Avoid putting images in Aperture-specific "silo"?

Question

I have nearly 5,000 images, Photoshop CS6 user on PC, recent Macbook Pro 2.6G 1Tb.  I'm considering Aperture for the Macbook.
Does Aperture insist (like iPhoto) on importing RAW/JPEG files into an internal app structure before I can work on them?  Does it require that images be exported from that structure to standard files before they can be available to other non-Aperture-aware applications (including PC applications under Parallels)?
Aperture will be right for me only if it can work on standard RAW/jpeg files "in place" in their locations of my choosing without the in-app import/export effort (like Photoshop does).  In searching this forum I see mention of importing "by reference", and of a "no duplicates" instruction.  Will these things let me "import" as I need?
If so, can I subsequently save edited images with a simple "save as" in a standard file and location of my choice, or is it more complicated?
Thanks in advance for advice.

Answer 1

showbear wrote:
I have nearly 5,000 images, Photoshop CS6 user on PC, recent Macbook Pro 2.6G 1Tb.  I'm considering Aperture for the Macbook.
Does Aperture insist (like iPhoto) on importing RAW/JPEG files into an internal app structure before I can work on them? 1 Does it require that images be exported from that structure to standard files before they can be available to other non-Aperture-aware applications (including PC applications under Parallels)? 2
Aperture will be right for me only if it can work on standard RAW/jpeg files "in place" in their locations of my choosing without the in-app import/export effort (like Photoshop). 3  In searching this forum I see mention of importing "by reference", and of a "no duplicates" instruction.  Will these things let me "import" as I need?
If so, can I subsequently save edited images with a simple "save as" in a standard file and location of my choice, or is it more complicated? 4
Thanks in advance for advice.
Short answer:  look elsewhere.
Long answer:
Aperture handles files the way it does for a reason.  It is deliberately, specifically, and elegantly designed to _not_ work the way users now expect (you load a file, you make changes to the file, you Save or Save As and either over-write the loaded file or create a second file.  There are two primary benefits of this newer way of working with data.  First, it allows a non-destructive workflow.  Aperture _never_ alters the files you import.  Your "digital negatives" remain untouched, and are always available for new processing, either by Aperture or by another program.  Second, it requires _much_ less storage space.  If those, and the other benefits the program provides (some due to this structured workflow, others inherent in the tools the software supplies), are not valuable to you, then you should not use it.
1.  Yes, you must import your image-format files into Aperture in order to access them from Aperture.  Aperture is a database.  When you import a file, Aperture creates a record for that file.  As a convenience, you can also have Aperture move that file into Aperture's database.  The database is called (stupidly, imho) a Library.  The Library holds hundreds to millions of files, but it shows in Finder as a single file with the extension ".aplibrary".  Moving the imported file into the Library, to be stored alongside its record in the database, is the default behavior.  But Aperture doesn't care where you store these files, which, once they are imported, are called "Originals".  They can be anywhere Aperture can access them.  Locally-mounted storage is recommended.  Aperture provides robust tools for relocating your Originals, anywhere, inside or outside your Library package, at any time.  Aperture even allows you to make changes to the metadata of your Image (which is based on, but is not your Original) when your Originals are off-line (that is, not accessible by Aperture).
2.  Yes, it does.  This is a feature.  You don't create, or store (and pay for storage) a _file_ of your Image until you need it for printing, sharing, or using in another program.  You create image-format _files_ of your Images by exporting.  You can export any Image at any time.  (Additionally, Aperture provides large thumbnails, called Previews (you set the size of your Previews) to other programs via the OS X Media Browser.  These are available all the time.)
3.  You can leave your files in the current locations and still import them into your Aperture Library.  When you import them this way, Aperture creates a record in your database, and stores the location of your file.  Again, Aperture doesn't care where you keep your Originals (as long as they are accessible).  Once you commit a file to your Aperture Library, however, you must not make any changes to it by Finder or any other application.  If you change the file outside of Aperture, you risk corrupting your Library.
4. I'm not sure exactly what you're asking here.  Aperture provides an impressive latitude in the settings for the files you create when you export your Images.  You determine the size, the file format, the compression ratio (if applicable), the file name, whether to watermark the file, etc.  In general though -- and this takes us back to the bit about Aperture's workflow differing from what user's currently think of as "correct" -- you don't create a share-able image-format file from any of the Images in your Library/database until you need to share it or use it.  When you do, you make it and send it on its way.  One of the benefits of using Aperture is that you don't ever create and save files you work on.  You work on your Images, any adjustments or changes to the metadata are saved automatically (in small text files, actually), and you leave the internal file management to Aperture.  I like to think of it as an _image manager_, different from a file manager.  I think it is brilliant, and exceptionally useful.  But you have to relax your grip on files and file management if you are going to get much from it.