Backing up referenced images

I'm getting nervous because I've got the bulk of my library on an external HD. What is the best way to backup those images? I use 2 different HD's for vaults but I think I'm only backing up masters that are in my library on my computer's HD, right? I'm preparing to upgrade to Leopard and want my Aperture transition to be as seamless as possible. Thanks in advance!

Correct, Vaults only back-up masters contained within the library.
Many of us use software such as Shirt Pocket's SuperDuper! to back-up entire disks to other disks. I use it because it has a very nice "Smart Copy" feature that deletes what has gone, and only copies what is new, and it has an easy to use interface that explains in clear terms what it is about to do.
If you don't have an entire disk to dedicate to the backup of each external disk, you can also use it to copy to disk image files - this is probably the best approach for backing external disks.
Note that SuperDuper! isn't yet "Leopard compatible" - and that's one of many reasons why I'm holding off upgrading my main system to 10.5 for a while longer.

Similar Messages

  • Referenced Images Say They are Referenced But Are Not.

    Is anyone having the following problem? I have about 4500 images that were Imported into Aperture as Referenced. Have been working with them over the past month. Tried making a Web Journal recently and after exporting the pages, many of the images did not show up in the web pages although the caption did. I went back to my Album and went through the images. The ones that didn't show up in the web pages were very strange looking within the Album. As a thumbnail they looked fine but when I put the loupe on them at 100% it was obvious that they were some sort of small jpeg or something due to lots of jaggies and poor quality. Even though the Reference icon was supposedly fine, telling me it was online since it did not have a yellow warning label, for some reason Aperture was not accessing the original RAW file.
    I now have hundreds of images I have to try and find in the Album that say they are referenced but really are not.
    Prior to this web journal problem showing up Aperture had been showing me many of these files were not online even though the drive was definitely hooked to the computer and I was able to go to the same images via the Finder and actually see that they were there. One minute the overall project registered images offline, I would click on an Album and they would register as Online. Then switch back to the Project and amazingly they register as online. Back down to the Album and it tells me they are off line. Back and forth from project to album and a different icon 50% of the time. I knew something was up.
    I eventually tracked down many of the images that said they were online but by reviewing them it was obvious they were not due to the jaggies I mentioned above. When I would find one like this I went to Manage Referenced Photos and reconnected the image even though it's telling me it is already connected. After doing this to many of the images I reproduced the web pages and they then showed up. I nearly had all the images showing up except for one that I must have missed in reconnecting so I went back to do just that. As I scrolled through the Album and the Web Journal, many of the thumbnails would turn gray and then finally an image would show up. This happened to dozens of images. I found the one that had not shown up in the last export of the web pages, reconnected it (even though it said it was connected) and then exported the web pages again. Unfortunately I was back to square one. Once again dozens of images were now not showing up in the export of the web pages again.
    I just can't believe how buggy 1.5.2 seems to be. I thought maybe it was something to do with Repairing Permissions so I went and did all of that. Still no luck! Anyone else experience anything like this? I'm about ready to give up on this software.

    Victor,
    Yes larger hard drives will help but the day they are large enough to fit in a laptop with a professional photographers entire collection is a long way off and may never happen. There is no reason why Referenced files needs to be so difficult. Two quality programs that handled it with ease was RAW Shooter (now gone having been bought by Adobe) and Photo Mechanic which is superb for some tasks. For Aperture to have this many issues with referencing images is unacceptable and the market place will bear this out. I've quite using the program all together and have gone back to Photo Mechanic combined with IView and Photoshop. There's still room for an Aperture like product but Apple better get moving to make it work better. Microsoft just announced some of the upcoming IView capabilities that will be available next year. Adobe has CS3 and Lightrooom and I'm guessing Photo Mechanic isn't resting on it's heels. I really, really wanted to like Aperture and I worked with it day in and day out for nearly two months. As time went on the Referenced files just kept getting more and more unstable and I lost a ton of work due to it no longer being able to see some of those files.
    MacBook Pro Mac OS X (10.4.7)
    MacBook Pro Mac OS X (10.4.7)
    MacBook Pro Mac OS X (10.4.7)

  • Exporting projects with referenced images

    I want to import referenced images from an external hard drive, edit them and then export the project in order to archive it. Is this something that I can do now? Will I end up with a bunch of referenced previews in my library and an exported project that can link back up to the master images that are on a separate hard drive?
    Antonio

    No, this only exports a "copy" of your projects and does not remove the master image. It is still in the Aperture Library. I am also trying to find an easy way to move the entire project outside of the library and still maintain a reference link to wherever I move the images to. Any thoughts?

  • Updating Referenced Image Folder names

    Hi,
    My Aperture library is a Referenced Library. My referenced images are stored on an external FW 800 drive and my file system is setup as: Folder Name/Project Name. This has worked great for me, but causes issues when I make changes to the organizational system of my library. I know that Aperture is smart enough to still link the correct files even if the folder/project system is off.
    My question is: How do you keep the folder system synced and intact when using a Referenced Library after making changes to the names of Projects, etc? Is this possible? If not, what system of fouler organization works best for keeping things simple, organized and in sync with as little confusion and downtime in terms of work flow?
    I'm looking for some general (and specific) ideas from users here.
    Thanks,
    Mac

    macorin wrote:
    The question for you is: What need are you trying to meet by mimicking in your Master file storage and retrieval structure?
    Kirby,
    First, thanks for the lengthy and helpful response. In thinking about what you wrote, I probably don't need to worry about my Master file storage structure. So long as Aperture is able to find my Masters no matter the folder, project, album they sit in, I should be fine. My initial thinking was that if I wanted to access my Masters (for some reason) outside of Aperture, it would be easier for me to know where everything was. That being said, I don't really ever need to do that, as everything can be done straight from within Aperture. Still, it just makes me a little uneasy knowing that my images are organized and structured one way in Aperture and another outside of it where those images are linked to.
    Don't let it make you uneasy. Even if they are all in one 55-gallon bag (or Finder folder), they are easily sorted by date (and time) taken, and by file name. These two alone -- esp. if you have renamed your Masters with a good and rigorously applied file-naming convention -- should meet every need you might have.
    Moreover, your Aperture Library of images should be deeply hyperlinked. That's a big reason to use Aperture. None of those hyperlinks are create-able in a file storage system.
    At the risk of being (even more) off-putting than usual: think on that. Beginning to understand that difference allows you to manage your data in much more successful ways.
    The second reason I was asking is because when I import into Aperture as a Referenced Library, I also back up those images to a second external hard disk. I generally keep this back up archive organized and structured the same way as my Masters structure. If I ever deleted a Referenced Master and then later on wanted to re-import it from my back up archive, it makes it easier to find things, etc if they are organized the same way.
    I don't buy it. Can you give an example of a situation in which you need to find a file and you don't know the date it was taken (at least roughly) or some part of the file name?
    Your Masters need almost no storage structure at all.
    IME, once I started using Aperture's extensive image management tools, I found I had almost no -- zero, nada -- file management needs beyond back-up.
    If you read what I wrote just above, I guess this plays to that. How do you manage your back-up file management system if things change in ways that I have suggested, i.e. renaming projects, etc and moving things around from one project to another?
    I try to keep two additional copies of every Library and every set of Referenced Masters at all times. One set is kept off-site. It's not hard to do -- but I do run copy operations that last all night. Aperture's Vault can serve as one of the Library copies. I have found it easier to manage when I don't use Vaults, so I stopped using them. If you find Vaults convenient, use them.
    Just to be clear: My main goal is to make sure that my back-up file management structure mimics my Aperture Library Folder, Project, Album (well, not album as you can't organize at this time by album name) structure. I am not talking about the structure of where my Masters are stored, but rather the structure of my back-up. I hope this makes sense.
    This does not make sense. +File management+ refers to Referenced Masters and not to Aperture Folders, Projects, or Albums.
    Your Aperture Folder, Project, & Albums (all of 'em) structure is part of your Library. Back up your Library, and you have backed up that structure.
    The files an Aperture user needs to back up are
    - your Aperture Library (an OS X package of hundreds of thousands of files)
    - all your Referenced Masters.
    That's it.

  • Does Vault back-up referenced masters?

    When using the vault feature when all the images are referenced, does Aperture vault the library and the referenced images, or just the library? Do you have a choice?
    I want to vault my library, which is nearly 200GB, but I don't want it to vault the 1+TB of masters I have too.

    No. Referenced images are not backed up by the vault. You must back them up separately.

  • How to find referenced images in Aperture Library

    Hi,
    On starting Aperture it tells me I have 18 referenced images. When creating a vault it tells me all but these 18 referenced images will be backed up. Problem is, try as I might I can't find these referenced images anywhere in my Aperture library, and yes I've even checked my rejected images.
    Can anyone shed any light on this?
    Thanks in advance.
    Alistair

    The apfile for a referenced image contains an extra key: fileAliasData.
    So get a copy of TextWrangler (or BBEdit) and search the library for all files ending in apfile that contain the string fileAliasData. This will tell you which images are affected and where they are.
    The other difference is that fileIsReference is set true for referenced masters and false for managed masters.
    See this link for some idea of how to do multi-file searches with TextWrangler:
    http://www.bagelturf.com/files/97660a1a1ba5b7f45c1d43b34dbce327-812.html

  • Anyone care to write up a workflow solution using referenced images?

    So, I'm having a little bit of a hard time figuring this out, but I think I got something. I'd like others to share their thoughts and opinions about how to get a good referenced workflow going. Maybe we can come up with an efficient method of working on, say, two machines with only one folder of images and a way to archive them efficiently too.
    I'll post what I think I can now do with Aperture 1.5.
    1 - I shoot a bunch of shots, in the field, and download them to my Powerbook
    2 - I rename the raw files in the finder (my preferred choice) and save them out to an external hard drive
    3 - I fire up Aperture on my laptop and import those pix from my external hard drive as referenced images. This does a couple of things: One, it keeps my internal laptop hard drive from filling up and, two, it will allow me, when I get back to my fast killer desktop, to transfer, or work on, the images from this external hard drive.
    4 - I doodle away, in Aperture, on my laptop until I'm happy.
    5 - When finished, I can export a copy of the project I just worked on to the external drive, but make sure that the "consolidate images" option is off (no need to have 2 copies of the RAW file on the same external hard drive). This will give me, on the external drive, a project with all the adjustments (and preview images) along with a folder containing the RAW files. I'll also have a copy of the project on my laptop hard drive as a backup (I suppose I'd have a backup of the raw files on a burned DVD or another hard drive too).
    6 - I get back to my desktop and plug in the external hard drive.
    7 - I import the project from that external hard drive. Since the RAW files are still on the hard drive, there's no problem with the project finding the actual files.
    8 - But, I do not want to work the files from the external hard drive (speed is an issue). So I copy the folder of RAW files to my internal hard drive and delete the RAW files from the external drive.
    9 - Aperture tells me (through the badges underneath the thumbnails) that the RAW images are no longer connected to the project.
    10 - I select all the images in the project and right click (or control click) and choose from the contextual menu, "Manage Referenced Files."
    11 - From the dialog box that appears, I navigate to the internal hard drive where I copied the RAW files to and choose to "reconnect all images." The badges under the thumbnails update to let me know that the images are back online.
    12 - I futz with the images some more and do whatever else I need to do.
    13 - Done. Job finished. No need to have access to RAW files anymore, although I want to keep preview images in Aperture for websites, email, etc.
    14 - At this point I think I can do several things. I can export the project and "consolidate images into exported project," and archive that exported project to whatever medium I use for archiving. Or I can just archive the folder of RAW images and eventually delete them off my internal drive. This last option will leave me with preview images inside Aperture (along with badges that tell me the originals are offline). I can back up that project using the vaults method that comes built into Aperture. That way I'll have several copies of the project (with the JPEG previews) and offline RAW files (also copied and archived) that I can reconnect at anytime I want to in the future. This will help keep my Aperture library smaller and more manageable with plenty of backups.
    How does that sound?

    I tried out something like your flow, though I attempted to let Aperture do the intake step right to the Aperture library on the laptop and then work to a portable drive by exporting the consolidated project (I tried my iPod as a temp drive which worked just ok) from there.
    The G4 17 in - lorez - is pretty marginal for Aperture. Working with a few images was just ok, but I really don't think it's up to a couple of gigs of NEF files. What I wanted to accomplish the same goal - a reference set of pictures on the working hard drives with originals offline and archived in a couple of places.
    But after trying this I'd say your scheme of importing to the portable drive and working in the finder and renaming with ABetterFinderRename prior to any import is a better one. The more I can hold down the Aperture's processing overhead the better. The other thing I plan to try is to use iPhoto for the first look. No messing with the images, but I can look at them and toss out the garbage, do some tagging and then, on the G5, let Aperture import the resulting file structure from the portable hard drive and carry on with your scheme.
    Once the images are to my liking in aperture I can export a finished set for iPhoto on my Laptop for emails and etc.
    After messing with this for awhile, I don't see anything in your workflow that is not going to work.
    I imagine as time goes on that lots of people will be going through all these steps. I hope the designers can figure out some simplifications. A media manager in Aperture, much as the one in Final Cut Pro would be welcome for much of this. Or droplets or buttons with the more tedious bits of the workflow included would be welcome.

  • Vault restoration with referenced images - SEEKING HELP

    Long story short: I have, had, a library that contained both managed and referenced images. 2 vaults set up for managed images, RAID system set up for referenced images.
    Rebuilt library the other day because Aperture was moving kinda slowly. Followed the typical protocol of backing up first then rebuilding and to later back up again. In the middle of rebuilding, Aperture froze (Activity Monitor said Aperture was using only .50% of resources) and hung there for over 8 hours. Force quite wouldn't work. Had to hard restart.
    Problems surface with the primary library. Decide to restore from recently backed up vault. Worked for only 13 projects but hung/froze again on the 14th project for another 8 hours.
    Freaking out that my redundant back up system completely doesn't work, I put the managed projects back together in a new library by going into "show contents" of the vault and importing projects individually. This took another day of work. Managed projects are working just fine now and are backed up once again.
    Referenced projects will not import at all. I can not reconnect them to their referenced images in any reasonable manor. The only way I've figured out how to do this is by hand, placing the referenced master image file into the "show package" content file of the said image. This is a daunting task for the 7 weddings of 700-1000 image each. Even if I do this, there is no guarantee that the project will import with out issue.
    Anyone know how to do this? Does anyone know what happened here? Any thoughts would be greatly helpful.
    Thanks in advance,
    cd
    Mac Pro 2x2.66GHz, 4 GB RAM, duel HD displays   Mac OS X (10.4.10)   MacBook Pro 17" 2.33 GHz 3 GB RAM

    Andreas Yankopolus wrote:
    Dudley,
    I'm experiencing the same problem on my MacBook Pro: Aperture will periodically show all of my reference masters as being disconnected. They're on the laptop's internal HD, which is the only one connected to it. Quitting and restarting Aperture usually reconnects them temporarily.
    My main piece of advice is to not install Leopard. It's been nothing but trouble for me, my wife, and a friend that's done so. If there was an easy way to drop back to 10.4.11, I'd do so in a heartbeat.
    Hi, Andreas
    I think there is something else going on. (would like to know what it is). We've been on Leopard/Aperture combo since day one and running without any hickups on PPC, Intels and Laptops.
    Is there anything that seems to trigger this disconnect?
    victor

  • Referencing images via proxy server

    Hi. Has anyone else run into referencing images via an IIS proxy server? I
    can use the method to get the context path, but it doesn't bring me back
    something I can use to reference images. Do I have to hard code those in
    there all the time? :< DOH!

    I solved this problem last night. I ditched IIS, redid my machine with just
    WLS on it now! :> Now I just have to figure out how to get the FTP
    functionality I lost. Any ideas?
    "PHenry" <[RemoveBeforeSending][email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]..
    Hi. Has anyone else run into referencing images via an IIS proxy server?I
    can use the method to get the context path, but it doesn't bring me back
    something I can use to reference images. Do I have to hard code those in
    there all the time? :< DOH!

  • Backup of referenced images

    I am new to Aperture. I have my library on my mac and referenced images on an external hard disk. I can backup my library using vault and I can backup my referenced images by copying tmen to another hard disk.
    If my fiirst hard disk goes down how do I link the copy of the referenced images back to aperture

    Welcome to the forums Jeffrey,
    In the Aperture menus you'll find an item called "Manage referenced files".If your drive fails, Aperture will immediately see those files as missing and tag them accordingly. You can then use this interface to relink the photos to your other drive. In fact, you only have to select 1 of the missing files and Aperture will do the rest. You can check it out in the User Manual.

  • Managed vs referenced images conundrum

    Hello all,
    I have started using the Aperture 3 trial for about a week and my head is already swimming over the choices to make over managed vs. referenced images. I've read the manual, the "exploring" doc and several posts with respect to this topic and sometimes feel like I'm off to the races, only to then get stuck in the mud. I'm guessing that my case is not all that unusual and hope that someone who has gone down this road can offer up the solution that worked for them and why. I've worked with Aperture on a small set of photos and would not like to import the rest to use it in earnest. Prior to Aperture, I imported about 7000 photos using the camera manufacturer's software, Canon Image Browser, then also Nikon ViewNX. I previously "organized" these by creating a separate folder for each full CF card, which I named with the camera model and the date range, eg. S70-100907-110112. Once I had enough, I burned a CD as backup.
    I have a copy of this organization on my laptop, my desktop and the backup CDs, so for some reason I feel slightly attached to it, though it does not provide much information. For this reason and to more easily be able to see which files I have or have not imported into Aperture (somewhat worried I'll leave something behind), I thought I would use referenced images. I also thought referenced images would allow me to utilize my stack of old 20 - 80 GB hard drives as on & off site backups. I also have a 1 TB OWC external drive that I bought for this purpose and possibly Time Machine (yet another issue to plan out). While copying over the files from the Nikon, I realized that the camera was re-using file names after each upload emptied the CF card. Nikon ViewNX creates a new folder for each upload, so there's no conflict, but I think Aperture may see them as duplicates. I have since asked the camera to use persistent serial numbers for naming files.
    I intend to rate all my images, delete the bad ones, then keyword and improve the good ones. Can anyone who has waded through this type of problem share how they came to whatever scheme worked for them?
    Thanks,
    Scott

    3) How to partition external disks to use with vaults and Time Machine.
    With Disk Utility
    I know you could not tell from the way I worded it, but I want to know how much of the 1 TB external disk to partition for Time Machine, how much for Aperture Vaults. I know to use Disk Utility for partitioning disks.
    A Vault for a Managed Library is a complete back up of the Library. A Vault for a Referenced Library is not much of a back up as you also need a back of the referenced files. Actual saved disk space? Zero.
    I was not suggesting that referenced masters saved any space, just that it made it easier to back up those masters in whatever sized chunks one chooses. I believe that a vault cannot be spread across multiple disks, right? Assuming that is the case, then a large library of managed masters will require a single large partition for the vault. With referenced masters, you can save one set of files/folders to one disk, another set to another disk. One rebuttal to this is that my collection of 20 to 80 GB drives can still be used for archives since the Masters can be read from the Terminal, and therefore backed up using rsync.
    You can only have one Library open at a times. So, go to search for something and sure as eggs it'll be in the other one... It's also unnecessary. You can do a simple keyword to separate the two kinds: 'Snap' and 'Art'. Now you can restrict your searches to either.
    A good point. Also importing files to 2 different libraries becomes a huge hassle. Do I put it in the Art or the Snap library? Did I already? Is it in both? Did I miss it?
    I think one of the best arguments I came up with for managed masters is related to vault maintenance. Deleting bad pictures is a big part of organization. If you delete a managed master, that delete will be carried into subsequent vault backups. If you delete a referenced master, you will need to manually carry that delete forward into your self-maintained backups. This is taken care of if you use rsync with the --delete option, but most people don't use rsync.
    Yes, I'm over-thinking it, probably because of the assumption that once it is done, it's a pain to change.
    Thanks,
    Scott

  • Deleting Aperture Trash when 'The referenced image's master has not been found'

    i'm in a bit of a stick- ive got 107 images in my aperture trash with the 'The referenced image’s master has not been found'
    how do i delete these?
    Thanks
    Nish

    If I have a referenced image which has a missing master file I can stil move the version to the trash and empty the trash and it is gone from Aperture.
    The only time I get any warning is if I have the check box set to also move the move the referneced master to the trash. Of course in this case Aperture can't fine the master so it can't move it to the trash. But if I click continue on the warning box the version is still removed from the Aperture trash.
    So is it the missing referenced masters that you are asking how to delete? If so locate them in the finder and delete them as you would any ordinary file.
    If this isn't want you are trying to do you'll need to post back.
    regards

  • Managing backup systems for referenced image masters

    The manual says:
    +Aperture doesn’t back up the masters of referenced images located outside the Aperture library. *You must maintain your own backup system of referenced image masters.* Aperture does back up the versions, previews, and metadata information associated with referenced images, but not the masters themselves.+ (my bolding)
    So, somehow, I ended up with some images (older, it seems) in the vault but other images (newer) as referenced. An incomplete back up to the vault. I understand how I can move those referenced to the Vault but:
    1) is there a fast way to find and select all the referenced masters for this move? Like a menu item or a button in a dialog box that says "Find and move all referenced Masters to the vault"? Simple eh?
    2) why does Apple not allow you to keep referenced Masters out of the vault but a copy of the Master backed up in it? When it goes to reinstall (hopefully never!), it can just reinstall the whole vault in Aperture - if need be. I could live with this especially if it makes backing up all my Masters easy and recovering all of them assured.
    3) Since #2 is not possible for now - how do people back up referenced files and why do you do referenced over Vaulted or a combination of the two (which is what I have but, not knowing I was doing this)? I would like to be able to look at images on my MacBook Pro but really keep the bulk of the images and editing on a MacPro.
    4) when I imported iPhoto to Aperture, did they all come in as vault Masters or referenced?

    Joseph Coates wrote:
    ...when I imported iPhoto to Aperture, did they all come in as vault Masters or referenced?
    Images are imported according to settings you select. Probably you initially imported using a Managed-Images Library. To import by Reference from within Aperture, import images from the hard drive folder into Aperture selecting "Store files in their current location."
    ...how do people back up referenced files
    Using any normal data backup method. I like to simply manually Finder-copy to external hard drives.
    and why do you do referenced over Vaulted or a combination of the two (which is what I have but, not knowing I was doing this)?
    Actually the correct syntax is Referenced over Managed. Vault refers to one type of backup routine that does include Managed Masters.
    The primary problem with using a Managed-Masters Library instead of a Referenced-Masters Library is that for almost all modern digital photogs using Aperture their quantity of image files will grow quickly, rapidly taking more and more space on a single internal hard drive if Managed-Masters keeps all image files on a single internal hard drive.
    Hard drives slow as they fill, so unless a multi-drive SATA/eSATA array is used a Managed-Library drive will sooner or later lose performance. Use of Referenced-Masters allows the Library to forever stay small enough not to overfill a single drive.
    Personally I consider separate backup of Masters outside Aperture's Vault protocol a benefit, not a negative.
    Using a Managed-Masters Library works even for for laptop/iMac owners if completed Projects with Masters are constantly purged from Aperture but that is inappropriate workflow for most photogs, and the benefits of using a Managed-Masters workflow are minimal.
    I would like to be able to look at images on my MacBook Pro but really keep the bulk of the images and editing on a MacPro.
    Although various user workarounds exist, the issue of synching your laptop Library with your desktop Library has not (yet) been addressed by Apple. IMO Apple's failure (still) to address this key issue is a travesty; Apple's single-user Filemaker has had that capability since the 1980's.
    I suggest going to "Provide Aperture Feedback" under the Aperture menu and requesting that Apple provide single-user synch capabilities for two Libraries (such as the laptop/desktop setups that you and I both have). Note that it is important to specify single-user, two-Libraries, because multi-user scenarios are entirely different solutions that - unlike single user solutions - are usually very complex and expensive.
    -Allen Wicks

  • Concerns with Dropbox to store/backup referenced images?

    Hi,
    I'm looking for an alternative for my current cloud backup solution (Mozy) since the current scheme requires me to pay 23$ per month for my ca. 260Gb of image data. Since I also pay 10€ per month for 1TB of Dropbox space, I seriously consider to cancel the Mozy subscription and use the available Dropbox space as a cloud-based backup solution for my original images (next to my Time-Machine backups).
    To be clear : I only work with referenced images. I have no originals inside my Aperture library. I do not plan to transfer my Aperture library to my Dropbox. I do not need to work with my originals from multiple computers. I only use Aperture from one single iMac.
    I have read multiple threads about Aperture/Dropbox combinations, but they all cover storing your library on Dropbox. That's not what I intend to do. I just want to transfer the folder structure (where my referenced images are stored when importing into Aperture) to Dropbox.
    Are there any concerns with storing the referenced images on Dropbox?
    Thanks for your help,
    Mitch

    Funky,
    What is the best way to back it up? Just copy the files to another hard drive?
    That will definitely work, but how will you tell what you have backed up and what you have yet to backup? A better solution (if you are using Aperture 3) is to use the backup function when importing.
    I am also using Time machine, I assume that it is backing up attached external drive (I have not "excluded it"), is that correct?
    Well, that's a Time Machine question, but according to the following thread, just because you didn't explicitly exclude it doesn't mean it's not excluded.
    [http://discussions.apple.com/message.jspa?messageID=12222390]
    has anyone had good experiences with on-line backup solutions?
    You should search the forum for a thread with lots of input from the last week or so. There was a lot of talk about some on-line backup.
    nathan

  • How best to back up Rejected images

    Hi,
    I am about to back up using a Vault but I have a lot of rejected images that are taking up disk space. What are others doing with their rejected images, do you delete them after vaulting?
    Thanks--Ed

    It may depend on what kind of rating you use. Some may reject images that are not good but may come to use some time in the future, while others rate images in a different way. As i can only speak for myself, I use a system where rejected images are those that are totally useless and therefore I see no reason to keep them just to occupy valuable hd space.
    I have set up a smart album that shows only rejected images and I empty this album on a weekly basis, keeping the library nice and clean.
    I also only have referenced images so I do not use the Vault for backing them up.
    Regards
    Paul K

Maybe you are looking for