Aperture's target gamma management is a mystery to me!

This a public pleading for help concerning display calibration and gamma management for Aperture.
I've been using Aperture for almost a month. The trial period ends in 3 days. I have to decide whether to pay for it to switch to Lightroom. I have managed/edited pictures in Aperture and made a blurb.com photobook during the trial period. It took me a while to figure out how color management worked.
I have pictures taken with Nikon D700 in Adobe RGB JPEG which Aperture handled just fine. I visually calibrated my monitor's color profile to target gamma 1.9 initially which I liked. Normally, I have my iMac set to the gamma 1.9 profile. I edit images in Aperture this way. I find that when sending images to blurb.com I have to export Standard RGB from Aperture with gamma correction of 1.1 and black point compensation. This produces roughly correct printed photobooks to my eyes.
Obviously this is not a long-term solution. And I've just ordered a i1display2 (Eye One Display 2) from amazon with one day shipping, so I can properly calibrate my display before I decide to stick to Aperture.
The trouble is, I don't think Aperture completely honors the display profile chosen in System Preferences. It seems to honor settings such as rgb tristimulus, but ignores the response curve settings. It appears to me that Aperture always wants to use its own preferred curve of 1.8 or 1.9.
You can check this yourself by looking at this image in Safari (don't use firefox - it ignores embedded color profiles). Better yet, download it and look at it in the Previewer:
http://fred-hsu.com/download/aRGBFRD0292_Aperture_GammaTest.jpg
I visually created two display profiles, one against target gamma of 1.9 and another agaist 2.2. I also have the original iMac display profile with gamma=1.8 (the gray color in this profile is too warm for my taste though).
Now, if I switch between these profiles (1.8, 1.9 and 2.2) while looking at the above image in the Previewer (with View | Actual Size to make sure you are looking at raw pixels), I can see the effect of target gamma on the image quite easily. Look at the eye of the iguana. Between 1.8 and 1.9/2.2 I also see a shift in gray (as expected).
Try the same exercise with Aperture. Import this image to Aperture, hit z to zoom to actual size, and look at how little the overall image and specially the reflection in the eye change as you change display profile between 1.9 and 2.2. I do see a little of color shift between 1.8 and 1.9/2.2.
If you compare the Previewer along side Aperture, the difference becomes apparent. It seems that Aperture does not completely ignore response curves in profiles. It seems to pick up the color shift between the original iMac 1.8 profile and my visually calibrated 1.9/2.2. But it completely ignores the differences between my 1.9 and 2.2. And looking at Preview and Aperture side by side, it appears that APERTURE USES AN INTERNAL TARGET GAMMA OF 1.9!
So now I am very worried. When I get the Eye One Display 2, do I calibrate it to gamma 2.2? Do I calibrate it to 1.8? If I calibrate it to 2.2, will my pictures look wrong in Aperture? Perhaps the problem I see is caused by me visual calibration and will go away when I use the Eye One Display 2?
Thanks
Fred

William, thank you. You are of course right that hardware calibration is best. I got my i1display. 20 minutes later I have 4 profiles: gamma1.8, gamma1.9, gamma2.2 and native gamma (I have the latest iMac). What I visually generated for 1.9 and 2.2 actually matched the machine generated ones very closely.
Henrik, thank you. Yes, I was referring to target gamma of display profile.
But none of you actually addressed my question. My question was, why does Aperture not observe display profile of choice in System Preferences, while the Previewer does?
Please don't dismiss this question without verifying it yourself.
Try downloading this AdobeRGB test image:
http://go-pic.org/coppermine/albums/userpics/10064/Streets_lge-adobe.jpg
Look at it in the Previewer. Create different profiles against different target gamma values. You will see that the Previewer correctly uses your chosen profile.
Now, import that image into Aperture and go through the same exercise, you will see that Aperture tries to resist display profile changes. It seems to want to maintain a gamma of 1.8 for AdobeRGB images.
If you don't believe this, check out the following screen captures:
http://fred-hsu.com/download/ComparePreviewer_to_Aperture_AdobeRGBGammaNative.jpg
http://fred-hsu.com/download/ComparePreviewer_to_Aperture_AdobeRGBGamma18.jpg
http://fred-hsu.com/download/ComparePreviewer_to_Aperture_AdobeRGBGamma22.jpg
For the technically inclined, these are all sRGB images. I captured my screen using Path Finder. This saves .png files with my current display profile as color profile. I then used the Previewer to "Match" these to sRGB, then save them as jpg.
Incidentally, if you look at the png files in firefox (which does not support color profiles at all), you will see the opposite effect. The Previewer will seem to show you consistent colors, while Aperture image's color changes as display profile changes. This is because it was the same image I was looking at. All I did was to change display preferences. Path Finder must have captured the same raw image pixels from the previewer for all three screenshots.
http://fred-hsu.com/download/ComparePreviewer_to_Aperture_AdobeRGBGammaNative.png
http://fred-hsu.com/download/ComparePreviewer_to_Aperture_AdobeRGBGamma18.png
http://fred-hsu.com/download/ComparePreviewer_to_Aperture_AdobeRGBGamma22.png
I could not believe that everyone else in this forum isn't aware of this flaw in Aperture. I was sure there was something wrong with my setup. So I decided to try the sRGB version of the same test image. To my surprise, Aperture now appears to try to maintain a consistent image against gamma 2.2 no matter how I change my display preferences. Again, see this for yourself:
http://fred-hsu.com/download/ComparePreviewer_to_Aperture_sRGBGammaNative.jpg
http://fred-hsu.com/download/ComparePreviewer_to_Aperture_sRGBGamma18.jpg
http://fred-hsu.com/download/ComparePreviewer_to_Aperture_sRGBGamma22.jpg
The png files are here:
http://fred-hsu.com/download/ComparePreviewer_to_Aperture_sRGBGammaNative.png
http://fred-hsu.com/download/ComparePreviewer_to_Aperture_sRGBGamma18.png
http://fred-hsu.com/download/ComparePreviewer_to_Aperture_sRGBGamma22.png
So, I can only conclude that not many people work with AdobeRGB in Aperture. Many probably use sRGB which happens to work just fine against gamma 2.2. Most probably work with RAW files. I have not tried raw files, so I can't opine on that one.

Similar Messages

Migration to 10.2: Target Schema managed by old Control Center/Runtime Rep

Hi
We are migrating from OWB10gR1 to R2 (10.2.0.4)
After loosing (!) the old 10.1 runtime repository "OWBRUN" we created a new Design Repository.
Then we wanted assign an old target schema named "TARGET" to the new one (with Security -> User -> New ...)
Unfortunately we receive the message:
User "TARGET" is managed by another control center: OWBRUN
How can we remove this connection between "OWBRUN" and "TARGET" ?
Otherwise we can not use this schema as a target, and therefore we can't deploy mappings to it.
Beat

I solved my problem using the 10gR2-Repository Assistant:
1. Installing a new Control Center with the name of the old one (OWBRUN exactly!).
2. Register the target schemas to this new CC (as before in 10gR1)
3. Unregister those targets from OWBRUN
4. Register the targets to the correct CC (OWBRUN1020)
(5. Deinstall CC OWBRUN)
Beat

Aperture vs. iphoto library manager

I have > 37,000 photos, and am adding constantly. This seems to have brought iphoto to its knees. It keeps re-dating half of my photos to 2041, and runs slowly. At the Apple store they advised switching to aperture. Someone else suggested iphoto library manager. I am less concerned about the cost ($70 vs. $24) than saving time-I work 80-100 hours a week, and I do not have hours and hours to "make things work." I would greatly appreciate comments and suggestions. Thanks.

If iPhoto is slow when browsing the iPhoto library, apertre will probably slow too. Both applications are sharing the same library format.
I have > 37,000 photos,
That is no reason for iPhoto being slow, unless your libryr is so large, that there is not enough space left on your drive. How much free space is on your system drive and the drive with your iPhoto library?
Keep at least 20 GB free on your internal drive and more on the drives , where you are storing your photo libraries. Libraries may need temporarily more storage, when they are being repaired or rebuild.
What is your iPhoto version and MacOS X version? And how much RAM has your Mac?
Did the slowness start, after you imported new photos? Then this may be temporary and iPhoto still be processing faces, previews, etc. Or one of the photos or videos you imported is not readable and needs to be removed.
Did you install or upgrade any new software recently?
Also, iPhoto may be slow, if the library needs repairing.
Try to repair the library as described by Old Toad ':Rebuild iPhoto Version 11:
If repairing does not help, update the backup pf your library and try rebuilding.
-- Léonie

Aperture as a Video Manager

I realize Aperture was designed primarily to archive photos, but how well does it too with videos. I have thousand of video clips. Since I am very familiar with Aperture and just upgraded to Aperture 3, it would be nice if I could use it too manage all my videos as well. Anyone see a problem with this? Any suggestions? I do not want to learn Adobe Bridge or Final Cut Server.
Brian

me1234 wrote:
I realize Aperture was designed primarily to archive photos, but how well does it too with videos. I have thousand of video clips. Since I am very familiar with Aperture and just upgraded to Aperture 3, it would be nice if I could use it too manage all my videos as well. Anyone see a problem with this? Any suggestions? I do not want to learn Adobe Bridge or Final Cut Server.
Brian
Hi Brian,
The issue as I see it is the storage required if you were to put long form video files in Aperture would be massive, and impact the still image storage because of the volume of data compared to stills.
Frankly, while it is a great feature for small clips and delivering slide show that include some video, it is far too simplistic to make it the sole repository of footage, unless it is just all small clips that don't require editing or massaging with FCP-style tools. You can't do very much but trim and edit video in A3.
Final Cut Server is designed to be a multiuser hub for assets, and in video that means storing thumbnails of offline media, and making a media list when you go to assemble a project. Then you have to load the drives containing the original footage into the system so it can assemble the final product. Most companies would have only the common media and most recent content live in the server, long term cataloging will require a library of offline media that gets retrieved and plugged in to finish a long form work.
Sincerely,
K.J. Doyle

Aperture Library-referenced and managed-how to add to...

I'm trying to put all my images in one library.
Right now, I have a library that contains some referenced images, and some managed images.
I want to make the entire library referenced. That is, I want all of th original images stored seperatley from the Aperture Library.
Should I reconnect (consolidate) the images that are currently referenced and then proceed to make all of them referenced, or can I select the images that aren't referenced and add them to the same folder where my other originals currently stored?
Thanks

For the ones currently managed: File -> Relocate Masters. or Relocate Original
Regards
TD

Aperture 2.1 thinks Managed files are missing

I'm hoping someone may be able to help with a nagging problem with my main Aperture library. I recently decided to store my images as referenced files on an external drive. The library currently contains somewhere over 7000 images. When I used the Relocate Masters command to move them out onto disk, it came back with a message that 350 or so (can't remember the exact figure) master images were not available and would not be relocated. After that, it successfully relocated all the other images to disk and these now correctly appear as "referenced" within Aperture apart from in one project.
In this one project, however, the 350 images are still appearing as "managed" and have not been moved out onto disk. If I try and relocate them, I'm told that the master images are missing or offline. However, if I look at the adjustment HUD, I have full editing functionality, implying that they are indeed available. Also, I've opened the package contents of the library and can see the raw files there.
In trying to troubleshoot this, I tried pulling one of the raw files out of the library package via the Finder. When I'd done that, all the adjustment tools were greyed out in AP for that particular image. When I put it back into the package, the tools were available again, so AP is definitely treating them as managed.
So I'm left with this one project where I can't move the raw files out and make them referenced. As it's only affecting one project, it's not a big deal, but it does mean that the library is quite a bit larger than it would otherwise be and as I want to put the library onto my MacBook, I want it to be as small as possible.
Anyone come across a similar situation? Any ideas on how to cure it? Thanks in advance for any suggestions.
-Simon
Message was edited by: SiBeesley

ChristopherDavid wrote:
I've had this happen too unfortunately. I'm not sure if this fix will work for you or even if you have tried it yet: Try force-reconnecting your masters. You may have to do this individually for a large lot of files or you may get lucky and the entire lot will reconnect with one attempt. My experience with this though is that the fix does not hold. Meaning, an computer restart, or a data base rebuild miffs it all up again.
I've just run into this problem too. I'm only dealing with about 250 problem images out of about 15,000, so I feel lucky compared to some of the other participants in this thread.
I'm not clear on what you mean by force-reconnecting. Can you remind me what this entails?
Cheers
PJP

Aperture 2 double color management?

Hello,
I printed out from Aperture 2.0 on a HP B9180 / Hahnemühle Fine Art Baryta. I used the profile preview option with the selected HM Baryta ICC profile. CM in printer dialogue was application managed with this profile choosen, black point compensation. The printout shows paper simulation (light grey printed in white areas outside the image/crop boarder. Well, I don´t wnat a paper white simulation on the paper to be simulated. And I don´t want to deactivate the profile preview, because I´m color correcting for output. So is this a fault or a feature?
Mike

the issue was only in the previews..... so It may not have generated the previews yet.
Thanks for the read.
-Peter
Message was edited by: PeterWPhoto

Aperture Quits when using Manage Referenced Files

Hello everybody
All my images are on an external hard drive, but since the last Aperture update, It has several problems to connect them. When I try to reconnect them all using "Manage Referenced Files..." option, Aperture suddenly quits (whan I press reconnect button).
Is this normal? Is there anything I can do?
Thanks a lot in advance.
Message was edited by: Ainvar101

Hi,
It's entirely possible that if you were experiencing this frequently prior to the update, that errors have crept into the database. Does this tend to happen to all raws, old ones, or new ones?
Another consideration is that if the raws are large, then you may need to upgrade to 8GB.
Regards,
Calx

Does Aperture have a movie management plugin?

Hi there,
I shoot a lot of small movies, along with photos, that I want to keep in the same folders. iView Media Pro did this nicely, but Microsoft took it over (renamed it as Media Expressions) and now seems to be letting it die. I've been told that neither of the obvious alternatives, Aperture or Lightroom, manages movie files, but someone recently pointed out that there's a plugin for Lightroom that does just this:
it's called 'Video-Asset Management plug-in'.
I'd prefer to stay with Apple, since I use a Mac, so I thought I'd see if there's a similar plugin for Aperture. Anyone know?
thanks, Malcolm

WOW such support . . .
The only import offered is “in place, without moving”.
can't do any editing (altho why would you want to in an IMAGE editing program.)
Subsequent changes to the video are not reflected in Lightroom.
and to top it off . . .
No export.
Ya . . . big support . . .

Photos in FCE; export from Aperture in target size?

hi all.
I'm planning to place photos from Aperture into my FCE project, with the photos fading from one to the next. they won't be full screen, less than half. to get the best final quality, do I need to sharpen and export from Aperture so that the photos are placed within the FCE project at 100% without scaling?
cheers,
Gregory

Hi Frank.
Thanks for the response.
Agreed, the pertinent question is why can't my colleague edit the JPG exported by Aperture. It's probably also worth pointing out, the same problem occurs with JPGs exported from iPhoto.
The Windows software usually plays nicely with JPGs by all acounts, just not the ones I send - which I do via eMail or my public space on Mobile Me incidently.
So, another key question is: all settings being equal (color profile, quality, etc.) are the JPGs as produced by iPhoto and Aperture indistinguishable from those produced by other apps on other platforms - i.e. does the use of JPG enforce a common standard?
If that is the case, I suspect ours might be a permissions issue.
According to the Microsoft support page on editing in Windows Live Photo Gallery, the inability to edit a picture is commonly caused by unsupported file type, or read-only attribute set on the file.
Unfortunately, he and I are not in the same place, and he's not particularly au-fait with this type of problem solving. Hence, before involving him, I'd like to know:
1. it's possible (i.e. someone else does it), and,
2. what's involved (at my end and/or his).
Thanks again,
PB

How can I export ALL photos to a new external HD if I have Aperture "Managing" my library (hundreds of projects,1.6TB of photos)?

I Originally setup Aperture years ago to "Manage" my huge amount of photos to save space and be more convenient. I have bought a new external HD and want to export my entire original files from all the different projects and sub projects from the one "Organized Managed" file to individual original photo files on the new HD. I know how to export a project or even a few at a time but what about 1.5TB of photos in RAW/NEF format? Thanks for the help my fellow Apple lovers.

Aperture makes it easy to move any Image's Originals from inside the Library to outside the Library, and from any directly-connected location outside the Library to another directly-connected location, and to move any Image's Original from outside the Library to inside the Library, at any time, singly or in batch.
Select the Photos container near the top of the Library Inspector. In the Browser, select all Images. Use "File ▹ Relocate Original", and select a destination and a Finder folder scheme. Moving 1.5 TB of files will take some time. Let it run.

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.

Verizon Media Manager and Aperture

I just upgraded from iPhoto to Aperture. Verizon Media Manager (VMM) sort of recognizes Aperture, but not completely. It finds the Faces and Locations, but not the Projects. I am using version 9.1.42 of VMM. I saw in the pinned section that someone was using version 9.2. Where can I get this version?

mustbjones wrote:
Yes there is but it says that the update service is temporarily disabled.
Here is the link for the Mac download from Verizon: http://www36.verizon.com/fiostv/web/UnProtected/MediaManager.aspx?os=Mac. It is likely the current version.

Aperture Thinks Files Are Neither Referenced Nor Managed

I've got a handful of files (fortunately, just a handful) that I can't relocate because Aperture says the masters cannot be located: "The selected master image is either offline or not found. Please reconnect it and try again." Well, that's wrong, because the files should be managed. But if I go to Manage Referenced Files . . ., Aperture tells me the selection contains no referenced files. So what gives? How can I rectify this?

Thanks, RB. I took one of these orphaned files and deleted the master and versions (I could have lived without the image). Aperture told me it couldn't delete it, because the master could not be found. I clicked continue, and the master ended up in the trash. I just re-imported it and moved on. I think I lost some of the metadata, but I'm not certain and it wasn't a huge problem. I did this with the other files that Aperture thought were neither managed nor referenced, with the same result.
I can't recommend that anyone else try this, because I'm not sure why it worked, but it did work.
PS -- Nice piece on saving a project.

Why is an Aperture Managed Library so small?

I decided to move my referenced photos in Aperture back into a managed library (basically because I plan to move to Lightroom and felt it would be easier to put the managed Aperture Library on an external drive to save it).
Everything went smoothly but now when I look at the size of the Library file, something does not seem right. The size of the library is around 100GB, but the combined size of the folders (where the referenced files were originally located) was closer to 500GB.
Is this because Aperture compresses the files in it's library - even though a lot of them were various RAW files?

That is what I thought, but when I opened Aperture using the "new" library and checked for whether photos were managed or referenced, all approximately 70,000 said managed.

Aperture's target gamma management is a mystery to me!

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for