Will referenced Aperture libraries sync to disk?

Question

I am used to using Lightroom but am considering a switch to Aperture just so I can take advantage of the tighter integration that it provides with other Apple applications and devices. In Lightroom I am used to have a separate library file which then references the files on my disk (wherever I want to have them). I know that this type of management is possible in Aperture (and even iPhoto) by using "referenced" libraries instead of "managed" libraries. However, I'm not sure how you can get Aperture to actually sync with the disk? Is this something that Aperture can't do?
By sync with the disk what I mean is that if I am in my referenced library in Aperture, and decide that I want to move some photos from on folder to another, will it actually move them on the disk as well, or do they stay in the same place on the disk?
For instance, let's say that when I first import my directory structure into Aperture as a referenced library I have two folders that are each under a separate year folder:
<2010 Photos>
     <Big Wedding>
<2011 Photos>
     <Birthday Party>
While looking at my photos in Aperture I discover that some of the photos in the Birthday Party folder are really from the Big Wedding, so I move them to the Big Wedding "Project" that Aperture has created based on the folder structure during import. Do those photos now move to the actual Big Wedding directory on the disk, or do I end up in a situation where in Aperture everything looks like it's in the right place, but if I just copy the Wedding folder to a USB drive it will be missing some of the photos that are still hanging out in the Birthday Party directory?
This is my main hangup between Lightroom and Aperture right now. I want to use Aperture for the features, but I really like how Lightroom lets me keep my directory structure how I want it, but then also moves files within the structure from within Lightroom.
Also, as a sidenote, any idea why referenced libraries are so large? I just tested out iPhoto using referenced libraries and the library grew to be over 10GB while the exact same set of photos only created a 1GB library file in Lightroom.
Any ideas on this? Thanks!

Answer 1

Sorry about the delayed response -- I didn't see your posts.
Phierce wrote:
I guess my first thoughts when dealing with this type of system always go to a giant drawer full of random negatives with no organization other than a list that might get lost at some point. I've always felt better about image management if I can always ditch the actual program and still have some sense of order just by the file structure (like if Apple drops support for Aperture in the future or something and I have to move to a different system). I guess there is always a way to export everything out of Aperture somehow? Maybe by setting an export structure such as Year/Project or some sort?
The difference between a drawer full of negatives and a HD full of image files is that the image files contain information (metadata) that is either already indexed or easily indexed.  It would take a year to index and properly file 100,000 slides stored in a heavy-weight garbage bag; a computer will index 100,000 image files in a minute.
Computers allow us to walk away from any static, arbitrary organization system.  Because each record (file, image, etc.) includes metadata, and the metadata is readable by many programs, all you need is a bag.  Any grouping and/or sorting that can be done, can be done on-the-fly.
As I mentioned, the actual filing of your data on your hard drives already exemplifies this.  Your files are chopped into pieces and strewn every which way -- it doesn't matter.  You have instant access to any file, assembled whole in memory on-the-fly from the bits all over your drive.
Of course, there is metadata specific to programs such as Aperture, and this metadata is often not going to be usable outside of the program that creates it.  Using your example -- what about Projects groupings? -- I suggest coding the name of every shoot (which for me are Projects) in the file name.  I do this on Import using a file naming convention stored as a File Name Preset.
Phierce wrote:
Once you have the managed library file created can you move it anywhere? In that all the references are relative rather than absolute? Like if I decide that the library file is getting too big for my MBP I can just move it to an external disk and it will work the same way when Aperture opens it? Right now in Lightroom I have two libraries, so I guess I could do the same with Aperture and keep multiple managed library "packages" across different external disks? I just wouldn't be able to view the library previews without the disk connected, correct?
You can move your Library to any locally-mounted drive.  I am, for reasons not worth going into, running several Libraries right now off of USB2 drives.  On a fast machine, this works well (Aperture is, afaict, beautifully engineered to make the most of current hardware).
References to Referenced Masters are absolute.  You can move your Library, and the Library will find the Masters as long as they are available.  You must not more your Masters except via Aperture commands to relocate or consolidate them.
The more comprehensive your Library, the more useful it is (why search multiple Libraries for all pictures of Theo? or all photos recorded with an equivalent focal distance of 16 or less?).
As of the most recent versions of iPhoto and Aperture, the file format of the Library is identical.  There are no longer "iPhoto Libraries" and "Aperture Libraries".  There is one Library file format, and that Library file can be opened in either iPhoto or Aperture.  There are hardware limitations that must be met to run the upgraded programs, however.
HTH.  Post back with more if you'd like.