Aperture 3.0 referenced masters of 16K photos/104GB on external HD. In library, previews are 21GB & thumbnails 13GB. Best way to make those smaller?

The more I read in the community, the more confused I get. I've got my masters backup'd to another HD & the cloud. Was going to backup the library expecting it to be pretty small and saw preview & thumbnail folders are relatively large. Have read a good way to do it is move both folders somewhere else (as a backup) then restart Aperture to rebuild. I've also read that they sometimes come back distorted. I know the gurus on here hate when you tinker inside the library. I've deleted a lot of pictures using file > delete original image and all versions to get them out of the masters, but I don't think they leave the previews or thumbnails. What is the best way to clean it up and/or reduce the size? Thanks in advance.

You can't shrink the thumbnails. But for the previews, you can reduce the size, and you can reduce the quality (both are options in Aperture settings). Then select all your photos and rebuild the thumbnails. You can probably knock 2/3 of the size out by reducing quality to 8 or so, and limiting the preview size to your screen size.

Similar Messages

HT4906 do not want my photos on my Mac to stream to my iPad. Is there a way to make the photo stream to be one way?

I would like for my photos to stream from my iPad to my Mac. I do not want my photos from my Mac to stream onto my iPad. Is there a way to make the stream be one way?
If this can't be done, how do I get the 1000+ photos off of my iPad onto my Mac?

1. iPhoto Menu -> Preferences -> Photo Stream
Uncheck the option 'Automatic Upload'. Now images won't automatically be passed on.
Regards
TD,

HT4413 I want to transfer about three thousand photos on my MacAir to my iMac. Any suggestions on the best way of doing this?

I want to transfer about three thousand photos on my MacAir to my iMac. Any suggestions on the best way of doing this?

Are the photos in iPhoto?
If they are, you can simply copy your iPhoto Library (located in your Pictures folder) to a thumb drive or external drive and then copy it over to your other Mac. This will only work if the iMac has the same version (or later version) of iPhoto as does the Macbook Air. Then on the iMac, if you want to combine this new library with the existing one over there, use iPhoto Library Manager (a free download program).
If you want to copy over only a portion of that iPhoto library, iPhoto Library Manager can create a smaller library containing just the photos you want to include. Then copy that smaller library.

Aperture 3 - Deleting Referenced Masters in Finder

Here's my scenario: I've recently installed Aperture 3, and imported many iPhoto Libraries into it. I currently have just over 100K photos in a managed library, and performance is slow. I'm switching now to referenced masters to (hopefully) improve performance. I suspect that I have several thousand duplicate photos (could be as high as 10K duplicates because my wife has mangled the iPhoto libraries over the years).
Once I've finished converting from managed masters to referenced masters, my plan was to run a duplicate checking app to delete all the dupes using the finder. The question is - if I delete a referenced master in the finder, will that screw up my Aperture library?
I did attempt to use Duplicate Annihilator on Aperture itself, but because my library is huge it would take about a week to complete, and I can never go seven days without rebooting (I travel a lot). I think because I have so many photos, I need to delete dupes in the finder.
Any advice would be appreciated . . .
- Nick -

The one drawback to doing it outside of Aperture is that you will be left with a bunch of missing files.
You could setup a filter with *File Status* missing and then if you're sure there isn't anything in the result that is truly missing just delete them Aperture.
Haven't done this myself so can't say for certain it won;t cause problems but I don;t see why it should.

Changed disks in my RAID, Aperture lost all referenced masters.

I have a G-Speed eS RAID system. I had 4 X 1TB disks.
I decided to change the hard disks to 2TB ones to double my storage capacity.
I retained the same volume name. I backed up the 2.5TB of data to 3 other disks and then copied it back to my upgraded RAID.
So I have a completely identical file structure. My photos were in /Volumes/GS/photo, and this is where they are now. However Aperture lost all connections to the 35000 referenced files.
It seems that there is no way to tell Aperture that old /Volumes/GS and new /Volumes/GS is the same location from my point of view (is your point of view different?). This means I have to reconnect each one of the 100+ projects manually. I DO NOT LIKE THAT. Am I missing something, or is this a nasty oversight? Don't tell me that this is a "feature" and one can only move REFERENCED masters from within Aperture...
Note: Repairing or rebuilding the library does not help.

Your suggestion works, but
1) You have to first select all photos in the "photos" smart album. If you do select them all, "Reconnect All" will not work.
2) Most important, after reconnecting, I also told Aperture to rebuild my library. And it lost them again... The photos got connected to a <null> named drive which is shown as offline.
We are talking about a big deficit of reliability here...
I had a backup of my Aperture Library. So I reconnected the files again, without a Library rebuild this time.
But what if I need to rebuild my library in the future?? I AM SCARED...
No need to mention that I have lost all day moving around many gigabytes of data, reconnecting files, etc etc. This is hardly a productivity boost.
The worst part is that I like a lot the Aperture UI and I hate the alternative.
But Aperture is unfortunately unreliable.
Just play enough time with the loupe on my MacPro and the application will crash.

Aperture not seeing referenced masters on Samba share

Hello all,
I have moved my referenced masters from my laptop to a Samba-mounted RAID server. I go to mount the Samba share and for some reason, Aperture won't see my referenced masters. It also shows the volume as being offline, when I know for a fact it is mounted, and can browse the Aperture masters directory to find each and every master...
Is there any way to get aperture to see these masters?
Thanks,
-Noah

OK, this is a long shot, but it happened to me once.
I tried to relocate some managed images to an AFP share which I thought was mounted but wasn't. Because the path that I wanted to relocate to was already loaded I just clicked OK and this is what happened - Aperture created a Folder in /Volumes/ with the name of the AFP volume. So later when I did mount the volume none of my referenced files showed up. This is because while the name on the desktop was correct the Path to it was /Volumes/AFP-share 1/ instead of /Volumes/AFP-share/.
So in short look in /Volumes/ (you can get there by using the Go-->Go to Folder menu in the Finder and typing /Volumes/) and see if there is a folder in there that should not be:-) If there is check to see if there are any images in it and move those to your desktop before deleting the folder.

Best way to make B & W photos?

Hi,
There are two ways to make black and white photos and I am wondering if either is better than the other. They are:
1. Shot the color shot and have iphoto turn it into a b & w shot.
2. Set the camera, a Canon Rebel XT, to shoot the photo as a B & W shot.
I have not had time to test these methods in a methodical way. From what I have seen, when iPhoto converts a color shot into a b & W shot, it hasnt looked too impressive. Sort of bland.
On the other hand, using the camera to shoot in b & w mode seems to produce more expressive shots.
Is this what others have found? Or is iPhoto better at converting color shots into b & w and I am just doing it wrong?
Thanks,

Hi,
There are two ways to make black and white photos and
I am wondering if either is better than the other.
They are:
1. Shot the color shot and have iphoto turn it into
a b & w shot.
2. Set the camera, a Canon Rebel XT, to shoot the
photo as a B & W shot.
I have not had time to test these methods in a
methodical way. From what I have seen, when iPhoto
converts a color shot into a b & W shot, it hasnt
looked too impressive. Sort of bland.
On the other hand, using the camera to shoot in b & w
mode seems to produce more expressive shots.
Is this what others have found? Or is iPhoto better
at converting color shots into b & w and I am just
doing it wrong?
Thanks,
Rereading my post (and noticing no replies) I hope I didnt come off as a jerk. When I wrote I didnt have time to do research on these methods, I meant that, I just got the camera, and am leaving for Hong Kong in 2 days. So I need advice on the best way to shoot black and white photos using the Canon Rebel. Camera or iphoto?

What's the best way to make my Aperture library more manageable?

I'm running the latest version of Aperture. My photo library has become quite large and it takes a long time to load. Any advice or opinions on how to make the library more manageable would be appreciated before I go ahead and mess it all up. Obviously, I have a lot of photos there that I never view but I don't really want to simply delete them.
Thanks

I have 192Gb of 999Gb left
That should suffice.
I have now disabled FACES, XML and previews. I'll test this shortly to see if it helps. I'm not sure what difference this will make to other apps.
That will be important, when you want access the APerture library from other applications using te Media Browser or when you want to sync your images to your deviced usin iTunes. For images, that you want to use in the Media Browser you will need previews, or for browsing your aperture library in quick Preview mode. You can craete previews indivudally, if you do need them only for selected images. If you want to use the Media Browser with third party applications, however, you will also need the XML. See:
Aperture 3.5: Set "Share XML with other applications" to "Never" for better performance and faster quit times
Okay. I've closed Aperture and reopened it 4 times. It appears to go through this 'IMPORTING FROM iCloud November 2013' every time.
Either it takes a very long time, or there is an image or a video in your Photo Stream that cannot be imported, because it is incompatible or corrupted.
For iPhoto libraries it used to help, to remove the current "Importing" or "Auto Import" folder from the library package. Try, if this will help for your Aperture library.
See this post by LarryHN how to do it:
TS3745 Re: iphoto library error message???
If you cannot get the import to stop this way, post back, Then you have to delete the photos from your Photo Stream or reset the Photo Stream.

Whats the best way to make a photo gallery?

Hi there, im still building my first website and was wondering if you guys had any advice on building a gallery for about 40-50 photos. All apprearing as thumbnails then once you click they enlarge.
Heres the page i want it to sit on http://www.rayoga.co.uk/gallery/index.html
And ideally id like the image to open up on the same page, not a new window.
Cheers
Benn

Hi there
Just has a couple more questions as im still struggling to get this right.
In jalbum when i am given the option to save gallery, do i save it in my root folder public_html?
jalbum gives me the option to upload my album to the rayoga site. When i do this it asks for the location it would
like the album uploaded to. Previously i have chosen the gallery folder, when i do this it gives me an example of what
my url will be (www.rayoga.co.uk/gallery). Then when i view the gallery after uploading it, my template is gone and all i
see is the gallery as it appears in jalbum, none of my dreamweaver stuff is there.
So far i have 3 different location where things are happening for the gallery
1.My gallery index.html in dreamweaver where my template is and the code -
<iframe src="http://www.rayoga.co.uk/gallery/" frameborder="0" style="height:810px; width:900px;"></iframe>
2.My root folder has the file gallery.***
3.And the sever has the jalbum directly uploaded to it from jalbum
Im really struggling with this and just dont know what to do anymore.
Please could someone help me work out why this isnt working?

What is the best way to make a photo look like a painting in CS5 ?

I'd like to convert a photo into an oil painting, can you suggest the best method to do this in CS5? I'd also like to do pencil drawings as well.

I didn't follow any tutorial. It's not hard, though - just do as I mentioned with the Mixer Brush Tool.
Make a transparent layer over the original image (I'd suggest upsampling it some), then call up the Mixer Brush Tool, choose a bristle brush, and set it to Sample All Layers. Fool with the settings until it mixes for you in a way that you can make nice smooth strokes over the original. You'll be picking up color from the photo underneath and smearing it around on the top layer. If part of it doesn't come out the way you like, just erase it. Don't set up to use too many bristles; the object isn't smooth perfection, but to show some strokes.
Here's just a few minutes work with the technique...
When you're all done you can do things to accentuate the brush strokes, such as create another layer and run the Filter - Stylize - Emboss tool, then set the layer mode to Overlay blending. This gives the image some texture...
The only way to really get to know the Mixer Brush is to experiment with it. Find settings that allow you to do what you want easily. Fool with it until it yields!
Have fun!
-Noel

Best way to make a birth to 70th B-day photo timeline with music

I am not very Mac savy but have a Macbook Pro and have purchased I-photo and can purchase other apps if needed. I just need what I purchase to work. My I-photo used to freeze a lot but hasn't for a while with the latest downloads. I have pictures downloaded on several discs, I want to copy them and pick ones that pertain to this persons life. Then make a slideshow of pictures set to music. I want to be able to hand out copies of this disc as well. Unsure about music copywrites and also the proceedure that would be best. I also don't want to use up all my computer space for this one project. Help!

hi, i have a question.
i have an application that uses different third party
jars. For the moment i make my jar like this :
a) i include all my third party jars (it is working)
or is it better to
b) include the jars in the jnlp file
this is best, leaving the third party jars alone.
if b is better should i :
b1) link to them to another jnlp file, like this :
<extension name ....
If you app needs all-permissions, it is best to do it this way, you can, for example, sign your jar, and then ask for all-permissions in the main jnlp file, then not ask for all-permissions in the extension jnlp file. Or you can ask for all-permission in the extension as well, if the third party jars are signed, and need all-permissions to run properly.
or
b2) just put them as resources
if you don't need all-permissions anywhere, this is easiest.
If you do need all-permissions everywhere, you could also do this, but you would need to sign the third party jars with the same certificate chain as you signed your jar.
If the third party jars are allready signed by the third party, or if all-permissions are only needed in some of the jars, the b1 is beter.
>
Another question :
i sign my jar, but can't access the local file
system. if i use solution a from above, do i have
also to sign the jars that i include in my jar...
You need to add :
<security> <all-permissions/> </security>
to your jnlp file. In that case, all the jars listed as resources in that jnlp file need to be signed, and by the same certificate.
for solution b i think i will have to sign all the
jars... right ?
yes
Thx for your help/Andy

Multiple Aperture Libraries the best way to go?

Many thanks in advance for your attention.
Somewhat new to Aperture and take photos for a living. Last two days took some 500 photos (will probably eventually whittle those down to 20).
I have about thirty Projects so far and am thinking I should turn each of them into their own Library.
As each project will only grow and expand and I hear Aperture has trouble once it is filled with a lot of photos in different project folders.
That way, each time I back up a Library, I will only be backing up that one Library, not that one Library and all the other Libraries each time.
That way, I am assuming, with one Project per Library (instead of 100 projects in one Library), Aperture will perform better.
I am sure there could be many, but any stumbling blocks to this idea?
Any workflow to doing this to insure each new Library has all of its key internal info?
I thought, making each Project its own Library would be better sooner than later.

moonlightcaravan wrote:
I thought, making each Project its own Library would be better sooner than later.
Nope. Like others have eloquently described above, multiple Libraries are a bad idea.
What you do want to do better sooner than later is use a Referenced-Masters Library workflow, which will keep your Library size civilized. Keep the Library on an internal drive and Masters on external drives.
IMO referenced Masters make far more sense than building huge managed-Masters Libraries.
• Hard disk speed. Drives slow as they fill so making the internal drive more full (which managed Masters always does) will slow down drive operation.
• Database size. Larger databases are by definition more prone to "issues" than smaller databases are.
• Vaults. Larger Library means larger Vaults, and Vaults are an incremental repetitive backup process, so again larger Vaults are by definition more prone to "issues" than smaller Vaults are. One-time backup of Referenced Masters (each file small, unlike a huge managed-Masters DB) is neither incremental nor ongoing; which is by definition a more stable process.
Managed-Masters Libraries can work, but they cannot avoid the basic database physics.
Very important is that image originals should be backed up in multiple locations prior to import into Aperture or any other images management application. Yes there are printed workflows that fail to note that critical step. Such manuals, tutorials, etc. are incompetent in that regard.
As you start out with Aperture learn what referenced Masters are, and always use a Referenced-Masters Library. If you screw up and some images get "managed" instead of "referenced" that is no big deal because from within Aperture Masters can easily be relocated.
Managed masters or mixed managed and referenced masters are fine in the beginning with few images; the reason for always using a Referenced-Masters Library even in the beginning with only a few GB of image files is for consistency. Consistency reduces the likelihood of error, and later as Library size grows having Masters referenced on external drives will be far superior.
HTH
-Allen Wicks

Iphoto: How to safely delete or move photos. I have over 7000 photos. When I deleted some, I found that the event still shows up with a blank frame. Can I move some photos to an external hard drive but leave the pointer in iphoto?

iphoto: How to safely delete or move photos. I have over 7000 photos. I would really like to move tsome of the older photos to an external hard drive. (They are backed up in Time Machine, but I like the immediacy of having them available.) So question 1 - is it possible to split the iphoto library so that the directory tree points to an external drive in some cases? And if that doesn't work--I am willing to export and delete some of these photos. However, an earlier delete left me with events that have a name in the event folder, but no photos. Question 2 -- How do I properly delete photos so that all references disappear?
example:

Warning: Time Machine is not an Archiving application. It keeps rolling back ups. That means if you delete something from the source Mac it will eventually be also deleted from Time Machine. How long that takes depends on the amount of disk space TM has. So, remember, backing up in Time Machine is not the same as Archiving.
For the blank thumbnails: This can happen if you try delete too many photos at one go. Experienced users suggest you should delete in batches of 100 or so.
Yes you can split the Library, where some of the Masters are stored locally and some on an external disk, but really, you don't want to do that. iPhoto's file management tools are limited at best, and if the path to the files changes then you could find yourself repairing the links to the files - all of them, one by one.
Better: Have your entire Library on an External Drive.
Make sure the drive is formatted Mac OS Extended (Journaled)
1. Quit iPhoto
2. Copy the iPhoto Library from your Pictures Folder to the External Disk.
3. Hold down the option (or alt) key while launching iPhoto. From the resulting menu select 'Choose Library' and navigate to the new location. From that point on this will be the default location of your library.
4. Test the library and when you're sure all is well, trash the one on your internal HD to free up space.
If you want to have a smaller library on your internal disk:
Here's one way to do what you want:
Make sure the drive is formatted Mac OS Extended (Journaled)
1. Quit iPhoto
2. Copy the iPhoto Library from your Pictures Folder to the External Disk.
Now you have two full versions of the Library.
3. On the Internal library, trash the Events you don't want there
Now you have a full copy of the Library on the External and a smaller subset on the Internal
Some Notes:
As a general rule: when deleting photos do them in batches of about 100 at a time. iPhoto can baulk at trashing large numbers at one go.
You can choose which Library to open: Hold down the option (or alt) key key and launch iPhoto. From the resulting menu select 'Choose Library'
You can keep the Library on the external updated with new imports using iPhoto Library Manager
Regards
TD

Best way to "transfer" Aperture images from MacBook Pro to iMac?

I recently purchased a MacBook Pro 15" to import and edit images (within Aperture and CS6 as an external editor) when I'm out in the field shooting.
I prefer to have all my images in one location and thus desire to copy eveything to my home base iMac when I return home.
What is the best way to "transfer" those images so that my homebase iMac Aperture Library can recognize the new masters and edited versions? Complicating this is the desire to "stamp" each image with a metadata preset upon import that I can do either at the laptop import or upon transfer to the iMac.
I know just enough to be dangerous but clearly there is an optimal way to consolidate and manage images when using two computers.
Welcome any thoughts from fellow photographers!
Chris

Thanks Kirby. I utilize Aperture 3 by reference instead of a compiled library. So I have individual folder/projects stored on my laptop. By exporting as a library, does Aperture bring these folders and related images "with it"?
What I don't want to lose is any post processing I do in the field which creates separate versions and/or .PSD files.
Thanks for your continued assistance.
Chris

What is the best way to move an aperture library from one full drive to an external drive?

Just want to make sure I move my existing Aperture library on my internal drive (which is full) correctly to an external drive that has plenty of space.
Thanks for the help!

As I use a MBP with limited internal drive space, my approach is to have the image files on an external drive, while leaving the library itself on my internal drive. The library takes up about 80GB while the images are closer to 1TB.
The library always contains 'Thumbnails' of the images which it shows in place of the disconnected image files.
This means I can still open the library even when the external drive is not attached, and I can still do keywording and rating and organising and so on.
I also maintain 'Previews' for my best images. Previews are like thumbnails but larger in size and can be shared with other apps, so I can still use and share these copies of the images, again even while the external drive is not attached.
I don't like the idea of having the actual library on an external drive connected to a laptop (although I have done so from time to time without issue). There's always a chance it can become accidentially disconnected (kids, pets, etc) and if this happens while using Aperture it can corrupt your library. A corrupted library can be repaired with Apertures first aid tools, but it's better to avoid it in the frist place when you can.

Aperture 3.0 referenced masters of 16K photos/104GB on external HD. In library, previews are 21GB & thumbnails 13GB. Best way to make those smaller?

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for