Aperture 3 don't allow same reference file mgmt?

With Aperture 2, I've kept all masters in Nikon Transfer folders. When reviewing and editing photos, I used Aperture to delete all unnecessary photos - it allowed me to choose if I want to delete version or both version and master (where ever that might be located). The same shortcut deletes now only version, and masters stays intact. If I use File -> Delete Master Image and all versions... the referenced master is still there... This'll create a huge amount of unwanted fles sitting on hard drive - and a problem. Any cure?

Have you deleted the files from A3's new Trash? It's now a two-step process, much like deleting a file in the Finder.
Ian

Similar Messages

New to Aperture - Library vs Reference files

I'm coming to Aperture from Picasa, which replicated and managed my folder structure as it appeared on my hard-disc, which was nice.
Am I better off importing images into my Aperture Library, or managing the folder structure how I want and just having Aperture work with the reference files?
I'm not a pro-photographer, just a pretty basic user, so will not have loads of large raw image files. What's the benefit of using the Library over using Reference files? I've tried Google-ing but everything I've found just addresses folder/project management within Aperture.
If I use the reference option, can Aperture manage my photos on my hard-drive in the same way Picasa could (ie if I moved a photo from one folder to another in Picasa, it also moved on my drive)
Thanks

Hi TxH,
Welcome to the user-supported Aperture discussion group.
I'm coming to Aperture from Picasa, which replicated and managed my folder structure as it appeared on my hard-disc, which was nice.
If you use Aperture for even a little while, you'll realize that the structure of your photos in your hard drive is not as important as how you organize them in Aperture, especially when you start making albums, which merely contain a pointer to the image in your library. You can have a picture in many albums, but your library (and therefore hard drive) only contains it once.
Am I better off importing images into my Aperture Library, or managing the folder structure how I want and just having Aperture work with the reference files?
That's a matter of opinion. Some people are very opinionated that using referenced files is the only way to go, some are opinionated the other way. Sometimes there really is a better solution for you depending on what you are doing.
What's the benefit of using the Library over using Reference files? I
You will find loads of conversation if you search this discussion group for "managed" and "referenced".
You will always have a library. Your managed pictures will live in the library and you won't have direct access to them through Finder (and you should not want direct access to them for the most part). Your referenced pictures live wherever you tell Aperture to take them from, but the bookkeeping parts of the Aperture library/database are still stored in the Aperture library package.
Benefits of managed include: you don't worry about where the files are; Aperture backs them up if you use its vaults; they are always with you.
Benefits of referenced include: you know exactly where the files are; your Aperture library is significantly smaller than if all your photos were in the library; you can find them with Finder if that's important to you (and a lot of people think it's important to them but then realize they only think that because they're really not using Aperture to its full potential).
If I use the reference option, can Aperture manage my photos on my hard-drive in the same way Picasa could (ie if I moved a photo from one folder to another in Picasa, it also moved on my drive)
Yes. I've never used Picasa, but Aperture allows you to "relocate" your photos in order to manage their external directory structure. You can also choose to "relocate" a managed master to make it referenced.
nathan

HT202020 Using a SDHC card adapter I can import directly on my iPad2 videos (.mov) taken with a Panasonic DMC-ZS3. The same video files (same file format) imported in Aperture 3.3 cannot be synchronized with iPad. Is Aperture causing the problem?

Using a SDHC card adapter I can import directly on my iPad2 videos (.mov) taken with a Panasonic DMC-ZS3. The same video files (same file format) imported in Aperture 3.3 cannot be synchronized with iPad. Is Aperture causing the problem?

Oh, baby! This bad boy flies!! Here's what to expect:
I had 40,000 images in Aperture 3 and it was dog slow at everything. I installed 3.1 update today. It took 5 minutes to update the database and then behaved marginally better than before at ASIC library navigation. I was disappointed.
Then I QUIT the app. It took a couple of hours to "update files for sharing" with a counter that went to 110,000 images. So it must have updated every thumbnail and variation of preview. Turned it back on , and BAM. Came up fully in seconds. Paused for 10 seconds ten everything was lickrty split. For the first time ever, I can use the Projects view with all 791 projects and scroll quickly. I even put it in photos modevand whipped thru all 49,000 images!
Haven't done anybprocessing yet, but i'm liking it!!
Jim

[solved] systemd service files don't allow quotes

Why is it not possible to use quotes in
ExecStart=
section of systemd service files?
For example, I can't use service file like this
[Unit]
Description=Pacman mirrorlist update
[Service]
Type=oneshot
ExecStart=wget -O /etc/pacman.d/mirrorlist.backup "https://www.archlinux.org/mirrorlist/?country=DE&country=NL&country=PL&protocol=http&ip_version=4" && cp /etc/pacman.d/mirrorlist.backup /etc/pacman.d/mirrorlist && reflector --verbose -l 50 -p http --sort rate --save /etc/pacman.d/mirrorlist
because systemd will not run it because of presence of quotes:
Feb 26 08:48:36 nanoBox systemd[1]: [/etc/systemd/system/reflector.service:7] Executable path is not absolute, ignoring: wget -O /etc/pacman.d/mirrorlist.backup "URL=http...
Feb 26 08:48:36 nanoBox systemd[1]: reflector.service lacks both ExecStart= and ExecStop= setting. Refusing.
I can remove quotes and then the service will run, but the URL parsed to the command will be cut in half, ie it will stop on the first "&" sign and only DE mirrors will be probed.
Is there some way around it other than creating a separate executable file and calling it from the service? I don't want to multiply unnecessary files if there's way around it.
Last edited by Lockheed (2015-02-26 09:37:25)

Lockheed wrote:
Raynman wrote:"from command line" is you feeding a (command) string to a shell. Your assumption is that systemd will treat whatever you put in ExecStart exactly the same as your shell would.
Not "is" but "was". Disappearance of that assumption was precisely the reason of starting this thread.
I had to read this a few times, but I think you mean it as follows. You assumed you could copy from the shell to the service file and it would work the same way. Then you got an error (about the abolute path) so that assumption "disappeared". So far so good. But you didn't exactly figure out what was different, you formed a new assumption and based your thread on that:
"systemd service files don't allow quotes" (title)
"Why is it not possible to use quotes in ExecStart= section of systemd service files"
"because systemd will not run it because of presence of quotes:"
Like frank604 says, quotes were never the issue (in fact, they are one of the few things with special meaning for both the shell and systemd), yet you still seem to think they were:
Lockheed wrote wrote:The actual wrong assumption on my part was that this command would run without quotes as service. It does not.
It is a shame you only quote the first part of my last reply and ignore the questions in the second part. You did almost the same thing with my reply before that and I suspect you also didn't read the man page I mentioned the first time. You basically give me the impression that you think you have it all figured out (even though you come here looking for help) and my follow-up questions aren't worth your time. That usually makes me "move along" pretty quickly, but I'm trying one last time, because even though "The service now works", I'd like to see that you actually understand why it didn't work before.
The only thing you really answered was "Changing paths to absolute made no difference.", but that shouldn't be, so when you mentioned empirical evidence, I basically repeated the question asking for some of this evidence (as in exact error messages for one or more modified ExecStart lines).
When I take your service file and give wget an absolute path, systemd happily executes wget, but then wget complains because it gets "&&" and "cp" and "--save" etc. as arguments. Those errors are what I see in systemctl status/journal, no longer anything about an absolute path. This is because "&&" has no special meaning. You can use semicolons (";") to separate commands instead (explained in the man page section on command lines) or multiple ExecStart lines like frank604 used (which is cleaner IMO).

Using Reference Files - Aperture Library still larger than file storage

Still new to Aperture, and so far LOVE the metadata tagging functionality, but am troubled by the huge size of the Aperture library. Here's my stats so far, after a couple of days of importing, with no image management done so far other than assigning some metadata...
# photos managed as reference files=1175
Size of folder where reference files are stored=883MB
Size of Aperture library (.aplibrary)=1.44GB
My expectation would be that the ratio of Aperture library to reference file folder would be about 1/10. But 1.6/1 seems way out of whack. I selected all photos within Aperture and then selected "Manage Reference Files..." and all 1175 file references showed up. On that basis, I'm pretty confident that the jpegs aren't being copied into the Aperture library. But I cannot explain why the library continues to be 1.5+ times as large as the reference file folder.
This seems to defeat the purpose of keeping reference files external from Aperture.
Am I missing something, or is this to be expected? If these ratios hold, then it seems if I end up managing 10GB of photos I will incur another 15-16GB of storage requirement just for Aperture to do its thing.
What is Aperture doing with all that hard drive storage space?

By default, Aperture creates previews of all of your images. A preview is little more than a JPEG copy of the original. The size of these are determined by the settings in Aperture's preferences. When you're dealing with RAW images, the size of the previews are significantly smaller than the master image, but if you're working with JPEGs, then the previews can balloon the library to as large (large when you add up the thumbnails and duplicates) as the referenced files.
You can reduce the size of the previews, or delete them and turn them off all together if you're not sharing your photos with other iLife & iWork apps from Aperture. There are some other reasons you may find them beneficial, and this article will help you determine if they are right for you:
http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=304499

Since you don't allow emails any more – I suspect because of the numerous complaints with your service and the way you treat people that you don't want documented, I am calling and I want this call recorded for future reference. I have been a long time fa

Since you don’t allow emails any more – I suspect because of the numerous complaints with your service and the way you treat people that you don’t want documented, I am calling and I want this call recorded for future reference.
I have been a long time faithful customer of vzw and although the past year I have been late on payments many times and really couldn’t afford your exorbitant prices for services lots of other companies offer sometimes three times cheaper than what you charge, I have hung in there trying my best to meet my obligations.
This month has been no exception. You don’t know the background; the whole story of people’s lives. I know you could care less because all you care about is the profit-the money that comes in.
I was told when I agreed to pay my bill on the third per the recorded message that I had 14 days to pay…you cut me off anyway. The phones are not the tissue; your suspending my service means I cannot work. I may lose my job…how do you justify that? In any case? The least you could do would be to keep 4986 on and cut the phones off. But no. You refuse to compromise and meet the basic needs of your customer. What does that say about your company? I tried to call back on three separate occasions to tell you I couldn’t pay because of unexpected expenses but couldn’t get out of the automated system…sadly couldn’t get to a real person which also speaks volumes to me.
All this tells me this is a company I don’t wish to be affiliated with any more. As soon as I can, I will discontinue service with you…I know you could care less. I will honor the remaining portion of the contract but that’s it. You don’t deserve my business. I am a good, hardworking person who, at the sacrifice of myself and my needs, always pays her bills…albeit late at times. I realize others tell you stories and lies to justify themselves. That’s not me. If you knew what I had been through the last 7 yrs you would marvel that I am still on my feet…don’t judge too quickly. You could be wrong…and in my eyes you are by doing this to me.
God will see us through this extremely scary time of that I have no doubt. No thanks to your company and lack of understanding and mercy. I am doing the best I can. Sadly you are not.
See I have choices. MANY choices of providers for services you offer. I don’t have to be treated like this. I don’t have to succumb to your coldness and callousness. I intend to choose better (and cheaper). If your company doesn’t get the “people factor” back you will be sorry.

Problem here is you admit you cannot afford the service.
And you want to blame Verizon for losing a job because you have no cell phone.
If your job depends on that phone I would pay it on time every time if you need a job to pay your bill.
No other service is going to treat you any different. And if you cannot afford Verizon's monthly invoice how are you going to afford new devices, activation fees, possible security deposits on any other cellular carrier? You can't.
Also if you made an arraignment to pay and then decide you cannot do so, why should Verizon extend you service or credit, or why is it you want to use the service and data and not pay for it as agreed.
Get a prepay phone. Its evident the cost is too high for you to afford on post pay.
Good Luck

Aperture 1.1 will not import tiff file if name is the same as the raw file

Before Aperture I would open up a raw file in Photoshop, edit it and save it as a tiff or a psd file keeping the same name. When I import a folder of images saved like this the only files I see imported are the raw files and any tiff or psd file I renamed to something else. I tried looking under Images> New version from jpeg and it's grayed out with no option to see a tiff file.
I took a quick look and searched through the forum and found nothing. I can't be the only one doing this!
Mike
Dual Core 2.3GHz G5 Mac OS X (10.4.6) 6.5 GB Ram, 500 GB HD, GeForce 7800GT

That's a ridiculous bug and the fact that you cannot see the entire filename (.nef, .tif, .psd) on the light table (except in tooltips) is pretty incredible too. It's like they were assuming there was no other previous workflow.
A workaround seems to be putting all the like named files in another folder before importing into Aperture. Time consuming if you have a few hundred projects and it could result in losing a few files here and there plus you need to manually add them to the proper stacks.
The concept of Aperture is still brilliant it just needs a lot more beta testing. It's kind of like Apple making Spotlight the default without giving you the option of using the clean straight forward old Find.
Mike
Dual Core 2.3GHz G5 Mac OS X (10.4.6) 6.5 GB Ram, 500 GB HD, GeForce 7800GT

Don't allow adobe to store last opened file

Hi all,
We have an portal that shows personal information on a PDF.
After we have closed the portal, the PDF can still be opened when you look at the last opened files in Adobe.
Adobe must not save such files in its memory, is this possible? The PDF must only be opened from the portal! and never in Adobe without the portal!
please help thanks in advance!
kire, vanderhill

We use the sap portal with internet explorer.
Op 30 jan. 2012 om 20:37 heeft "Bernd Alheit" <[email protected]> het volgende geschreven:
Re: Don't allow adobe to store last opened file
created by Bernd Alheit in Adobe Reader - View the full discussion
Adobe is a company. What software did you use?
Replies to this message go to everyone subscribed to this thread, not directly to the person who posted the message. To post a reply, either reply to this email or visit the message page: http://forums.adobe.com/message/4174460#4174460
To unsubscribe from this thread, please visit the message page at http://forums.adobe.com/message/4174460#4174460. In the Actions box on the right, click the Stop Email Notifications link.
Start a new discussion in Adobe Reader by email or at Adobe Forums
For more information about maintaining your forum email notifications please go to http://forums.adobe.com/message/2936746#2936746.

After upgrading to Aperture 3 I had to 'upgrade' all files. When this was done, there was an Aperture 3 library and the original Aperture 2 library. Are the two libraries identical and can I safely trash the Aperture 2 library?

After upgrading to Aperture 3 I had to 'upgrade' all files. When this was done, there was an Aperture 3 library and the original Aperture 2 library. Are the two libraries identical and can I safely trash the Aperture 2 library?

If the upgrade completed successfully and you are running Aperture 3 on the converted library and you're sure all the images that were in the old library are in the new library then you could delete the Aperture 2 library.
However I'm the paranoid type and when it comes to deleting images I'm always hesitant. If you can fine a place to archive the old library that would be your a better option.
At a minimum I would keep the old library around for a month or so after switching to Aperture 3 just to make sure in case something pops up.
regards

[HELP]don't allow access folder in web root, but allow dowload files in it?

Hi all!
I got a big problem, at least ... with me .. uhm ... I have a web application, which I allow user upload file on, I save that file in a folder below the web root, I mean ... www.mywebapp/files/uploadFile.zip <--- something like that...
I don't want user to able to access files folder, but ... I allow who has already login as admin of my web app can download that files :( ...
how can I do that ... plz help me :(
thanks in advance :(

Put the "files" folder under the WEB-INF directory.
Nothing can access the WEB-INF directory directly.
Then write a servlet that will get requests, and send back the file.
Alternatively you can use web.xml security constraints, to define who can/can't access the files.

I placed my aperture library on a 1 TB external drive (the file is 300 GB) and Aperture churns and churns but will not open the file. I don't know if the file is too large or if it is the external drive or what? any ideas? Smaller files will open.

I placed my aperture library on a 1 TB external drive (the file is 300 GB) and Aperture churns and churns but will not open the file. I don't know if the file is too large or if it is the external drive or what? any ideas? Smaller files will open. This is very annoying.

If this is an external USB drive, you must understand that USB is really, really slow. There may be nothing wrong except for that.
In my opinion, USB external drives are only acceptable for backups, and to get "near Hard Drive" performance, you need FireWire.

Aperture and iPhoto - sharing the same library? Synchornizing libraries?

Hi,
I would like to ask if it is possible to either:
1. Have Aperture and iPhoto share the same library.
2. Have the edits on one reflect in the library of the other (if it isn't possible to simply "share" the same one).
Thanks.
My major concerns that keep me from going to Aperture and forgetting iPhoto altogether are:
a. iPhoto has nice sharing capabilities (with Facebook, email, etc.) which I am not sure Aperture will have.
b. iPhoto has good iLife integration (slideshows with iTunes music, send to iMovie, etc.)
c. my photos have tags in iPhoto that I'm not sure would transfer to Aperture if I did the "import" process...

1. Have Aperture and iPhoto share the same library.
No. Th Aperture Library is a much more complex beast than the iPhoto one. The two apps can shar the same photos though.
2. Have the edits on one reflect in the library of the other (if it isn't possible to simply "share" the same one).
No. Neither is an "external editor" like Elements. Importing is a once-off thing. Once you import a pic to Aperture it never references the iPhoto version again - and vice versa.
It's tempting to think of Aperture as some kind of "iPhoto Pro". It's not. It's an entirely different application. When you edit a pic in iPhoto the apps preserves your original file and creates an entirely new file - the modified version. When you edit a pic in Aperture that doesn't happen. Your edits are recorded in the database and +applied live+ when you view the pic in the Aperture window. This is a very different way of working and the principle reason why the two apps don't - and can't - read each other's Library.
a. iPhoto has nice sharing capabilities (with Facebook, email, etc.) which I am not sure Aperture will have.
You can email from Aperture in exactly the same way as iPhoto. There is a Facebook exporter for Aperture (though, given what Facebook does to photos, I can't imagine why anyone would want one) and there are lots of other exporters available as well. Search on MacUpdate.
b. iPhoto has good iLife integration (slideshows with iTunes music, send to iMovie, etc.)
Aperture can do the same - and in the same way - if you set it to share Previews with iLife and iWork in the Preferences
c. my photos have tags in iPhoto that I'm not sure would transfer to Aperture if I did the "import" process...
They will.
There are some differences: No Face and Places features in Aperture, Aperture won't deal with video at all, you cannot order postcards and calendars via Aperture and Slideshows are better on iPhoto. But if you share the Previews with iLife, then you can access any of these features you want via iPhoto.
The best thing to do is download the Aperture trial and experiment with it.
Regards
TD

Can Lightroom references files in a network folder? And can multiple people all share a Lightroom catalog?

I would like to use Lightroom 5 at work to organize and manage photos. There are 10 people that consistently access the photos and videos. All of the photos and videos are on a network folder/drive. Is it possible for all 10 people to have a copy of Lightroom on their computers and then have a single catalog that all of the computers references? I guess the first question is whether Lightroom can references files on a network folder (if not than my first question isn't really relevant). If it is possible, what happens if two people (or more) have Lightroom open at the same time? Does that cause problems with the database? Please let me know if there is some way to make this work. Thanks..

Photos can be stored on Network Drives.
Catalog files cannot be stored on Network drives, and there is no way to allow multi-user access.
If you need multi-user access, you might want to consider software that allows multi-user access, such as Daminion. (Note: I am not endorsing Daminion, as I have never used it. I simply state that it claims to have a feature you are asking about)

Can I use gpt to recreate/unerase a partition table? (Rebuild the GPT/GUID partition table?) I don't want to do FILE recovery.

(Yes, I've googled a bunch and read threads like this one already.)
Can I use gpt or some other app to recreate/unerase a partition table? That is, how can I rebuild a disk's GPT/GUID partition table?) I don't want to do FILE recovery.
What happened: Instead of erasing a single partition off a disk with many partitions, the entire partition table was erased (using Disk Utility, w/o deleting the underlying files). Somehow the "Erasing a disk deletes all data on all its partitions." warning message was missed.
I have a copy of the output of df, with the number of blocks in each partition, from just prior to the erasure, so I should be able to recreate the GPT/GUID partition table. Editing the GPT with a hex editor is not feasible. Simply recreating the partitions with Disk Utility will overwrite the key filesystem tables on each partition, and I don't want to do that, plus Disk Utility doesn't allow me to specify exact partition sizes anyway.
Surely there's an app for rebuilding the partition table (other than emacs' hexl-mode!) for recreating/unerasing a partition table when the partition sizes and orders are known? I've looked at the advertising for a bunch of recovery software and none of them clearly indicate that they will do what I want.
I guess I can try using gpt on a copy of the reformatted drive I've made with dd, and see what happens. But perhaps someone knows of a tool that should do what I need, or knows if gpt is that tool or not.
There are answers and tools that will do FILE recovery - search for files and recover the ones that aren't fragmented or deleted. As far as I can find, they just look for files on the disk, and don't pay much, if any attention to the filesystem info or directory heirarchy, which in this case is valuable. Of course I could send it in to DriveSavers, or the like. But none of that seems necessary, and the scavenging file recovery apps won't do the job well,
E.g. some are mentioned here:
I don't want to do FILE recovery.
Thanks for any help.
The links in this post are to pages describing the underlined term, e.g. the man pages for df and gpt.
dd output includes:
Filesystem
512-blocks
Used Available Capacity Mounted on

Aperture has the ability to work with files in their existing location. They are called "referenced masters." When you import images, you should select the "In their current location" in the "Store Files:" drop down box. Have a read of the documentation for full specifics. Unsure how you can resolve your duplication; might be some work but next time have a read of the manual first
Information for versions is stored in the Aperture database (library file). The masters can be inside the library file itself, or they can be somewhere else.

Open the same raw file in PS5 with two different White Balance settings

I'm trying to open the same Raw File in PS5 with two different White Balance settings. One setting "as shot" the other in "daylight", then blend them. The tutorial I'm watching says to "stack" the images. The tutorial shows one White Balance setting as the "Background" layer and the other setting as "Layer 1". I don't know how to do this and the tutorial is not specific. Can anyone either point me to a step by step instruction or offer some assistance?

Also look at the "Snapshots" feature of Camera Raw itself. It allows you non-destructively to keep multiple sets of settings for a single raw file.
Learning about it far exceeds the scope of what can be done in this particular forum. I would recommend this book as essential reading:
http://www.amazon.com/Real-World-Camera-Adobe-Photoshop/dp/0321713095/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&q id=1313502199&sr=8-1
Additionally, there's a dedicated Adobe Camera Raw forum:
http://forums.adobe.com/community/cameraraw
Wo Tai Lao Le
我太老了

Aperture 3 don't allow same reference file mgmt?

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for