Workflow Question - Recently moved from PC to Mac

Question

So, let me say that I'm a die hard Windows user -- in fact, in my "day job" I own a software development company and we're a "Microsoft shop". But, my side business is Photography and I'm making the switch to the Mac & Aperture. So, what I'm hoping to get from this post is a "yes, you can do that" or a "no, you can't do that" with Aperture. I'm happy to figure out how -- I just need someone to tell me if it's possible.
Here's my current workflow (coming from the PC - which required several applications to accomplish these steps):
1) Import images and rename "IMG_1234.CR2" to "1234.CR2" -- essentially dropping the "IMG_" from the name. Is this possible w/ Aperture?
2) Do all of the processing on the images (No questions here yet -- got that pretty well figured out in Aperture).
3) Create a black & white version of each image. Currently doing this by making a duplicate version in Aperture. But, I would like it to be named "1234-BW.CR2" rather than just have "version 2" tacked on the end. Is this possible in Aperture?
4) "Develop" the pics into jpg's. Again, the final image names should be "1234.jpg" and "1234-BW.jpg" respectively. Again, the question has to do with renaming the original & duplicate version of the image.
5) Choose all of the color versions of the photos and then selectively pick some of the b/w versions and export them to a "Web" size along w/ Thumbnail versions that will be posted on my web site. (Again, this should be easy if I can name things like I want them to be named in question 3 & 4.)
So, right now I'm the biggest thing that I'm having a problem with in naming the images -- how flexible is Aperture with this? I've tried to customize the naming but can't see to figure out how to simply remove the "IMG_" when importing and then how to tack on "-BW" when creating a duplicate version.
So far I really like Aperture -- it will ultimately save me from having to use 5 different applications on the PC and thus greatly improve the efficiency of my workflow. There are some things I've noticed that would be nice -- for example, on the PC I used a program called Bibble Pro to "develop" my Canon RAW files. Bibble is a little smoother (read faster) when making some adjustments. For example, when I'm in full screen mode and adjust the exposure, contrast or sharpening Aperture is not as smooth and "real-time" as Bibble. (And, the Mac I have is the top of the line iMac made today w/ 2GB of RAM. So, I would assume that processor speed is not an issue.)
Anyway, if you have any insight into this post please let me know. Thanks in advance for any help you can provide... If you want to see my web site to understand what I'm doing the URL is http://www.level3photography.com/proofs.aspx
Thanks again!
TK Herman
[email protected]
iMac   Mac OS X (10.4.8)  

Answer 1

...the Mac I have is the
top of the line iMac made today w/ 2GB of RAM. So, I
would assume that processor speed is not an issue...
Many folks from other disciplines think that applications should, well, just run on any computer. Not so with graphics apps. Photoshop, for instance, slows if not provided a second physical hard drive for scratch disk; Aperture craves GPU hardware; both gobble RAM; etc. Existing PSCS2 Photoshop performance improves up to 8 GB RAM, and we have not yet empirically determined the max amount of RAM Aperture will benefit from but it certainly is more than 2 GB.
iMacs are consumer machines, not pro graphics boxes, even though many folks successfully use them as such. And, "top of the line iMac made today" would include not the 7300 GT graphics but the 7600 GT graphics card and 3 GB of RAM rather than 2 GB.
All that said, your iMac should run Aperture well if you keep the box well maintained. Just don't be surprised if you do see some hardware imposed limitations.
-Allen Wicks