional and more on the consumer, so much so the as of yet unnamed/unreleased app will be more of an iPhoto replacement then an Aperture replacement.

It is way too early to tell. I have to admit, that my first reaction was: Oh crap... I am really going to have to start using LR. I own, and have used LR... and IMHO... it is so vastly inferior to Aperture that the thought of moving to it disturbs me.

It is too early, but vastly inferior? Aperture has not seen a major update since 2010, and only patches through 2013. While I like Aperture, and use that over LR. Lightroom has many more features then Aperture. The thing for me, is I loved how Aperture worked, from its UI, to its organization of images. I prefer managed and that's a huge feature I'll miss

Apple actually has a pretty good track record of ejecting legacy, and driving core innovation forward.

I think users of FCPx and iWork may disagree with you on that point.

It is too early to tell what will happen yet, but it is too early to freak out... and likewise, too early to be overly optimistic. In the mean time, I'll continue to use Aperture... because IMHO no other program comes close.

Agreed it is too early, but on the other hand, if Aperture is only going to get one more patch to ensure Yosemite compatibility and I have 200GB of images, don't you think it behooves me to start doing my research on what product will work the best for me. Its going to be a sizeable conversion if I opt for LR and so I want to start my due diligence now

 

[flynz4]

Perhaps but I think so far the thinking is that it will be mostly iCloud based which is extremely expensive compared the competitors and I have almost 200GB of images. That's not something I want to be stored up on the cloud.

Everything that I have heard, is the photos.app for OSX will fully support local storage... but will be built so that any/all could optionally & additionally be backed up/stored and or shared via the cloud. That gives us everything we have today... and also solves the major problem we see here time and time again... of how to share photos with family/friends. I am very confident that the knee-jerk reaction to "cloud" is totally unfounded... and will be a huge benefit, not a liability.

Furthermore... by having the entire core library available to any application... it solves the problem of being able to use/edit/organize your library on any device... such as using your MBA/MBP with limited storage when traveling, and keeping your entire library back on your iMac and/or cloud (your choice).

Finally... having photos core with any application being able to use the core database... it brings non destructive editing to any application... so by speculation... things like NIK could operate on the core image with non-destructive editing... or allow multiple people to be editing the same library simultaneously... for example... one rating and one key wording concurrently.

The bottom line is we really do not know for sure what will happen... but from the courses at WWDC... we know that Photos is built on a new core which makes it possible to do many things that would have been impossible based on traditional cores libraries of today. This will be a very big deal. Nobody else... Adobe or anyone has the capability of making such a fundamental change of OS integration... and in fact, Adobe's multi-platform support is an inhibitor of letting them take advantage of such advancements that Apple builds into the core OS.

Which in summary... is why I think it is too early to be in a state of shock... even though admittedly, that was my initial reaction.

Secondly, apple's recent track record with releasing new apps. They've decided to release bare bone versions then take time to update them. I'd rather have a fully functioning app from day one - something that LR has.

When it comes to using Aperture or Lightroom as a DAM... I personally do not think that there is any comparison. There is a great article/rant by Robert Boyer (whom I trust very much)... which goes through a "not necessary safe for work" comparison of the two. One of his comments is that LR is really currently at V2.4.

http://photo.rwboyer.com/2013/08/04/2013-aperture-3-still-my-go-to-tool/

Because the future of Apple's photo ecosystem will be built on Photos (including 3rd party innovation)... and we know that it is much more functional and integrated than anything that Adobe or anyone else can do... I will defer moving. Worst case, if I must move to LR... then by the end of Yosemite... moving will be more automated. However... maybe by then it will be obvious that it is a mistake to move.

t is too early, but vastly inferior? Aperture has not seen a major update since 2010, and only patches through 2013. While I like Aperture, and use that over LR. Lightroom has many more features then Aperture. The thing for me, is I loved how Aperture worked, from its UI, to its organization of images. I prefer managed and that's a huge feature I'll miss

Go to that RWBoyer link I provided above. I laughed with he said the LR is currently at 2.4 (that was last year). It is so true. LR has not advanced in any significant way and as a DAM... it is clumsy. A DAM is not fundamentally an editing tool... it is an organizational tool. Anyone who honestly thinks that when it comes to organization... that LR is ahead of Aperture has obviously never learned Aperture. I just cannot imagine LR ever getting to the current level of organization as Aperture. I am worried that Photos might never get to the organizational level of Aperture too... but at least since the Photos Core provides non-destructive editing to any 3rd party application... while still maintaining tight OS integration... we have opportunities that will never be in LR.

I think users of FCPx and iWork may disagree with you on that point.

I have iWork, but I still need MS Office for my day job, so I honestly have never really used iWork. I do realize that they did initially "dumb it down"... but also consider they made at least one major advancement... multi-user, mutii-device, concurrent editing of a single document. Maybe that is not that important for most iWork users... but if they do bring that type of advancement to Photos... then it solves one of the largest problems iPhoto/Aperture/LR users have been clamoring for... concurrent editing and sharing.

As far as FCPX... I know that the initial release was horrible... to the point that Apple had to re-release FCP 7 for a while. But my understanding is that most really enjoy what FCPX has evolved into. I am just a video amateur, and I like FCPX. Maybe I do not realize what I am missing.

Agreed it is too early, but on the other hand, if Aperture is only going to get one more patch to ensure Yosemite compatibility and I have 200GB of images, don't you think it behooves me to start doing my research on what product will work the best for me. Its going to be a sizeable conversion if I opt for LR and so I want to start my due diligence now

I will look at alternatives... but I think it is to my advantage to wait until as late as possible, so that we could see what a couple of iterations of Photos looks like... because I do agree 100% that we are not likely to get everything we want on the initial release. However... if the path looks clear to a much better system than LR... then I do not want to switch twice. Worst case, if I must move to LR (oh god)... then it will be no harder then. In the mean time, I might as well continue to use the best DAM in the world. Since the "heavy duty time investment" is in tagged metadata and ratings... we know that that will move over to LR or whatever is best. I still have hopes that will be Photos.

/Jim