Aperture migration

I have a complete copy of all my files and system on an external HD. I need to migrate from Aperture 3.5.6 (Mavericks OS) to Lightroom (on Yosemite), recently installed. Will the Lightroom Plugin recognise and access the relevant files and data to be able to successfully transfer my photo libraries even though aperture is greyed out when views in finder? Apple seem to have discarded the last update of Aperture which was readable in Yosemite. Or, will I have to do all the necessary work whilst still in Mavericks. Advice would be extremely welcome! michaelg

Hi Michael,
Look for Plug-in Extras in the File Menu, where there's a plugin called Import from Aperture. It's part of LRCC.
The original blog post on it from Lightroom 5.6 is here: Aperture import plugin now available

Similar Messages

Aperture: Migration to new Mac (Referenced Library)

Apologies if this has been covered before but I've used numerous searches and don't seem to be hitting the right combination of terms to bring up what I want.
I currently have a flagging 2007 MacBook (OS 10.6.8; 2.16 GHz, 2MB RAM and only 7GB free of the 160 GB HDD). Aperture is struggling. Time to upgrade.
My Aperture Library is currently on the Mac and is 'Managed'. I have contemplated moving the 50GB or so of Aperture Library to an external HDD and going 'Referenced', mainly because I still have some images I need to work on (even though Aperture is for obvious reasons ponderously slow with frequent SBOD on this machine) until I decide what to upgrade to (Macbook 15" or iMac with more bangs for the buck) and wait for the latest refresh of the line that I choose.
Upon getting the new machine I plan to use the Migration Assistant to help with app/doc/settings transfer but what about Aperture? I am not sure if it's best to:
1) Get the new Mac now, migrate everything across (including Aperture and its Managed library) THEN move the Aperture library off the internal HDD to an external and going Referenced, or;
2) Go Referenced now. In which case when I eventually do then migrate Aperture to the new machine will it automatically 'point' to the correct location of the external HDD referenced library when what is left of Aperture copies across or is there and easier (or indeed more convoluted) process I will have to go through if I switch to Rferenced before getting the new Mac and migrating?
Accept of course with the new Mac the HDD will be so much bigger so there may actually be no need to go Referenced, at least yet. Try as I might, save for HDD space I don't see that many benefits to Referenced
On the new Mac front, while I like laptops, I find that the iPad and this Mac do most of what I want (e.g. surfing, mailing and running the odd few apps). While a new MBP would be appreciated part of me still thinks that the more bang for the buck iMac is the better investment. The only thing I MAY need to do is upload the occasional photo shoot on the move (by creating a new project) which, if stripped back to basics, this Mac miight still be OK for until I get back home and move the project to the iMac, reloacting to the masters to the referenced external HDD after.
Any help appreciated.

Hi,
some consederations you may want to keep in mind. There is no definitive answer for the perfect library setup - it will depend on the size of your Aperture Library, the amount of available disk space, on your workflow, and on your backup strategy.
I currently have a flagging 2007 MacBook (OS 10.6.8; 2.16 GHz, 2MB RAM and only 7GB free of the 160 GB HDD). Aperture is struggling. Time to upgrade.
On that machine you really need to relocate your master image files to an external drive or free disk space in a different way. With only for 4% of empty space on the system drive, even a newer Mac will be very slow. Try to keep 20% to 30% of your system volume free.
My Aperture Library is currently on the Mac and is 'Managed'. I have contemplated moving the 50GB or so of Aperture Library to an external HDD and going 'Referenced', mainly because I still have some images I need to work on (even though Aperture is for obvious reasons ponderously slow with frequent SBOD on this machine) until I decide what to upgrade to (Macbook 15" or iMac with more bangs for the buck) and wait for the latest refresh of the line that I choose.
For best performance the Aperture library should reside on your fastest drive, usually the System drive. If you want to go referenced, relocate the masters, but keep the library on the internal drive. Only if you have a very fast connection to your second drive, or two internal drives, it may be advantegous to move the whole library to the other volume.
Managed, referenced, or mixed?
Managed: A managed library is easier to handle, as long as it is reasonably small. With 50 GB Aperture Library you can continue with a managed library, as soon as you have more disk space available. The advantage of "Managed" is that you do not have to keep track of your masters on your own, and that they will be included in the vaults. You will need an incremental backup scheme that looks inside the library package however - like Time Machine, otherwise you will need to backup the whole library over and over again, even if you only changed one single image.
Referenced: If your Library gets larger, and you have several hundreds of GB, then a managed library becomes a nuisance and it is time to go referenced. Very large libraries are difficult to move or copy between disks; It will be wasteful to have several vaults, for each vault will include the same masters over and over again.
Mixed: The Aperture library on the system drive, most of the masters on an external (or second internal) volume. This setup is perfect for laptops with limited space on the internal drive, but it will require that you have a well ordered strategy where to keep your masters, since Aperture will not manage them for you. There are two pitfalls to avoid: Accidentally deleting or modifying masters from the Finder, or accidentally relocating them to a place where you store other images that are not your masters. When you have several similar images in the same folder, it can be very hard to tell which image is the master that you need to keep and which is a redundant copy.
The "mixed" setup is great, if you are on the road (bt will put mre strain on your memory or master management skills)- you still have your Aperture library with you and the master image files you are currently working on, but not the bulk of your masters. If you create high quality previews, you probably even will not notice, that most of your master image files are still at home.
Upon getting the new machine I plan to use the Migration Assistant to help with app/doc/settings transfer but what about Aperture? I am not sure if it's best to:
1) Get the new Mac now, migrate everything across (including Aperture and its Managed library) THEN move the Aperture library off the internal HDD to an external and going Referenced, or;
2) Go Referenced now. In which case when I eventually do then migrate Aperture to the new machine will it automatically 'point' to the correct location of the external HDD referenced library when what is left of Aperture copies across or is there and easier (or indeed more convoluted) process I will have to go through if I switch to Rferenced before getting the new Mac and migrating?
Accept of course with the new Mac the HDD will be so much bigger so there may actually be no need to go Referenced, at least yet. Try as I might, save for HDD space I don't see that many benefits to Referenced
From my experience, it is less troublesome to migrate a managed library with Migration Assistant. If parts of your Library are referenced, and you migrate the referenced masters as well, you may need to reconnect them, unless you only have to plug in the volume with referenced masters. Then Aperture should reference them correctly without extra trouble.
Try as I might, save for HDD space I don't see that many benefits to Referenced
Then stick to the managed setup until your library really becomes huge.
On the new Mac front, while I like laptops, I find that the iPad and this Mac do most of what I want (e.g. surfing, mailing and running the odd few apps). While a new MBP would be appreciated part of me still thinks that the more bang for the buck iMac is the better investment. The only thing I MAY need to do is upload the occasional photo shoot on the move (by creating a new project) which, if stripped back to basics, this Mac miight still be OK for until I get back home and move the project to the iMac, reloacting to the masters to the referenced external HDD after.
Any help appreciated.
I am still waiting for my iPad to be delivered - right now I take a MBP on the road. For the new shoots I create a new Aperture library, do most of the tagging while I still remember how the images have been taken, and when back home I import the new project into my main library.
Reagrds
Léonie

IPhoto - Aperture migration

I have an iPhoto Library of some 20000 photos. When Migrating to Aperture, it seems that the recommendation is to use multiple libraries. I have already loaded the entire iPhoto library and given the differences in the look at feel between the two applications am considering deleting the Library and starting again. My question(s) are, Is it better just to Load the iPhoto library as is and the from that point on begin building new libraries as new photos are added, or is it better to break the iPhoto Library up and import to the new Libraries, or is it better to load the old Library and then Break it up, in this case given the different look and feel, what is the best way to get this done?

There should be no need to split in to multiple libraries, not 20k images unless you have your own reasons for doing so.
A lot of folks seem to have problems due to differences in the way the two Aps work. I suggest you do a little work with Aperture and a few images to feel your way around how it differers from iPhoto, before going ahead. Allan

Aperture - Migration to a new Mac

I used migration assistant to move everything from my old Imac to my new MBP, running Mountain Lion. Everything works excpet Aperture which is asking for a registration code. I dont have the packaging or CD anymore, so dont have the code. Looked at the Imac version and under about Aperture it shows its registered to me and a serial code. I keyed this in but Aperture says its not correct. So how can I find out the registration code ? Thanks

Your old registration code, that you are seeing in the "About" panel on your old Mac should work, unless your licence is an upgrade licence from Aperture 2. In this case you need to enter the Aperture 2 serial number too. Check, if you entered the serial number correctly - some letters can easily be confused.
If you do not have your serial number any longer, you need to contact Apple for a replacement serial number and provide a proof of puchase.
See these support articles:
Troubleshooting Professional Application Serial Numbers:
http://support.apple.com/kb/TS2005
Pro Application Replacement Serial Numbers: http://support.apple.com/kb/HT1861
Regards
Léonie

Aperture migration file size limit?

I have been able to load a library of 19gb into Lightroom. However I have several libraries of over 100gb and I can't load them. After Lightroom analyzes the film to be imported it doesn't come up with the photo count. Without the count it gives an error when trying to import. Is there a maximum file size that can be successfully migrated?

Talking about "library" size, or the total size of your library and images? Several users have libraries (including images)around 1TB and seem to do fine, in many cases. I'd guess the number of images would be the first problem, not total library/image size.
Make a backup of your library, then run a permissions and library repair. Make sure permissions are set correctly on you library. If you're unsure about how to do this, put your library on an external volume, "get info", and "ignore ownership on this volume". This was the cause of failure for two other forum users.

Aperture migration wont import

I followed the insrtuctions on the Adobe website to import my aperture library and everything seems to function fine except the import button continues to be grayed out and nonfunctional

You should find the forum for whichever product this concerns and post your question(s) there.
Here is a link to a page that has links to all Adobe forums...
Forum links page: https://forums.adobe.com/welcome

Any experience using Aperture Migration Tool?

I've started the migration using the Lightroom Plugin. It seems to be going very slowly. I don't see resource constraints (e.g., CPU utilization < 25%; there remains available physical memory; disk I/O is very low) and my files are all "by reference." It has been running for about 14 hours and it has processed 9% of about 60,000 images. I've noticed it reports it is Building Previews for images that are already in the Lightroom Library, which seems odd. Other than intermittent beeps it is progressing.
Is this similar to that others have had?

Hi Sham,
Based on your description, I'd like to know the version of TFS integration tools you're using and the error details when migrate work items. If you use TFS integration tools 2012, please make sure you have Team Explorer 2012 installed on your server machine.
Please also let us know the configuration you used for the migartion. If you migrate between different domains, make sure the domains have two-way trust relationship. If the issue persists, check the event logs to see if there any useful information and
elaborate more details about your scenario with screenshots.
Best regards,
We are trying to better understand customer views on social support experience, so your participation in this interview project would be greatly appreciated if you have time. Thanks for helping make community forums a great place.
Click
HERE to participate the survey.

A reference on iPhoto 8.x to Aperture 3.22 migration

This might be useful to others, I'm also seeking additional references.
Based on my own testing and what I've read here and elsewhere I've been editing a blog post on iPhoto 8.x to Aperture 3.22 migration (I chose Aperture migration rather than upgrading to iPhoto 9. I'm also still on Snow Leopard/MobileMe - I'd prefer to migrate to Mountain Lion than to Lion.)
So far I've migrated two smallish iPhoto Libraries (<5 GB). My 90GB iPhoto Library will go last.
It's not been painless, but in many ways it's gone better than I expected (my expecations were low). I'm glad I waited for Aperture 3.22/3.23 before migrating.
The lack of migration of Album/Event Descriptions is the biggest disappointment so far. There are no Descriptions on Aperture Albums, but the lack of migration of Event Descriptions is weird. Aperture Projects do have Descriptions.
I'm updating my notes here:
http://tech.kateva.org/2012/03/iphoto-8-to-aperture-3-migration-notes.html
If you know of any good Community posts or FAQs or articles please send them my way and I'll update the little article I wrote. Apple could document this a bit better.

no need for help... it seems like whenever i imported the pics from iphoto, they became corrupted. after a painful 12 hours long process, i finally get all my pics reloaded into the iphoto library.

Best way to migrate Aperture version from old imac

Hi,
What is the best way when you want to upgrade from Aperture V2 to Aperture V3 with a new one imac ?
I have an imac with Aperture V2 and i want to buy a new imac and migrate in the same time to Aperture 3.
Do i ask to pre-install Aperture 3 in the new imac , and do a migration after from the old one imac to the new one,
Or, no pre-install, migrate to the new imac ( so aperture v2), and after that install Aperture V3 an do the Aperture migration.
Thanks for your help.

You might consider the fact that Aperture from the App Store is cheaper than pre-installed.
You can copy your A2 library over to the new computer and then open with A3 to upgrade.

Phocus=Aperture workflow - washed out images in Phocus

I just found a glitch which should be addressed when latest version is released
I installed Phocus on our Mac Pro's one early 4c model and latest 8c and found that the Hasselblad RGB profiles had not been installed in Library/ColorSync/Profiles.
So you need to do an install in Administrator mode and then open it in Admin mode as when you first open Phocus it then installes profiles.
If you install in user mode it asks for authorization and installs application but when first opened it does not install profiles or even ask for authorization to do so?
Bizarrely I installed on Mac Book Pro as user and it worked ok??
Phil

You are probably right, it is an issue with color profiles and gamut. Aperture does use a different raw converter, which will create some variance. In fact, many like the look of straight Aperture raw conversions over straight ACR conversions. But if the washed out look is dramatic, and Photoshop opens your raw files okay, then it must be a profile issue.
It may help to explain how you are exporting from Aperture. Are your source files raw files, PSDs, TIFFs, or JPEGs? Are you exporting masters, or are you exporting versions? If you're exporting versions, take a look at your "source preset" when exporting. What color profile are you embedding?
Although if you are embedding any color profile, Photoshop and Lightroom should pick it up.
All I've read is that Lightroom manages profiles more transparently than Photoshop, but perhaps someone could jump in here and say how it is managed.
Finally, what purpose are you exporting and importing into Lightroom? If you're migrating your library to a Lightroom catalog, you may be best served by using the Aperture migration plug-in.
Aperture import plugin now available
The plug-in still has issues with foreign characters, importing all previews, and face keywording and keywording previews. You'll be better off waiting until these issues are fixed. Even if you can't, the plug-in would still be a better option than a manual attempt, unless you're doing something other than migrating your Aperture library.

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.

Images imported from Aperture showing up 'washed out' in Lightroom.

I am aware that Lightroom uses ProPhoto RBG. When i export images from Aperture to a folder then import into Lightroom the images appear very different. Is there a setting i am missing as the images seem 'washed' out in Lightroom. When i export to the desktop and open in Photoshop they look the same as in Aperture. After i import to Lightroom and open in Photoshop they still look washed out.
New to Lightroom and trying to find the right alternative to Aperture.
Many Thanks in advance.

You are probably right, it is an issue with color profiles and gamut. Aperture does use a different raw converter, which will create some variance. In fact, many like the look of straight Aperture raw conversions over straight ACR conversions. But if the washed out look is dramatic, and Photoshop opens your raw files okay, then it must be a profile issue.
It may help to explain how you are exporting from Aperture. Are your source files raw files, PSDs, TIFFs, or JPEGs? Are you exporting masters, or are you exporting versions? If you're exporting versions, take a look at your "source preset" when exporting. What color profile are you embedding?
Although if you are embedding any color profile, Photoshop and Lightroom should pick it up.
All I've read is that Lightroom manages profiles more transparently than Photoshop, but perhaps someone could jump in here and say how it is managed.
Finally, what purpose are you exporting and importing into Lightroom? If you're migrating your library to a Lightroom catalog, you may be best served by using the Aperture migration plug-in.
Aperture import plugin now available
The plug-in still has issues with foreign characters, importing all previews, and face keywording and keywording previews. You'll be better off waiting until these issues are fixed. Even if you can't, the plug-in would still be a better option than a manual attempt, unless you're doing something other than migrating your Aperture library.

How do i get my folder structure in Lightroom to replicate my hard drive folder structure?

My issues is that post-import from Aperture, my folder structure in Lightroom does not match my folder structure on my hard-drive. In particular, rather than be structured as in my hard-drive:
2015 (folder)
-> 2015-01-30 (sub folder)
-> 2015-02-15 (sub folder)
-> 2015-03-03 (sub folder)
All of the photo folders are listed individually as:
2015-01-30
2015-02-15
2015-03-03
In addition, a number of folders have been created in the form 01a2a201aff9c8c684928629ea41221c0fa5930ab7 where no folder exists on my hard drive in this form and the image contains the right date meta data.
As I've got photos dating back to 2005 and a lot of different days taking photos, this is making the folders view unmanageable.
I completed the Aperture migration in two stages (as i did not have sufficient space to replicate images in move across to Lightroom)
1. Moved Aperture original images from being References to Managed (with the file structure above)
2. Then used the Lightroom plug in to import the library from Aperture (which has successfully copied across meta data and my folder structure + edits from Aperture)
Does anyone know how to fix this issue? In particular:
1) Adding in 2015 folder level to structure?
2) Removing all off the 01a2a201aff9c8c684928629ea41221c0fa5930ab7 folders?
Many thanks in advance,
Joe

In the "folders" pane, right-click on the folder you see and select "show parent folder". Repeat as needed.

Like most professional photographers, I shoot and edit in RAW rather then JPEG. Is Photos app going to allow me to use the RAW format?

Like most professional photographers, I shoot and edit in RAW rather then JPEG. Is the Photos app going to allow me to use the RAW format?
iMac with 3TB drive and 32 GIG of RAM. Three DROBO storage systems for data and backup.

Try the alternatives, or wait for reports by the users who already migrated. For example, Capture One is more similar to Aperture than Lightroom:
http://www.cnet.com/news/phase-ones-updated-image-editor-throws-apple-aperture-u sers-a-lifeline/
http://www.photographybay.com/2014/10/01/capture-one-pro-8-unveiled-features-app le-aperture-migrate-option/
I'll keep my main libraries in Aperture, as long as it compatible with the operating system. If that no longer works, I'll start a new main library with digikam. If there is no native Mac application, that offers what I need for my workflow, I'll switch back to open source software.

Merge existing RAW/JPEG photos?

I shoot RAW + JPEG. Under iPhoto, they imported as separate files. I have moved them over to Aperture 3 and would like to "merge" them the same way new photos are merged on import (RAW+JPEG pairs). Is there a way to do that?

At least my camera creates the same name for the JPEG and the RAW images, so programmatically recognizing the potential pairs would be a piece of cake. Then just run the same operations on the images as in import. This should be easy for an Apple SW engineer to create. Leaving this iPhoto -> Aperture migration half way was silly.
Anyways, there are workarounds.
1) Export all masters of a project to a HD folder, and then import them again to a new project with the setting "JPEG as master". Delete the old project all the way when you are done. This works if you have not done any adjustments to any images. The Aperture library size also shrinks since there are no previews generated for the "hidden" RAW images.
2) Export the RAW masters of a project to a HD folder, and then import them back to the same project with the "Matching RAW files" setting. Delete all RAW files that have a matching JPEG when you are done (how to locate those is a bit tricky, you can use file size as a sorting help, but probably you will want to do this manually).
You may also want to do any of this destructive work by first exporting the project as a library and then operating in the exported library only. Just to avoid touching the masters.
Fixing the preview size to be smaller may be a good idea, too.

Aperture migration

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for