Aperture 3.1.2 untag faces

Hello everyone.
I would like to untag some persons in my Aperture library. Is it possible to remove the "faces" tag from persons? As well as be able to put them in the "skip" list so that they don't appear all the time as unknown faces.
People I took pictures of but don't see anymore and would like to delete their "faces album" but not have them pop up all the time as "unknown faces". Sort of a "definitive untag".
Thank you in advance.

I think a better work-around is to simply use a generic "I don't care" name for all detected faces about which you don't care. Something like "zIgnore" (the "z" forces it to the bottom of your Faces view, and happens to be easy to assign).
If you want to convert a set of already named faces to "zIgnore" simply drag it and drop it on the "zIgnore" face in Faces view.
Message was edited by: Kirby Krieger

Similar Messages

Iphoto to Aperture: keywords from iPhoto to Faces in Aperture?

My 10k photo's in iPhoto were keyworded by peoples names...Is there any way to bulk "name" these keyworded photo's in faces in Aperture. I can group all the photo's together, but I can't figure out how to bulk name them. Please tell me there is an easy way of doing this! My kids all look the same- I can barely tell them apart, so Faces definitely can't!

iPhoto to Aperture:
In Aperture use the File -> Import -> iPhoto Library
File -> Import -> Show iPhoto Browser
Use the first to get the entire Library, the second to get selected elements.
Aperture to iPhoto
Create an Export Preset in Aperture and be sure to include the metadata. Export from Aperture to the Finder, import into iPhoto.
You can, of course, access your Aperture Previews with the File -> Show Aperture Library command, but this doesn't get the metadata.
As you can see there is considerable work gone into the notion of migrating from iPhoto to Aperture. There is no work going the other way. Little thought has been given to using both together, as it doesn't make a lot of sense to.
Regards
TD

Aperture 3 and Faces, is ignore an option?

I have numerous Projects in Aperture 3, I also use faces. But, I would like to have Faces ignore or not search a few projects , is there away to do that? Not all projects just one maybe 2.

The Library file page in the User Manual is a good place to start:
Working with Library Files
Aperture lets you select Images and/or Projects, and export them as a Library. You can then either use this Library, or import it into another Library. When you import, you are given the option to either merge (useful if you have exported from the Library into which you are importing) or copy.
In general, it is advised that you put as many files in one Library as possible. The standard exceptions are multiple photographers not working for the same company, images that need to be sequestered for legal reasons, and special collects that are not based on a single photographer (mainly scanned archives, but ****, too). The reason for keeping your Library big is that the Library is an index of everything in it. The more that's in it, the easier it is to find.
If the number of Images that you don't want to ever have show up when you use Faces is not large, just delete the Faces Position Box from them. This can be done by clicking the "x" if the box is showing, or right-clicking a proposed Face and selecting "Not a face".

How to keep my iPhoto '11 Faces in Aperture?

I identified all the Faces in iPhoto'11 and when I imported the iPhoto Libary into Aperture 3.1.3 all faces displayed correctly in the Aperture Faces library category. However, if I later delete the iPhoto imported library (there are many duplicates in the two libraries), all the faces disappear in Aperture. It seems no matter what approach I take (create a new Aperture Library, import iPhoto library into it then merge with my Original Aperture Library) I still end up with a bloated Aperture Library containing the iPhoto Library and when I delete the iPhoto library all faces are gone.
It seems there should be an easy solution to retain the Faces, but I cannot find it in the discussion forums. Thanks, in advance, for any solution to this problem.

Tnxs. As regarding buying software, I am sorry but I did a mistake w another post where I was wondering about Pages and other preinstalled softwares that are not available to me through AppStore, since AppStore was not existing at the time... just forget it...
Since you are so expert about iPhoto, could you please tell me the following 2 issue I have since I switched (today...) from referenced to imported photo?
1) I imported almost 21Gb of photos. Now, the iPhoto Library is about 7Gb... If I am not wrong, this means that iPhoto's photos are not all stored in iPhoto Library but somewhere else... if I am correct, where??
2) Before abandoning referenced photos, I was synching my iPhoto library with iPhone and iPad by selecting photos which were already hardly modified, i.e. files of photo already modified. Now, as you say, I have the nice option to modify photos on iPhoto and be able to go back to the original photo if needed. Unfortunatly I had the bad surprise that after synchronization with my iOS devices, all the photos I have on them are the original one and no of them is containing any modification..... Of course there is something I am missing since this is not making any sense... but I cannot find the right way... Any help?? tnxs...
Cheers,
L.

Getting Faces to load faster

I'm interested in optimizing Faces tagging to get the Faces Library to load faster.
I've seen several forums regarding the slowness in getting Faces to load, primarily due to it needing to dynamically build the library each time it loads.
I'm looking for any helpful tips which "may" help getting the Faces library to load faster. Right now it's taking about 15 seconds to load.
Is the loading time based on :
* overall number of pics in the library?
* number of tagged faces I have on my corkboard?
* number of untagged faces?
Basically I know the number of pics has an impact, but I'm wondering if it helps to reduce the number of tagged faces, then I can remove some. Or if it helps to ignore all the faces which I'm not interested in.

I don't know if this will be helpful but it sounds like you get the general architecture or the way Faces work but have not connected the dots so let me give it a try for you.
If you try to load global faces view but have many unconfirmed faces it will be slow. It will also be slow when you try to look at one face when there are many unconfirmed matches because Aperture is looking for all the possibilities in the entire library.
So...
To make it faster just confirm your faces don't leave a bunch of possibilities out there.
Also realize that you can use the faces view at any library level - you don't have to use it on the global view. For example, say you have a bunch of projects that have nothing to do with your family and a bunch of projects that contain family images. If you don't care about the faces in the non-family projects just create a folder, deposit all family projects and use the faces interface on that folder vs all of you projects. Slice and dice for whatever works for you.
RB

Aperture 3 VS. iPhoto Library management policies

Let me start this off with the fact that I am new to the whole Mac scene. I am used to the PC world of managing everything neatly in folders and subfolders inside My Pictures folder. In PC land I was using importing everything automaticaly with my Nikon software. I seriously miss its ability to lable my folders exactly as I wanted them. I could then use whatever software I needed to edit from simple stuff with my Nikon software suite, to Correl Draw, to Photoshop. Sonce everything was left in the same folders, "library managment" was much simpler. Manually going in and moving pictures around was easy. Before the switch to Apple, I spent many many hours researching and studying.
So I have been usign my new MacBook Pro exclusivly for about 6 months now and still can not get my libraries organized as effectivly as I would like. The whole lack of one central folder location, has me thrown off. Okay lets start with my questions. I have a pile of them, so my apologies in advance...
1) Can I use one library for both applications? I started off with iPhoto, then purchased Aperture 3 as soon as it was avalible. I see that deleting fluff in one does not currently correspond to the other program. When setting up Aperture, I imported my iPhoto library. It seems to me that it doubled the amount of space used for my photos...
2) From what I have read, I am lead to understand that iPhoto is less of a space hog. It saved layers of edits over the pictures, while Aperture 3 saves each as a new photo. All done seamlessly behind the scenes. Is this correct?
3) When I imported the iPhoto library to Aperture, it forgot all my faces I had named. Yes I have Aperture setup to see the faces thing... I think.   Can I fix this simply without going through the whole naming process again?
4) Can I "manually" import/export the librarys simply by dropping them to the desktop, and renaming them then dropping them back in the picutres folder?
I would like to really consolidate and trim down the space being used. I have over 100 gigs of photos per library and that is being VERY choosy about what I save. All my professional work I shoot in RAW. As for the two programs, I see no real reason to keep iPhoto, as it seems all the other software programs like mail and iWork integrate just as well with Aperture.
5) How do I set a high quality desktop image from my own librarys? This is super frustrating!!! The only way I can seem to get high resolution pictures reliably, is if I can figure out how to open it in Safari, then set as a desktop.    Sometimes using system preferances it will work, but mostly I get really low resolution shots that look like maybe they are blown up preview or thumbnail images. Even delibertly using the same shot and trying to find it in the multiple locations I find, I can't seem to duplicate a process that gets me a clean shot via System Preferances. It seems that the iPhoto versions are higher quality.
I have gigs woth of personal shots I would love to browse through and use, but everytime it is a huge headache to do so.... I think most of my issues here are in understandign how to navigate the pictures in the Mac OS X. I think ideally I would like to dump iPhoto and stick to just Aperture. Mostly, I am loving the way all the programs in OS X seem to integrate and work together. Just having some serious stumbling blocks with the photography apects, and that was the primary reason I switched to a Mac.
6) So will the rest of the software like iMovie, iWeb, Mail, and Garage Band work as well with Aperture as iPhoto?
I need to sort out all the above issues and decide what direction to go and how to go about rebuilding my libraries. I have gigs worth of older family shots, downloaded images, freinds photography, and other random images I would like to keep seperated from my professional work. Aperture is without a dought a much better program for my professional, and daily use. I am just having issues accessign my work directly like I used to do on the PC no matter what program on the Mac I am working with.

I'll try to help you out a bit more:
First I'd recommend a post here by Kirby Krieger
This will get you on par with Aperture workflow and nomenclature. I can only reccomend you a good book if you're able to understand Dutch ;-) And BTW a book or manual is easier to pause then a video ;-)
The Well-trod Path. Walk it unless you have a map for a different route.
The Library is your image database. It contains all the information Aperture has about your images: where they are stored on your computer/drives/network, how you have them organized within Aperture, what adjustments you have made to them, all the pre-Aperture metadata (EXIF, IPTC, keywords, etc.) they had before you imported them into Aperture, and all the Aperture metadata (Version names, ratings, color labels, Stacks, additional keywords, etc.) you assign to them from within Aperture. The Library also contains small copies of each image (in effect, thumbnails, but in Aperture larger than actual thumbnails and called "Previews").
The image is the core record in your Aperture database. The database is a giant list of images with a whole bunch of information assigned to each image.
Within Aperture you can view individual images and any grouping of images. You can create a group based on any of the information you have about your images.
The Project is your primary image holder. It has a unique, privileged relationship with your images: Every image must be in a Project; No image can be in more than one Project. You should make a Project from every actual, out-in-the-world photo shoot that you do. Shoot=Project. Stick to this (the mis-naming of "Project" is one of the worst interface decisions made in Aperture).
You will regularly want to view your images in groups other than the Project in which they reside. Aperture provides several specific containers for this (as well as superb tools for creating ad hoc groupings). As a family, those containers are Albums. Aperture includes (regular) Albums, Smart Albums, and the following albums dedicated to special tasks: Book, Light Table, Slide Show, Web Journal, Web Page. Any image can be in any album, and can be in as many albums as you want.
As your Aperture database grows, you will want to organize your Projects and Albums. Aperture provides Folders to aid you. Folders hold groups of Projects, Albums, and other Folders. Folders cannot contain images which are not in a Project or Album: You do not put images in Folders; you put containers in Folders.
The organization of your image database is entirely for you to customize for your needs.
There are two additional pieces of the Aperture puzzle every new user needs to understand in order to make good use of it.
In additional to what I listed above, your Library may or may not contain your original image files. Each image in Aperture has an original. Aperture is non-destructive -- your original image files are never altered. If the original image file is contained within your Library, it is called a Managed Master (Aperture's pointer to this file, and the file itself, are both inside the Library). If the original image file is not contained within your Library, it is called a Referenced Master (the pointer in your Aperture Library points to a file outside your Aperture Library). Referenced Masters bring some important advantages -- but the new user of Aperture can rely on Managed Masters until the need for Referenced Masters arises. Aperture makes is easy to convert your original image files back and forth from Managed to Referenced.
A Version is the name given to the variants and copies you make of you original image within Aperture. You use Aperture's tools to make Adjustments to images. Each group of adjustments you make to one image is saved as a Version. You can (and should) create as many Versions as you need. Versions appear as images, but are simply text instructions which tell Aperture what Adjustments to make to the original image file. Aperture presents these to you on-the-fly. This is brilliant. It means that Versions are minuscule compared to Masters. The gain in storage and computational efficiency is enormous.
This also means that your images in Aperture do not exist as image format files. In order to create an image format file, you must export the image from within Aperture. There is no reason to do this until you need an image format file outside of Aperture.
Aperture, then, is best understood as a workspace for
   storing
    organizing
    adjusting
    preparing for publication, and
    publishing
digital photographs.
Your workflow is
    shoot
    import as Project(s)
    add image-specific metadata
    organize into Albums, organize Albums and Projects with Folders
    make adjustments to images (crop, rotate, change exposure, etc. etc. etc)
    prepare for publication
    publish.
If you still need to synchronize between computers (which or NOT running Aperture) you could still be using your old folder structure. Import then from the _raw folder, organize and manage them in Aperture and use relocate masters to move them to the correct position. In Aperture you could setup a Project per shoot, and then (Smart)albums in that project for what used to be subfolders when you where working on Windows. For synchronizing between Aperture using computers it best to copy libraries. (You can export a project as a new library as well)
Then for other RAW converters, take a look at why people recommend CaptureNX. It's mostly because of initial conversion. That is because CapertureNX is able to read in camera settings whereas other converters cannot. For some Nikon's color rendering in Aperture might be a bit of, but you can correct that while developing. Personally I had only one occasion where I wanted to edit in ACR instead of Aperture. (Because I needed a gradient adjustment and Aperture at that time did not have brushes yet) As you mentioned yourself already, one converter is usually the best choice. Pick one that suits you and stick with it.
For HDR, there are some plugins for that, otherwise export to 16-bit TIFF (which is essentially RAW), do the HDR in PS and import back again. Not that big-a-deal.
For there rest, when you encounter some problems anywhere on the Mac, think of the easiest solution you can imagine, that usually how it works on the Mac. That why you hardly ever have to leave your Aperture interface while organizing your photo's.

Tagging Facebook albums created in Aperture not working

I'm trying to publish a Facebook album from within Aperture (3.6), and am having trouble getting the tags to stick in Facebook. When I go visit the album on Facebook, the tags are there, but not actually linked to the people. For example My friend John Doe, would be tagged in the photo in grey writing, but it is not a clickable link, and when I go to John's Facebook page, he hasn't been tagged in it.
I suspect the issue is related to this forum post: Facebook contacts not syncing
When I go to John Doe's Faces entry, it shows the correct contacts entry.
When I go to the contacts entry, it has his Facebook profile under the "Facebook" field, but there is no small F under his contact picture, and when I tell os X to update all profile pictures his does not get updated. Also, it seems that my Facebook syncing is not syncing all my Facebook friends, only a select few, who I suspect meet the criteria discussed in the above thread. So, what I suspect is happening, is that Aperture thinks that John's faces entry is connected to a Facebook account (possibly from some legacy link with contacts) but Facebook's new policy is making it so that John's contact is not being synced from Facebook to iCloud.
I can't figure out a way to manually link his contact card to his Facebook account. Entering his Facebook homepage web address does nothing as far as I can tell.
Any help would be appreciated. It ***** spending all the time tagging faces in aperture and then having to re-do it in Facebook.
PS: Running Yosemite, all programs up to date as of nov 22, 2014
Edited for spelling

It shows for me within a minute. I don't have Facebook enabled. I would:
- reboot and see if that forces the tieing of any loose ends, and thus allows this feature to work
- maybe try it on a new Library, or a Library used in another User Account on your machine
- see if someone who does use Facebook tries the feature and reports on whether it works
I'm confident Library size/number of Images is not part of the issue, unless you have several thousand named Faces.
Just to make sure we are "on the same page": you go to Contacts, select a contact, double-click the picture assigned to that contact, and never see "Faces" in this dialog:
(Screenshot)

Aperture, iPhoto, Lion – magic problem [solved]

Hello. I would like to share my experience, may be it will be useful for somebody.
On MacBook Air (belongs to my wife) was installed iPhoto and decided to install Aperture, to sync our photos. It was around 80GB free space (Finder). When I installed Aperture and tried to import Aperture library (around 33GB) from my MacBook pro, Aperture wrote that it is not enough free space. I open DiskUtility - 20GB free, Finder - 80GB. I checked permissions with DiskUtility, delete some old documents, iPhoto library, not used programs - the same story. Of course, it free more space (90 and 30), but it was still not enough. Then I tried to reset permissions and ACL (HD Recovery - resetpassword) - didn't help. Then I delete iPhoto.app and magic - DiskUtility agreed with Finder that I have 90GB free. After without any problem I import Aperture library, including Faces, etc.
Здравствуйте. Решил поделиться опытом, может кому пригодится.
Была установлена iPhoto, свободного места на диске ~ 80GB (Finder). Установил Aperture, пытаюсь импортировать библиотеку (около 33GB) со своего MacBook pro - пишет, что недостаточно места на диске. Запустил DiskUtility - 20GB свободно, Finder - 80. Проверил permissions, удалил какие-то старые документы, библиотеку iPhoto, ненужные программы (например, было 2 МС Офиса - 2008 и 2011). Картина не изменилась, то есть свободного места прибавилось (90 и 30 соответственно), но не хватало порядка 2GB для импорта библиотеки. Неделю рылся в интернете, делал reset permissions и ACL - ничего не помогло. От отчаяния снес iPhoto (программу) и, о чудо, DiskUtility признается в наличии 90GB. Потом без проблем перенес (импортировал) библиотеку Aperture, все перенеслось корректно, включая Faces.

Well I went to the App Store to update Aperture but got victimized (again) by the "you have updates waiting in other accounts bug." So I am trying to force Spotlight to re-index my hard drive, repaired permissions then we shall see. I sure do wish Apple would solve this problem as it has affected quite a few people. If I am successful with this process will let you know if it all works.
In the meantime, why can't one close or delete the email message created by the non updated apps in question. The email message becomes impervious to deletion without quitting mail altogether...

Too late to start up with Aperture?

I'm aware of both Aperture and iPhoto being trashed by Apple in the near future. I have been using iPhoto on my MacBook Pro since it was introduced and usually do some additional editing as required using Adobe Photoshop Elements. But now I'm starting to shoot in RAW, and iPhoto won't even take RAW files into it's library without converting them to Jpegs. I think the best bet for me would be to upgrade to Aerture but I also know it's no longer going to be supported. In fact, I've read that Apple is no longer interested in the entire advanced enthusiast and pro photography spaces. Thoughts and advice for me? I have been spoiled by the wonderful Apple apps that work so nicely. By the way, I haven't upgraded to Yosemite, nor do I intend to. I think in my case it will take me in the wrong direction.

Reasons for migrating to Aperture of course depend upon your intended use. As pointed out here, development for Aperture has ceased. Apple has decided to migrate to another application, using cloud based back end for image storage. There has been more than one or two posts of disappointment on this course of action. In the end it's Apples decision however right or wrong the users believe that decision to be. Your best bet is to look at the features, determine if those are of use to you, scan the threads here for comments, then determine if the cost is worth it.
As opined Aperture probably has about a year of life left. After that you may be able to use it so long as you do not upgrade your operating system. But make no mistake - there will not be an Aperture 4.x. Nor, in my opinion will there be any significant (or heroic) efforts to fix what are now significant issues with Aperture.
The trade off, in my opinion is not worth it. Especially when you can get Lightroom now for a modest price. That is if you don't mind paying a monthly usage fee and really don't need facial recognition. The former being the pricing plan Adobe is moving to and the latter being completely absent from Lightroom. I don't know of any other viable professional package on the market right now. On the upside, Adobe products do support IPTC extended metadata which Apple never adopted. Understandable, it was an Adobe push - but the data stored is pretty nice. Mostly dealing with model and release information (and others, read the IPTC specs if you are interested) - if you deal with that kind of thing.
As for my experiences - Aperture use to be an incredible product. Especially with the introduction of Facial Recognition - which is now horribly broke. Here are some of my experiences.
FACES:
- Aperture now scans my entire photo library for new faces in every image every time the application fires up. This isn't a problem if you have a few hundred images. Once you start hitting about ten thousand (10,000) it becomes a nuisance. It takes about 45 seconds. Multiply that time out based on your library size.
- Aperture now rescans every identified face for a match, every time you identify a new face. Ok, I get this process. You have marked this guy as John Smith, now we are going to look for possible matches for John Smith. The only problem is that it appears to being in every face which it cannot justify as someone else.
- Aperture often double tags a face. To explain this you have to understand what the software is (probably) doing and how it records facial locations. First it applies some order of facial recognition. It looks for things which appear to be faces. Eyes, nose, mouth. It then draws a box around that area. You have the option to select that boxed area and in the upper left hand corner click on the "x" to close the box. Except when two boxes are exactly on top of each other. It's maddening. You cannot get rid of either box. Nor, can you identify the name of the person in both iterations of the box. If you understand all the places where you can name people (every software package has multiple places to do the same task) then you can select one of the boxes and tell Aperture that this area "is not a face". But since you are now telling the AI that the information contained within the defined area is not a face (when in fact it is) you are setting yourself up for a real HAL9000 moment. And if you don't get that reference, you are simply confusing the system. Especially when you leave box 2 in place and give that person a name. So is it a face or isn't it? Aperture appears to be using both decisions (is and isn't a face) in future iterations of facial identification (finding faces in an image) and facial recognition (is this face Johnny Smith or Jane Smith).
PLACES:
- A number of folks have reported problems with the geolocation of images. With the upgrade to the latest OS I have also begun to experience this problem. Images which I shot in my home studio were correctly mapped within a few feet of my home. With Aperture 3.6 many of them are not even on the same block. I actually have photographs which were previously (properly) mapped in central Maryland, that with the 3.6 upgrade are now tagged in the middle of the Pacific Ocean. Yes you can manually move them to their correct location - but again, thats great with a few hundred images. Thousands becomes a real nightmare.
This same geomapping problem has reared its head in faces as well with some users reporting the placement of the facial identification box in the wrong location on the image. Far be it from me to disparage software developers but it's almost as if the crew forgot that the image coordinates (whether for dropping a box on a photo or a pin on a map) start at 0,0 being the upper left corner of the display. /snark
STORAGE:
- A couple "upgrades" back Aperture migrated a reasonable and easily understandable storage methodology in which photos were filed (on your hard disk) in a directory architecture based on the date/time of image. So, if something horrible happened a savvy user could open the Aperture package, navigate through the directory and recover lost or damaged data. Not anymore. I defy anyone to explain the system now. It appears to have something to do with the ingest date, solar or lunar cycle and a hashed algorithm of some programmers mothers birthdate which is then translated into an XML filename. All that to say - good luck finding your photo IF you need to AND you are storing images internal to the Aperture database. But lets get serious about filing images under a directory system based on import date/time. This is great - if you import your photos on the date of the shoot. But, if you go on a two week trip of Europe and ingest all your photos the day you get home, well that's not too bad. A year later when you have to recover all your photos from a significant system failure and end up ingesting 10,000 photos on 15 May 2014 that is another story entirely. Now, good luck finding your photos on the hard disk (if you need to that is).
SECURITY:
- Apple applied the "sandbox" theory to image security. Basically in a nutshell all your photos are locked from editing by only approved applications. So don't even think you are going to download some awesome script to do some wonderful task and have it work. Sorry. It took me months of phone calls with apple support before one of those on the line even thought to walk me through my editing process and determined the script/app I was using was not apple approved and this was causing my problem. I get it, new risks in computer data and all. But there comes a point when you have taken security so far as to lock the user out of the loop.
CRASHES:
- We all have them, and they all happen at the worst possible moments. In the past 2 days I have been working in Aperture with my data and experience Aperture crashes about every 45 minutes or so. Yes, I have repaired my permissions, yes I have repaired the database and Yes I have rebuilt the database. It just appears to be another nuisance of Aperture that wasn't there a couple years ago. I have even gone so far as to completely uninstall Aperture, reload it from scratch and re-ingest all my images (that is how I discovered the whole ingest date/time versus shoot date/time storage della described above). My entire library now (in the Aperture Package) falls under a single year (2014) when previously it was spread across 40 years (from the 70's to current date). Yes, I have images from the 70's in aperture. I scanned a lot of film over the years. Regardless, I could never track down exactly why the crashes were happening. Some feedback from Apple would be nice - I have after all must have sent them a few hundred crash reports by now. My RAM is good (yup, I have tested it), drive space is fine and I have plenty of it so ..... Im left scratching my head.
Aside from all of that - I loved Aperture, while it lasted. I will be saddened by it's loss and to date I haven't heard anything yet which gives me hope about Photos. As someone who is occasionally paid, and who occasionally pays to shoot (read into that what you will) I refuse to store my image library on anyone else cloud. I have my own storage architecture which has worked fine for me. I haven't lost an image now in the many many years I have been using it. If you shoot a lot I recommend you look into Drobo. I was an early adopter and have never looked back. I have two 16TB units on my desk - one for live data, one for TimeMachine.
Cloud storage is simply too risky.
1. You are reliant on too many factors which are (a) out of your control and (b) are run by people who really don't care about your data or your business. Not to mention the constant finger pointing. If a switch goes out somewhere in Nebraska I hope you had a local copy of your data because now you can't work. But then again, that defeats the whole purpose of cloud storage doesn't it? How many Apple users signed up and put up web pages in what is now the cloud? You remember those days? You data is your data and will always be there? Until we change our ToS and now longer support personal websites.
2. Pricing. Seriously look at the pricing. The cloud tops out at 1TB for $20/month. Not bad. What do I do with the other 15TB of data I have? Oh, and after 3 months I could have purchased a Western Digital portable USB 1TB. If Moore was right (and so far he has been pretty close) that 1TB next year will only cost me $30 at the local Best Buy. If you can find it. You know 6TB drives come out this fall? Only a couple hundred dollars each. About 1 years payments on the cloud. Now I realize I might get slammed there - not everyone has $60 extra dollars for a portable 1TB drive. But I am assuming you do since you are tinkling about spending $70 for an app which is only viable for another year.
3. Cloud storage really? I don't know about you but the last time I ran an all day shoot I used up about 128GB of card space which took me a couple hours of transfer time (card to local disk). Now, how long would it take me to run that up to the cloud before I can use it. And that was on an older camera which was half the megapixels of what I am shooting now. So, 1/4 of my storage maximum being transferred up to the cloud after only one shoot. Awesome. Ill get a coffee, take a road trip, and in a couple days my images will be ready for first draft editing. Meanwhile my client will be ..... strumming his fingers? Don't worry though sir - a couple more days and your proofs will be available online. For everyone with any mad skillz to hack into. The only secure computer is one not online.
So, there are the down sides from my perspective. Yup, it's one sided. If you want to know the good stuff (and there is a lot of good stuff) just read the sales brochures. It's fine product - so long as you understand the limitations. And overall I am happy with it. And I will, again, be saddened when it leaves the market.
Aperture's days are numbered. I am past denial and isolation. I guess this places me in the anger stage. There is no use in bargaining. It is Apples decision and they have made it. Depression is next. I doubt I will make it to acceptance - unless there are some significant changes to Photos and I don't see that in the works. Apple appears to be dropping their professional line of products and pushing to the general market.

Projects and Faces missing from Photos on iPhone

Recently Projects and Faces stopped syncing with my iPhone 4. Only Albums and Places show up on the device. I noticed this when I upgraded to iOS 4.0.2, but it is was a few days before that when I had last looked at photos on my phone. My iPhone is setup to sync photos with Aperture 3. I have faces and projects selected to sync in iTunes and it was working fine until recently. I have tried disabling photo syncing, deleting all photos and re-inabling syncing with no results. Anyone else had this problem or have any suggestions?

I don't sync to aperture but I have noticed the iPhone is syncing more faces than I set it to. I would just check to make sure the info page of iTunes hasn't been set to default a different photo syncing scheme as in restoring the sync to iPhoto. Does the phone show up in iPhoto as a connected camera device?

Can I import an exported iPhoto library to Aperture 3?

I have a DVD of iPhoto events from a wedding last year. It has about six 'events' which are different people's camera films, and I assigned faces etc to the whole lot in iPhoto before I exported it to DVD.
I'd now like to put it in Aperture, to add to a couple more albums and then back it up to an external drive. What's the easiest way of doing this? Import to iPhoto and then import from iPhoto to Aperture? I'd rather avoid importing it twice and don't want it in iPhoto as well because of space. If I can import straight from the DVD to Aperture, to include all the faces and metadata that would be ideal, but the import option doesn't seem to let me do it that way.

If you want to keep as much of the meatadata as possible you will need to put the DVD back into iPhoto and import into Aperture using the normal iPhoto import steps.
If you just want the images then you could mount the DVD and point Aperture at the image files and import those.

Aperture 3 with ridiculous performance

I started using Aperture on version 2 and I loved it. The main reason for that was that it was super fast in handling my 30 thousand photos.
After I upgraded to Aperture 3 though, the performance is pathetic. I can barely scroll through photos. Sometimes creating a simple Smart Album takes more than 60 seconds -- and I'm not exaggerating.
I really don't like Adobe, but I think I'll have to switch to LightRoom if I can get this fixed. I've read some posts about disk fragmentation being the cause for the problem, but I find that very hard to believe. Why wouldn't the same thing happen to Aperture 2?
Turning off Faces didn't help.
Any other ideas on how to fix?

First, are you using "high performance" for the graphics settings on your MacBook Pro? You definitely want to do that.
Second, some here have reported that deleting the Aperture preferences file has helped. I can't say as I had real performance issues so I'm not sure.
Finally, is Aperture 3 doing anything in the background still (updating thumbnails, etc.)? This can slow things down.
I'll note that I find A3 to be faster on Snow Leopard than A2 was. I also think the fragmentation discussion is a red herring. But I also have good performance... it'd be nice if there were a silver bullet for what the difference is between the machines but I'm not sure.

Keyword Filtering & Search Via Parent Structure In Aperture Is Ugly - Help

I'm very frustrated with the keyword assigning and filtering within Aperture.
I basically have my keywording down, but USING the keywords is a nightmare.   I try and create parent keywords by things like People (fred, john, harry, etc.), vacation (2011 - Cancun, etc.), or Wedding (2011 - Fred & Ginger).
What I don't understand is how to easily and quickly search after I've created it.   When I pull up the "filter" it lists ALL keywords, alphabetically, but they are not organized into the nested groups that I created - why?   I can't "search" the keywords either.
The keyword HUD is equally useless to me.   It would be much better if I could easily move photos assigned to one keyword to another - but instead, I find myself needing to search for one keyword, select them all, then assign them to the new one, then delete the old one.   What a PITA.   The keyword HUD would SEEM to be the right place for it as - but all it does is seem to help you sort of organize your keywords. You can MOVE keywords to a parent keyword, but you can't pull up the images associated with that keyword or move them.
I've googled arond on this for a while and never found a good answer.
I used to use a program called Bullstorm Keyword manager with iPhoto that I loved.   Then Apple ruined that, and destroyed iPhoto's way of managing keywords.....   So, I was semi-forced to move over to Aperture which is "ok" - fraught with problems as it doesn't work witih my e-mail programs, slower, etc. etc.   But, I'll take it if it could ONLY handle keyword management better.
Any ideas?

Hello Eric,
Ideally, I want to be able to view my searches at a parent level and then select the children features that are applicable - instead of having to search across all my keywords each time.   E.g. selection Vacation, and then select the vacations that I want to see or see an easy list of all the 'core people" or "all people" that I want to search on.
You can just do that - at least with Aperture 3.2.2, I never tried it with previous versions.
Even, if you do not set the parent "vacation" keyword and do not see it displayed, you can search for it, and if any of the keyword "vacation"'s children are set, then a search for "vacation" will return all images with children of "vacation" set.
If I select "Vacation" under search, it does properly shows ALL my vacation pics.   But how do I easily select three of the keywords under vacation without going through all the keywords to find them?   Same thing with "people"   I'm organizing all my people tagging so I can easily select me, my mother, my wife, etc., but when I go under search, it's an all or nothing situtation.
It sounds like I might be able to do this by renaming "Bob" to "Bob Reynolds" and then putting them under the same parent, right?   That would be helpful.
Exactly, rename the keyword "Bob" outside the group of "Bob Reynolds" to   "Bob Reynolds" and then drag the second "Bob Reynolds" to the other group. You first will get a warning that some images carry the keyword, then you will be prompted if you want to merge the keywords.
Again, thanks for that - that helps.
The problem with the "search" is that I have keywords with people's name in them (as well as within the name of the file).   In other words, I have keywords like "Bob's Wedding" - if I search for Bob, I get that too.   I want to be able to quickly search for people, locations, etc. within that search.
It looks like you are using keywords for task that can be done in Aperture with other tools, like "Faces" or "Places" or "Project Names". To find people I search the "Faces", to find vacation pictures I search the locations, events I search by date. Maybe you can shorten your keyword list by looking at the other options.
Possibly. however, I think the reason I started doing that (back in the days that I was on a PC and use Adobe) was that I like to be able to easily find pictures of Me, with my brother and my mother.   I don't think you can do that with Faces, can you?   I do nee to start playing more with Places.   I like flagging separate events.
I'm sitting here organizing keywords as we've been back and forth on this and the Keyword HUD could be perfect - if would only allow me to create a search - not just mess with the keywords.
Would be nice if there was an easier way to assign keywords with the keyboard.   Being limited to only 8 keywords at a time (via the option xyz key) along with "," and "." is awkward.
I wish Kirby Krieger would drop in - I remember he once wrote a nice post explaining how to use the textfield in the keyboard controls to assign keywords by typing, but I cannot find this post right now.
But the basic idea is, if you show the keyword controls (shift-D), there is a textfield with the message "add keyword" written into it. If you now start typing the name of a keyword, you will get a drop down list with possible completions and you can pick one of the suggestions to quickly assign the keyword to your selected images.
If you can find the post, that would be great - would love to read it. Again, the problem is ease of use.   I hit "shift D", then I need to go to the mouse to click on the "add keyword", then type it and hit return.   If I accidentally assign the wrontg keyword, I need to go back to the mouse, click on "meta data", then highlight and delete the keyword I incorrectly assigned.
Overall, the MAIN reason I use something like Aperture is for photo organization and keywording.   The editing is a nice to have - but I can use Adobe for that if needed.   I'd give up everything it would simply allow me to quickly add my images, assign keywords, and edit.
Thanks again!
HTH
Léonie

Fully Migrate to Aperture from iPhoto

I am ready. Whats the best means of doing the final transfer? I currently just have aperture running my iPhoto library.

I am ready.
Great! Welcome to the Club!
Whats the best means of doing the final transfer? I currently just have aperture running my iPhoto library.
You could just continue doing this, but it would have some advantages to convert the iPhoto library into an Aperture library. The formats are compatible, but Aperture handles previews more efficiently.
You still will be able to open the converted library with iPhoto. Just for testing I imported an iPhoto library into Aperture, and the reduction in size was enourmous.
To convert the iPhoto library into an Aperture library, I'd suggest the following steps:
Backup your current iPhoto/Aperture library.
In iPhoto reveal all hidden photos; Aperture cannot unhide them.
Repair the library using the first aid tools. iPhoto 6 and later: Rebuilding the iPhoto library
Empty the trash and quit iPhoto.
Launch Aperture with the ⌥-key held down and select "other/new" to create a new, empty library. Do you have enough disk space to hold two copies of your library plus some additional space, that will be needed during import? Otherwise move your iPhoto library to an external drive.
In Aperture use the command "File > Import > Library" and select the iPhoto library to import.
If your library is large, this may take some time.
Aperture had recently problems with smart albums created in iPhoto (hangs, slow processing). You may want to delete the old smart albums and replace them by smart albums defined new in Aperture.
Your new Aperture library will contain the Faces from your iPhoto Library, also the Print Products, but you will not be able to edit the books and cards. For this you will need to edit the books in iPhoto.
If you are moving the new library to an external drive, remember that Aperture requires the Aperture library to be on a disk formatted Mac OS X Extended (JOurnaled).
Regards
Léonie

Places and Faces missing from iPhone

I use Aperture and tag all my Faces from there. I also use several cameras which geotag my photos, so Places is working in Aperture, too. However, on my Phone (iOS 7), neither Places nor Faces are appearing. I understand they are supposed to be displayed in the Albums view, but they're not there. Thoughts?

Turns out that somehow, at some point, my iPhone stopped synchronizing with Aperture. Once I restarted synchronization through iTunes, normal functionality returned.

Aperture 3.1.2 untag faces

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for