Why is my Aperture 3 Library 50% larger than my iPhoto Library?

So I have the latest iPhoto and I bought Aperture 3 (unlocked the trial). I imported my iPhoto Library into Aperture 3 with faces disabled and the preview option off. once it was imported, I turned on Faces and let it do its thing. As of right now, my iPhoto Library is 44.91GB and the Aperture 3 Library is 65.78GB. By y math that's about a 50% increase. Anyone have any insight into why?
I have maybe 50 RAW shots, the rest are all JPG and the occasional iPhone 3GS video. 450 Projects if that matters.
The only clue I can think of is that in my keyword list I have "iPhoto Original" and "iPhoto Modified", both have about 40k images tagged. Did the import from iPhoto perhaps copy both masters and versions? If so, how do I fix it cause I don't see duplicate images.

Terence Devlin wrote:
Search on iPhoto Edited keyword - a Smart Album, for instance. If these are jpegs then I would keep the original and rotate them again in Aperture. You lose less quality that way.
I think I may have mistyped above. After importing the iPhoto Library, I have 4 new keywords: iPhoto Converted, iPhoto Edited, iPhoto Hidden and iPhoto Original.
Converted has 280 images
Edited has 1 image, but that image says "1 of 2" in the upper left corner.
Hidden has 6, but these are just the images that were hidden in my iPhoto library.
Original has 40,309 images
If I go to Photos at the top of the sidebar in A3, I get 40,310 images.
For completeness, iPhoto shows 41,118 items, but I have been removing some projects from A3, so I expected it to be less.
So now I'm back to being confused about the size increase. I totally get that it would have imported both the Originals and Modified folders from the iPhoto Library. But if the image count isn't any higher, I don't see where the huge size increase is coming from.

Similar Messages

  • Aperture exports jpeg files larger than original RAW files

    Can anyone tell me why a RAW file (10.6mb), when exported as a jpeg (10.8mb) from Aperture ends up larger than the original RAW file. The same RAW file when opened and then saved as a jpeg (6.4mb) in Photoshop is a lot smaller. The photo dimensions and resolution are the same in both saved files (34.5mb open file 300dpi 4256 x 2831 pix). I have tried this on several photos, all with similar results. For information I am saving the photos in both Photoshop and Aperture at 300dpi, original size and at a quality setting of 12. In these examples/tests I have done no work to the photos, obviously the file sizes increase after work has been carried out on the photos (in both Ps & Aperture)
    Almost doubling the size of saved jpegs has a massive implication on my library and may be one reason to consider Adobe Lightroom as this gives similar jpeg file sizes as Photoshop, i.e. almost half the size of the original RAW file
    Reducing the quality setting on saved jpegs is an obvious way to reduce file size, but not answering the question of the considerable discrepancy when saving to the same quality in different software
    Is this a feature of Aperture and nothing can be done about it ? I would prefer to use Aperture but cannot cope with the large jpeg sizes !
    Any comments would be much appreciated - thank you

    Think you might be right Allen - The 12 quality saved jpegs seem to be pretty high quality, closer to the original than maybe the files saved in Ps at quality 12. I have just run an identical set of processing actions on all the files in Photoshop and the jpegs previously saved in Aperture at 12, 11 and even 8 quality settings seem to be better than the same files saved at 12 in Ps
    Bizarrely the file size drops from 10.6mb at quality setting 12 in Aperture, to 3.2mb when saved just one notch down at quality setting 11 in Aperture. That is a massive drop, esp considering the next one down, saving at quality 10 results in a 2.8mb file
    rw just ran some checks and tests on the file export settings and file sizes in Aperture, on a file I sent him, and we get the same results. So at least my version of Aperture is not up the wall !!
    Would be useful to have the explanations from Apple as to the vast variance in settings and file sizes, but I guess we will just have to keep guessing - and buying more and more hard drives for all the large files
    I am considering keeping the RAW originals in future, and I suppose in this case I need only save smaller jpegs, and issue at whatever size they are needed at the time - just needs a bit of planning to look after an ever increasing collection, which is about to have two sets of images added at a time now. Added to the already amassed 80 000 images at last count !)

  • Why is an Aperture Managed Library so small?

    I decided to move my referenced photos in Aperture back into a managed library (basically because I plan to move to Lightroom and felt it would be easier to put the managed Aperture Library on an external drive to save it).
    Everything went smoothly but now when I look at the size of the Library file, something does not seem right. The size of the library is around 100GB, but the combined size of the folders (where the referenced files were originally located) was closer to 500GB.
    Is this because Aperture compresses the files in it's library - even though a lot of them were various RAW files?

    That is what I thought, but when I opened Aperture using the "new" library and checked for whether photos were managed or referenced, all approximately 70,000 said managed.

  • Why can't I open excel files larger than 500 kb?

    Seems as though Excel files (.xlsx format) smaller than 500 KB's that are sent via email open just fine, but anything larger will not open. I'm not sure if this is a Numbers issue or an issue with the Mail app. Started happening ever since the iOS 7.1 update as well as a recent Numbers update (not sure what version of Numbers I was using before).

    I will have this moved to the Numbers for iOS forum since your question seems to be about opening Excel files in Numbers on an iPad.

  • Why will Elements 10 not write Catlog larger than 1 DVD?

    Small Catalogues were OK but once exceeds one DVD size fails on second DVD asking fro update to DVD driver - there isn't one, and of course the DVD works perfectly well with all other programs.
    W7 64 bit 16Gb RAM i5
    All thoughts appreciated.

    To follow up on 99jon's post, 2 to the 32nd power is 4.3Gb.  Therefore, PSE will not be able to see more than 4Gb.  Win7 will do a great job of managing the installed memory, so there's nothing for you to do but relax and run your applications.
    Message was edited by: photodrawken to correct typo.

  • Aperture library smaller than the iPhoto one

    Hi !
    I just moved from iPhoto to Aperture. I imported my iPhoto library and everything seemed to be ok. Then i noticed one thing that bothers me : my Aperture library is much smaller in size than my iPhoto library (130 Go and 180 Go).
    Is it normal ?
    Thanks by advance for your answers,

    How did you import your iPhoto Library? With "File -> Import -> iPhoto Library"? Or did you import selected items using the iPhoto Browser?
    If your masters are referenced and stored outside the Aperture Library (either on an external volume or even referenced still inside your iPhoto Library) then these numbers are o.k.
    But if you imported the complete iPhoto Library storing managed masters inside your Aperture Library, then the resulting Aperture Library should be slightly larger than the iPhoto Library, since Aperture initially stores all master files and edites versions from iPhoto, plus new thumbnails and previews. So if you imported your iPhoto Library completely as managed Library, than it is likely that some images are missing, unless you have many duplicates in your iPhoto Library.
    In the long run Aperture stores images much more efficiently then iPhoto, since it does not actually create version images, it only stores the settings how to compute the versions, when a version will be exported. For newly imported images you will notice that Aperture requires less space to store these imports and versions than iPhoto.

  • Referenced Aperture library larger than iPhoto library?

    My iPhoto library is 232 GB , so to save space, I deciced to imort them to Aperture 3 as a referenced library.
    A few hours later, 'processing' has stopped and my Aperture Library is now a whopping 283 GB. If Aperture is simply pointing to the pictures in iPhoto why is the library now so large?

    I'm not sure how I search for Managed Masters, but there will be some there as I have been downloading pictures from my camera directly to Aperture before I Referenced those in my iPhoto Library.
    However I can see that the iPhoto images are all badged indicating that they are Referenced and when I use 'Locate Referenced Files' to  display a list of Referenced Images it shows that there are 34,440 in my iPhoto Library.

  • I created two Aperture libraries from one large library. Some of the photos in library

    I created two Aperture libraries from one large library. Some of the photos I want to keep in library #2 are in the trash of library #1.  If I empty the trash of library #1, will it affect the same photos that were moved to library #2?  I moved over 2,000 photos to create library #2.  Their names are showing in the trash of library #1. 

    Are your images referenced or managed? If your partial libraries are referencing the same original files as the library you exported them from, be careful. Deleting the orignal on one library #1can delete it from the  library #2. But if your originals are managed by Aperture inside the Aperture library, you can delete them.
    I moved over 2,000 photos to create library #2.  Their names are showing in the trash of library #1.
    If you are not sure about referenced or managed, select one of the images you want to keep in the library where they are not in the Trash, then use the command "File > Show in Finder". If you can reveal them in the Finder, they are referenced and probably are shared between your libraries.
    Or turn on "badge referenced files" in the Preferences > Appearance settings. Then your referenced images will show arrow badges.

  • Hi, I've just downloaded Aperture 3.2 and transfered all my iPhoto Library but now when I use the Aperture program it runs at the slowest speed possible and is almost impossible to work with. It is constantly processing why is this?

    Hi, I've just downloaded Aperture 3.2 and transfered all my iPhoto Library but now when I use the Aperture program it runs at the slowest speed possible and is almost impossible to work with. It is constantly processing why is this?

    You can click on the text that says 'processing' in the main windows and it will open (toggle) the Activity Window, (can also be accessed via the Window menu -> Show Activity.
    It will tell you what Aperture is doing with more precision and perhaps even how many photos it still needs to process. It is generally best to wait until all that processing is done before you start working with the photos (well it is best to first turn of options what you dont want to use, perhaps Faces or Previews and then let it process the new photos).

  • When exporting images from iPhoto library to Aperture 3 library the highlights go red and the shadow area goes blue.  This happen to all images in the Aperture 3 library, why?

    For some reason all the images in Aperture 3 library have had their highlights go red and the shadow area goes blue.  I can correct them one at a time with contrast control.  This just happen on its on after I uploaded MOuntain Lion.  Now when I go to transfer images from iPhoto this happens.  The images are all right in iPhoto but this is not the case with Apeerture.  I have 15,000 images in Aperture 3 and I can't afford the time to correct them one at a time.  What is it that I did to cause this problem?

    You have "Highlight Hot and Cold Areas" turned on.
    Toggle this on/off from the View menu.
    Thresholds are set at "Aperture➞Preferences➞Advanced".  (I have mine set to 100% ~ it's not clear what the scale is.)
    Message was edited by: Kirby Krieger

  • Why won't my screensaver allow me to access my external drive that contains my aperture 3 library

    I can't get my screensaver to see my Aperture 3 library which is on my external drive via firewire. It wants to use an older Aperture 2 library on another drive instead. Both drives are daisy chained together.
    The only libraries that my System preferences sees are iPhoto and the older Aperture 2 library.

    Repair yur QuickTime.
    WinXP - Add n Remove Programs
    Win7/Vista - Programs n Features
    highlight QUICKTIME and click CHANGE then REPAIR

  • Aperture 3 Library Size

    Does anyone have any idea what the amount of referenced images in an aperture 3 Library should be? Has this changed from Aperture 2? I am trying to get all of my libraries moved over and wonder if the limits have changed and how it affects speed in 64 bit.

    I just completed upgrading my old Aperture 2 library to 3. In Ap2, the library was I believe around 2GB, maybe as big as 4GB. Now, in Ap3, it is 11GB. Absolutely nothing changed other than the upgrade.
    To give a better example, I also finished importing all of my old photos (from 1999 - 2006) into Ap3... I'd say roughly 75% of the photos are from an old Nikon Coolpix 950 - not exactly the world's highest megapixel camera (1600 x 1200 pics). After importing those photos, I now have a grand total of 27,900 photos in my Aperture 3 library - all referenced masters. Now the library is nearly 25GB in size.
    I did a Show Package Contents on the library, and discovered, much to my dismay, that the vast majority of that space is taken up by the thumbnails that Aperture creates for each picture. (just Get Info on the Thumbnails directory in the package - you'll see what I mean). I am really surprised that thumbs take up this much space now - and annoyed that they are stored in massive files that make it impossible to see how large a given thumbnail is for a particular image.
    I don't see any way in Aperture to adjust the size of the thumbnails - and of course, you can't turn them off (but that wouldn't make any sense anyway). Note I'm not talking about Preview images, which you do have control of - those in my library only take up about 3GB, and even after deleting all of them, my library was still nearly 22GB.
    I hope Apple comes out with some sort of explanation for why the thumbnails are so big now - seems particularly vexing considering the very low resolution of my earlier pictures (which take up roughly half of my collection).

  • Can Time Capsule host an Aperture image library efficiently?

    In our household, we have several MacBook Pros with SSD drives, which don't have a lot of storage space. Since we take a lot of high-resolution pictures in .RAW format (app. ~25 MB per file), it would be nice if we could store all of our pictures remotely on the Time Capsule, and access the image library from our laptops, without needing to copy the files to our local harddrives.
    So, is it possible to use Time Capsule as the only storage device for our Aperture image library, in a way that we can open and work with the library remotely (wirelessly) through Aperture on several Macs?
    I am guessing that this is possibly by simply sharing the files, but there are a few things that I am concerned about, such as:
    Will my images files/Aperture library get corrupted/damaged when a computer looses connection to the Time Capstule in the midst of editing?
    What will happen if several users attempt to access/modify several images on the Time Capsule at the same time?
    Will you get good performance from Aperture with a very large, remote image library?
    I have also considered getting an Mac mini with OS X Lion Server to do the same job, but setting it up a bit differently. Possibly setting up a Git repository for the images, but I would much prefer a simpler solution, which is why I'm thinking about doing this with a Time Capsule (using it as a "NAS" of sorts).
    Thanks in advance for any help, advice and suggestions.

    Of course I found this right after posting my questions...
    Also, it is strongly recommended that the Aperture library be stored on a locally mounted hard drive. Storing the Aperture library on a network share can also lead to poor performance, data corruption, or data loss.
    So I guess using the Time Capsule is out of the question, but I would still be interested in hearing from you guys if you have any good suggestions on how to work with a large image library in Aperture remotely through the network, if at all possible.

  • Why I like Aperture

    I need to preface this by saying that no application is perfect for everyone. Different people have different workflows, different post-processing needs, and different priorities. I'm not saying Aperture is perfect for everyone. Nor should anyone else say Aperture is useless. It may be useless to them, but not to everyone.
    I shoot mostly fashion and advertising type work. I'm a pretty serious amateur, in that I have good gear, and I'm very serious about photography, but I have a day job doing something else (security architecture, which I also love). I shoot only RAW as it gives me way more latitude if I want to adjust the exposure after the fact to change or increase a look (i.e. I want to make things darker and moodier, or I want to blow things out a little). My post-processing requirements are usually the following (in order of frequency): Exposure, white point, saturation, sharpening, levels, blemish fixing. On very rare occasion I'll need to do something beyond that.
    My pre-Aperture workflow looked a lot like this:
    Copy files from CF card. Due to my camera putting them in different folders based on the sequence, I had to write an automator script to pull out just the image files from all the folders and put them in a new folder on my desktop. This works, but takes a little while, and is something I had to write myself.
    Create a folder for my project "Sarah-DarkWear hoodie".
    Create the following folders inside that: "raws", "all-jpeg", "best-psd", "best-jpeg". Move all the RAWs from my automator action's results folder into the raws folder.
    Open up Adobe CS2 Bridge. View the files. Try to pick the best ones. I can't emphasize enough how laborious and time consuming this task is. Out of 200 shots, about 20 are really good, and about 5 are worth using (in a portfolio or ad or whatever). Bridge has no way to compare two pictures other than switching back and forth between them. You also can't see the pictures at 100% so figuring out sharpness or focus is pretty impossible unless you open them up in Photoshop. Which requires a multi-dialog process and a conversion time.
    Once I get my 20 good ones, batch convert them all to PSDs using an action I wrote. This takes a while. The PSDs go into the "best-psds" folder. They each take up about 40-70 MB of space vs. 3-6 MB for each RAW file.
    Make the levels, saturation, sharpness adjustments as needed with each file. Using another action I wrote, batch convert the best PSDs to full rez jpegs with my copyright notice on them. As this action involves opening a 70 MB file, creating a new layer for my copyright, setting it up, converting to srgb, converting to 8bit, saving as jpeg, this takes a while. Several seconds each file on my dual 2.5 with 2.5 GB ram.
    Using another action I wrote, batch covert all the RAWs to small rez jpegs with my copyright notice on them. These are for the model if it's a tfcd shoot, or for my records, or whatever. This takes a good long while. Now my 1 GB of raws are about 2.3 GB of raws, jpegs, psds.
    Open up iView Media pro and update it's index so that all my new files are in it.
    With Aperture, I put my card in the reader.
    Aperture pops up and asks if I'd like to import these images. I pick a destination, specify the metadata and keywords for this shoot, and it loads them all in.
    I turn on auto-stack. I make a few manual stacking adjustments. I start picking the best shoots. Aperture has excellent compare modes, including 2-up, 3-up, more-up, full rez zoom, a loupe tool for instantly checking focus at full resolution, a 0-5 star rating system, a quick-select key for picking an image as five star, a quick-reject key for an image I know is junk. Within in a stack I can promote, demote, and pick the stack "pick" very quickly and easily. I can do this with just the keyboard. I can easily compare any pictures next to each other. I can go full screen with drops off all the unneeded junk and keeps the various window and toolbar colors for interfering with my vision on my color calibrated display. Picking the best shots is amazingly faster and less frustrating due to the features mentioned above.
    I can now make my adjustments (exposure, levels, brightness, saturation, shadows, highlights, spot and patch blemish fixing, red eye, etc...., and then can apply them to all the other similar condition pictures. (In Photoshop/Bridge you can batch apply things like white point and exposure changes, but you can't do saturation, sharpness, etc...). My adjustments go into a 24kb xml file, instead of a 70 MB psd. Each adjustment can be turned on or off, removed, modified, etc... I can instantly create different version of an image. I might want a crop to zoom in on the model's face, or I might want a black and white version, etc... The versions are just a tiny amount of data in the xml file. In photoshop I'd need a new 70 MB psd for each version I wanted.
    Once I'm all done getting the images rated and adjusted the way I want them, I can at any time use the export function to generate the jpegs. Since the copyright is a watermark layer and is rendered by Core Image in my video card, the export is about 10X faster than the Photoshop batch action processing. I haven't timed the two side by side, but I will. It's about 10X or so faster though. For me.
    I just converted my 70 GB working library into Aperture over the weekend. I was able to duplicate my photoshop adjustments in Aperture and drop my psds. This took my 70 GB lib to 35.5 GB. That's about half the size.
    So for me, and my workflow, and my post-processing requirements, Aperture is faster, uses less hard drive space, is easier to use, and does a great job. It will pay for itself during the first shoot's sorting and post-processing.
    There have been reports of the RAW conversion not doing as good a job as Adobe's. It turns out many of those people bringing that up left the default sharpening turned on in Adobe. Since raw files, at least Canon raws, pretty much always need sharpening and a small saturation boots, comparing a converted raw to a converted raw with sharpening will clearly show the one with sharpening looks better. So most of them aren't valid tests. There may be some real issues with Apple's image handling vs. Adobe's. Hopefully if there are, Apple will fix them. My personal experience is that the raw conversion looks pretty much the same to me as Adobe's non-sharpened conversion. I've found that Apple's noise-reduction looks better than Adobe's or Fred Miranda's action. I've found that it takes me less time to get a look I like in Aperture than in Adobe. I've found that my workflow is vastly quicker. To me it is an amazing program that will only get better with each revision.
    2X2.5 GHz w/2.5 GB + 2X2.3 GHz w/4.5 GB + 17"pb   Mac OS X (10.4.3)  

    I have used Aperture quite extensively over the weekend and I also see a lot of potential. I also see the typical amount of bugs for a first release of a software of this complexity and I also see a few software architecture problems.
    What did I do with Aperture so far?
    First I have imported a few 70MB Tiff scans. Probably less than hundred and played around with it. Rated them, defined some searches, added some keyword hierarchies, tried some image manipulations, created a light table, printed the light table to pdf, created a book and created some example web pages. I played also with the fullscreen mode.
    There were a few user interface glitches: The light table sometimes has problems with selections. Creating a query takes too long since it tries to update live. I can't seem to create a book with a light table visible at the same time. While entering a query I clicked on a triangle to open a folder - Aperture didn't like that. And some more.
    Lots of stuff worked fine. Some (like the book designer) didn't have enough features. Some features I did understand after some time.
    Now I copied my Aperture library to an external firewire disk. The disk is a fast RAID 0 disk connected via firewire 800.
    Next I loaded my iPhoto library into Aperture. Something like 17000 photos. This took a few (five?) hours and went without any problem. I got a few hundred projects - I would like to join some of them. I created a query to get the iPhoto edited photos (1900 photos) and removed them. This took about ten minutes. Next I created some queries. No problems with that. Speed is okay on the Powermac.
    Next I did some film scans with Nikon Scan and imported them (hundred maybe) large TIFFs into Aperture in small batches.
    Then I imported probably hundred RAW images from my Canon EOS 350d. I tried the raw import patch mentioned somewhere else to get Mac OS X 10.4.3 to recognize. This worked fine. (I later tried another method which I cannot mention here, but that worked also fine.)
    So currently my Aperture library is about 55 GB.
    I never like the rendering of iPhoto too much. Often I used Graphicconverter to view, scale, batch convert, ... Graphicconverter also has quite a good (IMHO) rendering of images. So I was a bit sceptical about Aperture's rendering, but actually I don't have a problem with its on-screen rendering. I kind of like it. I haven't tried to print yet, though.
    I also have Photoshop Elements, though I don't use it very much. GraphicConverter is used though. I also have the Canon tools which I also don't use much. I use the scan application sometimes. For the Filmscanner I use Nikon Scan which is okay. For my taste the Aperture application looks & feels better than those - though I'm not a big fan of an all-grey interface (which may have some advantages with being more neutral).
    So I had a few crashes (two maybe) and had to force Aperture to quit (three times maybe). But I didn't seem to have lost any data and Aperture started quickly again. Sometimes I restarted Aperture when it acted strangely (like didn't want to provide a working crop tool - maybe four times).
    So, would I buy it again? Yes, without a doubt. It's lots of fun... Can't wait to show my friends Aperture loaded with some of the scans I did over the weekend.
    Rainer Joswig
    PowerMac Dual G5, 2.5Ghz, 4GB RAM, 22" Cinema Display, Canon 350d + Canon s80 + Nikon Coolscan IV ED   Mac OS X (10.4.3)  

  • Import aperture 3 library to elements 9

    Is it possible to import my aperture 3 library to elements 9 organiser?

    Not directly. If you really think you want to do this (I would have to ask why), then export the photos from aperture, put them where you want to keep them, and use file>get photos>from files and folders to import them. But given that aperture's raw handling is much more sophisticated than what's available in PSE, I'd just set PSE as your external editor and send the photos from aperture when you need to do additional editing on them.

Maybe you are looking for