Starting with Aperture...1 question before I start

[darthmental]

Starting out with Aperture and I've been doing a lot of reading. But I need to clarify 1 point before I start out so that I try and avoid a headache later down the line.

I've decided to start with the referenced model of organization and I am trying to figure out if I keep the master images on my macbook initially and a year from now move the older pics onto an external drive what happens with the aperture container? Do I have to re-reference all the files to point them to the new location?

I'm an active amateur photographer and I have a lot of pics to sort and catalog.

Any help on this matter would be appreciated, and hopefully my question makes sense. lol

Thanks in advance

 

[robbieduncan]

Aperture can relocate masters. Hope this link works:

http://documentation.apple.com/en/a...:doc:uid:Aperture-UserManual-91292BSR-1037625

 

[bilbot]

all things aperture

You can find answers to Aperture issues at this website. http://www.apertureexpert.com/

 

[emorydunn]

Out of curiosity why are you going with a referenced library? Especially if you are planning on moving the files around.

If you were to use a managed library archiving your photos to an external hard drive at a later date is as simple as moving the library file to a new location.

 

[darthmental]

Out of curiosity why are you going with a referenced library? Especially if you are planning on moving the files around.

If you were to use a managed library archiving your photos to an external hard drive at a later date is as simple as moving the library file to a new location.

Hmmm, I didn't realize that I would be able to do that. If I'm able to move a segment of photos to an external drive at a later date, I would rather use a managed solution. Lots more researching to do before I start down this road lol.

 

[robbieduncan]

Hmmm, I didn't realize that I would be able to do that. If I'm able to move a segment of photos to an external drive at a later date, I would rather use a managed solution. Lots more researching to do before I start down this road lol.

You can have multiple libraries (local and external for example) and use the export project tool to move older stuff to the external library. But if you do this you won't be able to browse the old stuff in your local library. With a referenced library you can have local low-resolution previews and external masters...

 

[sapporobaby]

Hmmm, I didn't realize that I would be able to do that. If I'm able to move a segment of photos to an external drive at a later date, I would rather use a managed solution. Lots more researching to do before I start down this road lol.

Hi and welcome. I will try and make it simple for you. I run my entire Aperture lib from a 1TB Thunderbolt External drive. I have 2 x SSD's in my MBP where I run the Aperture app... The there are no problems with running the lib from an external drive at all. If I want to move the library to another drive, I simply copy the library and tell Aperture where it is. Aperture finds the library as though it has been there all along. Also, I even run two libraries from two different drives. Aperture will simply ask which library and I tell. Boom goes the dynamite and it all works as planned.

 

[compuwar]

Out of curiosity why are you going with a referenced library? Especially if you are planning on moving the files around.

For me, the biggest reason is that the failure mode for referenced files is just filesystem corruption, where the library can succumb to database corruption as well. Recovering images from a corrupt filesystem is much, much easier if they're referenced.

Paul

 

[d.steve]

For me, the biggest reason is that the failure mode for referenced files is just filesystem corruption, where the library can succumb to database corruption as well. Recovering images from a corrupt filesystem is much, much easier if they're referenced.

Paul

Hmm, I don't see this. Either way, you have possibility of both fs corruption and db corruption, as the only real difference between the two is where on the filesystem the masters are located in the filesystem. Both have a database separated from the masters, but with managed libraries, everything happens to be within the same parent directory (the library).

Therefore, there's little real difference between the two if the masters are on the same drive as the database - in fact, they both still have the same parent at some point, although at the root of the volume instead of a subdirectory of the volume.

However, if you want the masters to be on a different drive, then referenced is clearly the way to go, and corruption potential does change because now you have separate corruption risks because there are two different drives. Potentially good, potentially bad.

Keep in mind that you can have some masters as managed and some as referenced. It isn't either-or.

Ultimately, just use a managed library if you're going to keep it all one one volume. There's really no reason not to. If you want to use more than one volume, I think it's best to either:

1) break it up into multiple libraries on various volumes and use managed libraries, but you won't be able to see all pictures without switching libraries
2) Use referenced masters for all masters that are on different volumes than the library itself.

I use (2) because I don't like having to switch libraries.
- New images go onto the same SSD-based volume as my library as managed files.
- All 3+ star images stay on the SSD.
- Occasionally, when I need to make room, I delete all rejects (because I don't reject until after import).
- Occasionally, when I need to make room, I relocate masters for all 1-2 star images to a specific location on a volume on HDD.

This works pretty good for me, hope you like the idea, but in the end, it doesn't really matter too much which way you go with - probably best to just go with the one that feels most comfortable to the way you like to think. (edit: that is, so long as you're backing it up. You are planning to back it up, right? )

 

[darthmental]

Hmm, I don't see this. Either way, you have possibility of both fs corruption and db corruption, as the only real difference between the two is where on the filesystem the masters are located in the filesystem. Both have a database separated from the masters, but with managed libraries, everything happens to be within the same parent directory (the library).

Therefore, there's little real difference between the two if the masters are on the same drive as the database - in fact, they both still have the same parent at some point, although at the root of the volume instead of a subdirectory of the volume.

However, if you want the masters to be on a different drive, then referenced is clearly the way to go, and corruption potential does change because now you have separate corruption risks because there are two different drives. Potentially good, potentially bad.

Keep in mind that you can have some masters as managed and some as referenced. It isn't either-or.

Ultimately, just use a managed library if you're going to keep it all one one volume. There's really no reason not to. If you want to use more than one volume, I think it's best to either:

1) break it up into multiple libraries on various volumes and use managed libraries, but you won't be able to see all pictures without switching libraries
2) Use referenced masters for all masters that are on different volumes than the library itself.

I use (2) because I don't like having to switch libraries.
- New images go onto the same SSD-based volume as my library as managed files.
- All 3+ star images stay on the SSD.
- Occasionally, when I need to make room, I delete all rejects (because I don't reject until after import).
- Occasionally, when I need to make room, I relocate masters for all 1-2 star images to a specific location on a volume on HDD.

This works pretty good for me, hope you like the idea, but in the end, it doesn't really matter too much which way you go with - probably best to just go with the one that feels most comfortable to the way you like to think. (edit: that is, so long as you're backing it up. You are planning to back it up, right? )

Thanks for all the info everyone. All the information is much appreciated and helpful. I'm a returning MacOS user after a 15 year hiatus and I'm excited to be back and I'm really looking forward to finally organizing my pictures.

My thought process was to keep the current year's worth of photos on the SSD on my MBP and move the previous year off onto an external drive. I still would like to be able to see all my photos if I have my external drive with me if I need to. Also to be able to access my star ratings, keywords etc across all of my pics regardless of where the masters may be at the time.

 

[acearchie]

Not sure if this has been mentioned but make sure you have enough RAM.

I have aperture on my Mac Pro and Lightroom on my Macbook Pro.

I tend to stick with analogue photography (scans) on the Mac Pro and all my digital shots are on the laptop.

In lightroom I have several thousand photo’s and whilst it doesn’t move at lightspeed it’s not exactly slow.

In Aperture I have a several hundred Tiff scans at roughly 30MP. Just adjusting basic things can bring Aperture to a standstill on a machine that is much faster than my laptop.

It’s all down to only having 3GB of RAM. A few more photo. jobs and I will definitely be upgrading to 12GB! But since all my jobs are digital it’s not as necessary to upgrade the machine used for my hobby!