Convert from Managed to Referenced

Greetings,
I posted this question once before, just wanted to try again.
I followed Sierra Dragon's recommendation on upgrading my library (over 300GB in size). I am about to convert from managed to referenced, but I have a specific filing structure in Aperture that I would like to maintain on my FW800 drive.
Basically, every folder starts with the year, the 2 digit month followed by the name of the month, (2010 10 October). Within each of these folders are my projects. This sorting helps me keep track of my favorite subjects.... (My family).
That being said, when I convert, it would appear that Aperture will keep each picture in the project but not do so by folder. I want to maintain the folder structure. Does anyone have any input on how this is accomplished.
My thanks to all.
De Colores...
Michael

Hi Michael,
I don't have time this morning for a thorough (or, apparently, concise) response. See if this is in any way helpful.
I followed Sierra Dragon's recommendation on upgrading my library (over 300GB in size). I am about to convert from managed to referenced, ...
Good. Moving your Masters off your system drive (assuming that's where they are) should give you a performance boost as well as allowing you to expand your holdings.
but I have a specific filing structure in Aperture that I would like to maintain on my FW800 drive.
Why (I mean that)? What advantages do you get from this unique filing structure? Can those advantages be had with anything simpler, more standard, or easier-to-implement?
That being said, when I convert, it would appear that Aperture will keep each picture in the project but not do so by folder. I want to maintain the folder structure.
This is, ime, a waste of your time. Aperture already doesn't store your digital negatives this way. (Right-click your Aperture Library in Finder and select "Show Package Contents to see how Aperture stores your files. Look but don't touch.) When you convert from a Managed Masters to a Referenced Masters Library, your Library structure remains untouched: your Image Folder structure is not altered. All that happens is that digital negatives are moved, and the pointers in your Library are pointed to the new locations outside the LIbrary instead of the current locations inside the Library.
One of the powerful but odd things which Aperture does is to separate image management from file management. File management structures are fixed (and unwieldy). Aperture frees the user from those confines (and for many users, keeps this secret). You surely know this already, but now as you convert from a Managed Masters Library to a Referenced Masters Library is a good time to examine it again. You want to view your Projects by date? Go to Projects View and sort by date. You can group by year and drill down. With effective Project-naming, your can filter by type (e.g.: family, personal, work, birds). Your tools for image viewing are much more powerful. Want to see all shots of your dog during the first year of its life? No problem (as long as you've keyworded well). You can even set up Smart Albums -- as many as you like -- for this or (almost) any imaginable sub-set of your images. And when your interests change, you can delete the Smart Album (or Album) and not worry at all about losing your images.
I realize none of that is new to you. The point I'm trying to make is that your Library structure can and should be designed foremost to meet your image retrieval needs (and not your file storage needs). Each digital negative lives in one and only one Project. Beyond that, you are free. In your case, it may make sense to create a structure based on family rather than one based on date. The date structure is hard-coded into Aperture -- you can't lose it, you can always use it, and you don't have to reproduce it in your Library.
My suggestion is to treat separately your file storage from your image storage (don't use your file storage structure as your image storage structure), and develop an image storage structure which works great for you that is not based on "when shot". (And again, "when shot" is very valuable -- so valuable, it's irremovably hard-coded into your images and into Aperture, which is why you needn't recreate it.)
Back to your question: if Aperture won't create the Finder folder names you want, use the great Name Mangler to batch rename your Finder folders. At most you'll have to run it through twelve times, once for each month. This would be a one-time change. After that, you'll have to manually create new folders (might as well do them in sets of twelve), and then when you Import point to the storage folder.
None of that is, respectfully and imho, worth the effort.

Similar Messages

Converting from Managed to Referenced Library-File Structure?

I'm about to convert my fully managed library (170GB) in Aperture 3.6 to a referenced library. I understand I select the files and then relocate the masters. What's the best way to do that if I want to maintain some semblance of the Aperture files/folders structure in the Finder environment? Wha't the best way to select all files- just go to "Photos" folder and select all?
I understand that the file structure in Aperture should remain unchanged. What I don't want to happen is for all my photos to just be dumped into a folder on my hard drive with no organization. Within Aperture they are primarily stored in folders (years) containing projects (months) which have albums (various shoots in a given month). If I select all photos in library, does Aperture recreate its internal folder, project, album structure as folders in Finder?
As I recall, there is an option when relocating masters to put them in various folder structures. Is there an option to keep the internal Aperture folder structure? I'd like to make the managed to referenced conversion in as few steps as possible and ideally maintain the same or very similar folder structure.
Thanks, Steve

Images are not files.
Images are what you see in Aperture.
Files are data containers, represented in various ways in the OS X Finder.
Aperture is a database of Images.
Finder is a database of files.
Just as the structure of your Aperture Library ("Library" = database; to the detriment of their users, Apple insists on cuteness over accuracy) is for you to create to meet your needs, the structure of your Finder database is for you to create to meet your needs. Many OS X users' file needs are similar, and so OS X comes with Finder pre-designed and populated.
Concerning yourself about the _file_ organization of your Images' Originals is, imho, time wasted. You didn't care about it when they were managed. There is little reason to care about it when they are referenced.
I detail some of this in this reply to a similar question.
Do whatever comforts you. But note the following:
- You cannot (as Frank has already answered) duplicate in a file manager the structure you have in your Image manager. The Images in Aperture are not files, and in important ways they are not filed like files.
- Aperture provides robust tools for managing your Images' Originals. You can move them in and out of the Library at any time, and you can relocate them to another location outside your Library at any time.
- Don't ever use Finder to perform any operations on your Images' Originals. You should use Aperture and use only Aperture to perform any operation (other than back-up) on your Images' Originals.
- Speaking of backing up: you must backup Referenced Originals yourself. Neither Aperture's Vault feature, nor backing up your Library, backs up Referenced Originals.
Unless you have specific reasons for doing otherwise, I recommend sticking to "one Project for each shoot", and, if referencing your Images' Originals, filing them under a top-level Finder folder by Project, with one Finder folder for each Project.

Change from managed to referenced files

My hard drive is full, so I'd like to move all the managed master files in my Aperture 3 library off my internal hard drive onto an external 'photos' hard drive as referenced masters instead. Although I feel like I understand the general principles of what's involved, I have some specific questions I'm hoping some more experience A3 users can help with:
What command in Aperture do I use to move all the managed master files in my Aperture 3 library off my internal hard drive onto an external one, converting them all to referenced masters? (I can only seem to find instructions for going the other way (consolidating referenced masters into the library) or for moving masters that are already referenced.)
After all my master files are converted to referenced masters, if the referenced external hard drive is disconnected, will I still be able to make adjustments to the 'off-line' files using the previews stored in the library? (e.g.: adjust colours, crop)
After all my master files are converted to referenced masters, if the referenced external hard drive is disconnected, will I still be able to edit the metadata for those off-line files using the previews stored in the library? (e.g.: change time, add keywords)
Time Machine automatically back-up the referenced master files on the external 'photos' hard drive? (I understand that this would at the very minimum require that my Time Machine external back-up hard drive be big enough to back-up both my internal drive and my photos external drive -- which it is.)
Regardless of the Time Machine answer in #4, if I duplicate the photo directory on my external 'photos' hard drive onto another external drive as a back-up, and then if the 'photos' hard drive fails, is it a simple process to get Aperture to point to the files on the back-up hard drive and use those instead?
Thanks everyone!! I really look forward to your feedback.

1. Under File use Relocate Masters for ... (project, library, depending on what's selected on the Library tab) and choose the destination on your external Hard Drive
2. You won't be able to make adjustments to the files once the Hard Drive is disconnected ( the masters are offline). You can only rotate the images.
3. Yes, you can make all sorts of metadata edits to off line masters as well as create albums, rate, etc.
4. Yes it will. You need to deselect your External Hard Drive from the list of excluded files to Back Up from System Preferences, Time Machine, Options.
5. The process to re link Aperture to your back up Masters on your 2nd Hard Drive is simple, but not automatic. Aperture keeps track of your Hard Drive on which masters are stored, so you'll need to use the Locate Referenced Files menu under File. Ideally, if you select the Library and use the Locate Refernced Files, you just point Aperture to the first file on the list and then select Reconnect All, but it can be time consuming depending on the size of your library.

Image size problem after converting from Managed files to Referenced files.

I recently moved to Referenced files for all my images. I use a plug-in (Graphic Converter 8.8.2) to resize all images to a consistent size (1440 pixels wide, landsacpe format) for a web app that I use (Sandvox). With Referenced files, when I drag and drop the externally processed image, it shows up at exactly one-half the correct size (720 pixels). As a test, doing exactly the same opeartion with an Aperture library utilizing managed files, there is no problem...it works as expected.
As a temproray work-around, I found that instead of dragging and dropping, I use the Aperture Export function, everything is correct. This is not really what I want to do because I have a lot of images to process.
This is Aperture 3.5 and Mavericks, but the problem was there with with Aperture 3.4 and OS 10.7.5.

Thank you for the suggestion and running the test. I changed the Preview settings to 1440, and then 2560 and finally, Don't Limit. Quit and relaunch Aperture between each setting. No luck.
But you gave me a hint: maybe the problem has to do with the images being first Managed and then moved to Referenced files. So I tried one that has never been a Managed file and everything works correctly! Don't know if this is a bug or a feature.
Mystery solved, but I still have a lot of images to reprocess.
Thank you for the help.

Change Library from Managed to Reference

I currently have my library set up as Managed. The files are Canon RAW with changes. Is there a way I can change my library from Managed to Referenced. I would like to export the RAW files to a directory and still maintain the changes I have made to the files. I don't want to export the files a jpg's to maintain the changes.
Let me know if converting from managed to referenced is possible and how I can do it.
Thanks

You can move all of your masters out of the Aperture library. All of you changes and modifications will still be stored in Aperture and will still be applied to all of the associated masters. Those changes will not be seen if you open the masters through another application directly.
<Edited by Host>
RB

Convert from dictionary to local managed?

Hi all,
Good day!
when we convert from dictionary to local managed is it dependant on CPU or no of extent?
Thanks in advance
Elina

How are you converting the tablespaces? 8 hours seems excessive if you are using dbms_space_admin.TABLESPACE_MIGRATE_TO_LOCAL , I have seen situations where creating new locally managed tablespaces and moving the objects accross takes a long time as the old extnets are deallocated from the UET$ table and added to FET$. in these cases the speed of an individual CPU core is the limiting factor as SMON handles the deallocation of extents.
If this is the case then migratig the tablespace to locally managed using dbms_space_admin then migrating to a new tablespace may be faster, if not then can you post what method you are uing to migrate and the version of the database
Chris

Converting Managed to Referenced: how keep folder structure?

I am considering converting my managed lib to referenced, and have been experimenting with a duplicate library.
I highlighted "Projects" at the top of the Library view, and then relocate masters.
In the Subfolder Format box I chose "Project name"
I did the test relocation, and all the projects are in the new location in a single alphabetical list. My Folder year stucture has not carried through.
I see I could have used "Image/year/month" which might have kept the years, but would it have kept my projects intact?
Also some of my projects have images for different years in them, which presumably would be broken up by a "image year month" option".
Any inputs very welcome.

Ah I hadn't realised you wanted to relocate the entire library in one pass.
Yep folder names within Aperture sound like a great solution.
You should probably set up and test a small sample library before you press play though.
So you could arrange your projects in Aperture a bit before your started, grouping projects into logically named and ordered folders.
You could then set one of two presets: foldername/projectname or even foldername_projectname
The first should create a folder on the finder named after the Aperture folder followed by subfolders named after the project name contained within it.
So root level folder will be 2010 with subfolders project F and project C (you could add a counter to order them too)
The second should produce folders at the same finder level but with a naming structure containing both the foldername and the project name. So if the foldername was 2010 then your finder folders would be named 2010_project C, 2010 project F etc.
You could then jump back into Aperture and rename your folders and projects as before!
M.

I recently converted from my Blackberry Torch to the Z10. I travel a lot and use the VZ Access manager through my Torch. Can I do the same thing through my new Z10? I don't see that as an option on the software sight.

I recently converted from my Blackberry Torch to the Z10. I travel a lot and use the VZ Access manager through my Torch. Can I do the same thing through my new Z10? I don't see that as an option on the software sight.

Hi Atepastt,
Congrats on your new Z10! I know having the right features is important. The Z10 uses Blackberry link software. The device uses the mobile hotspot feature to non-cord tether the device. The mobile hotspot feature is an additional cost. You can add this feature online http://vz.to/1di2TlT .
Thanks,
PamelaF_VZW
Tweet us @vzwsupport

IPhoto library - managed or referenced

Hi,
I am new to OS X and I am still looking for the best way to use build-in applications before I start looking elsewhere. Next up: photos.
I do have substantial library of images from different sources. Generally, I like sorting and managing them myself. In the past (Windows era) I used picasa to quickly view, sort, and delete photos and Photoshop to edit them. So I ran a quick test:
1. copy smaller directory of images to my Mac (/Users/user/Pictures/folder_1)
2. import folder to iPhoto
3. View
It looked OK so I tried the second. Soon I realized, that all images are duplicated in the iPhoto folder. That brought me here where I learnt about "managed" and "referenced" libraries. It seems, that folks here argue against using "referenced" approached. I think by now I sort see the differences, but I am not sure if I really understand the consequences. So, what would experts here recommend if I'd like to be able to do following:
1. picture organization (in iPhoto and on the hard drive)
2. the hard drive organization comes from my current back-up practices (I use rsync):
     a. copy/update folders to home file server
     b. burn one or more folders to DVD
     c. file server makes additional copy to different HD (sort of like mirroring but not quite in real time)
3. make sure I keep originals (jpeg, tiffs, and most often raw files)
4. in future I might want to switch to Lightroom or Aperture to catalog/organize images
What bugs me about "managed" approach that I have no control over HD organization, which might be ok, if everything else works.
So to my outstanding questions:
=======================
I. I am not sure how to properly back-up my images. Is there a way in iPhoto to back up everything? Or in another words, what would be a proper way to back up images from iPhoto?
II. What can I do when I run out of disk space while using managed library?
III. What will happen when I move image folder while using referenced library? Will all the links/pointers be updated?
IV. Can I simply delete iPhoto's "library folder" and start from scratch? I could also try (which I did not) to make a new library ...
V. Can one convert managed iPhoto library to Lightroom/Aperture while maintain corrections, keywords, tags, etc?
I do realize that this has tons of information and questions, but I feel this is quite convoluted problem. I'd rather spend some time in the beginning to set it up correctly rather than pulling my hair later on.
Thanks for your advice.
Cheers, R>

First off, you need to make a clear distinction in your head between your photos and the files that contain them. Best way to explain this: The Beatles wrote a song called 'Let It Be'. They didn't write an mp3 called that. Tht mp3 is just a container for the song. So too that Jpeg, Tiff or whatever is just a container for the Photograph.
iPhoto is designe for folks who want to organise their photos and don't really want to bother with the files. Import the photos and then forget about the files. They're stored somewhere - and where matters very little.
So, if you're concerned about organising Files forget about iPhoto. You'll never be happy with it. It just won't do what you want.
I make this digeression to begin with because pretty much all your specific queries treat the Photos and Files as interchangebale concepts.
Specifically: to Managed v Referenced:
1. There is no difference in functionality. You get no extra abilities either way. None whatever. There is no functional advantage to running a Referenced or Managed Library, it's just file storage. Why? Because you never access the files anyway.
2. There are big differences in the reliabilty if the Library. If you run a Referenced Library then you run a greater risk of damaging the Library yourself - especially as a new user.
So, run a Managed Library. It's safer.
So, this question actually makes no sense - if you take my meaning:
1. picture organization (in iPhoto and on the hard drive)
You can't organise pictures on the Hard Drive. You can organise the files, not the pictures.
the hard drive organization comes from my current back-up practices
Change your back up practises. You're not just backing up files now, you're backing up a database - that's your files and whole lot more.
3. make sure I keep originals (jpeg, tiffs, and most often raw files)
Iphoto does this automatically. It treats the original like a film shooter treats the negative. It will never alter it in any way. You can export the original at any time, or revert to it from an edited version.
4. in future I might want to switch to Lightroom or Aperture to catalog/organize images
There is an upgrade path to Aperture. There ins't one to Lightroom.
What bugs me about "managed" approach that I have no control over HD organization, which might be ok, if everything else works.
Organise your photos in the iPhoto Window in any way you want. Events, Albums etc. If you want to migrate at some point in the future to an app that does'nt have an upgrade path, then you export from iPhoto to the Finder.
Apps like iPhoto2Disk or PhotoShare will help you export to a Folder tree matching your Events.
I. I am not sure how to properly back-up my images. Is there a way in iPhoto to back up everything? Or in another words, what would be a proper way to back up images from iPhoto?
With a Managed Library you back up the iPhoto Library from your Pictures Folder. This gets everything.
II. What can I do when I run out of disk space while using managed library?
Move the Library to a bigger disk. You can run a Library from any disk formatted Mac OS Extended (Journaled)
Or make a second Library. Or third.. etc
IV. Can I simply delete iPhoto's "library folder" and start from scratch? I could also try (which I did not) to make a new library ...
Yes, from the Pictures Folder. Or hold down the option (or alt) key key and launch iPhoto. From the resulting menu select 'Create Library'
V. Can one convert managed iPhoto library to Lightroom/Aperture while maintain corrections, keywords, tags, etc?
To Aperture, yes. You can simply import an iPhoto Library. To Lightroom, sort of. As I descibed above you can export from iPhoto to the Finder. However, what to export? The Original will be just that - the original and that will contain no metadat added in iPhoto. Or, the Editied version which will have all the metadata but won't be the original...
Note: these issues exist no matter what Manager you migrate from or to - you have pretty much the same issues if you go from, say, Lightroom to Aperture or vice versa.
As I said at the beginning, the key thing to decide is whether you want to manage files or photos. Once you settle on the answer to that it will be easy to decide which way to go.
This thread:
https://discussions.apple.com/thread/3062728?tstart=0
Discusses some of the issues specific to running a Referenced Library in iPhoto is some detail.
By ll means post again if you want more.

How can I tell whether a project has managed or referenced images

Hi all,
Another noob question.
I started working with Aperture and imported about 20GB of photos from my hard drive into one big project. But I can't remember whether I imported them as managed or referenced images. I want to clean up my drive and delete one set of these if they're duplicates.
Is there an easy way to determing if the images in the Library are managed or referenced? I've looked all over for an answer, but can't find one.
Thank you!

The "badges" in the lower right corner of each image will tell you if the image is a "referenced" image.
See this page for an explanation of the badges: http://documentation.apple.com/en/aperture/usermanual/index.html#chapter=11%26se ction=9%26tasks=true
The badge icon will either be a small rectangle (which represents your photo) with an arrow (indicating that the real photo is elsewhere -- aka "referenced", or it will the rectangle will have a red slash through it, meaning it's a referenced image but the master is currently offline.
There's a third possible icon... which is yellow warning triangle (has a "!" in it) with the arrow. This means the referenced master was not found (e.g. the Mac can find the filesystem & folder, but your image is not there.) This means someone decided to delete or move images in the filesystem -- bypassing Aperture.
On a related note... it is possible to change your mind about whether you want images to be "referenced" vs. "managed". The "Aperture" -> "File" -> "Relocate Master..." will allow you to pick a folder on the hard drive and Aperture will copy the masters to that location -- converting a "managed" image into a "referenced" image. The "Aperture" -> "File" -> "Consolidate Master..." will do the opposite... it will convert a referenced image to a managed image, but does offer the choice of whether the "copy" vs. "move" (e.g. do you want to leave a copy of the image out in the filesystem which is no longer associated with Aperture vs. have the only copy of the master living inside the Aperture library.)
Message was edited by: Tim Campbell1

Missing (most, but not all) masters from managed project

I just found that I have a one project in my library where most of the raw master files (NEF) are missing. The project contains 160 photos, but only 14 masters are present and these are randomly distributed in the project (not sequential files). My entire library is managed (not referenced). All photos were imported at one time.
All the edited versions appear in the browser with no problem, including the "full" version and the Quick Preview ("P"). Oddly, when I press "M" to view the master image, it displays correctly with no adjustments, but the message "Master Image not Found" appears where it would normally say "Master Image." I only noticed the masters were missing when I tried to export a version and got the follwing message:
"Versions with unavailable master files cannot be exported. The selected master image is either offline or not found. Please reconnect it and try again."
I searched in the library and vaults for original the filenames, but they do not exist in either location. If all the masters were missing, I would have concluded that I imported that project as a referenced file and later deleted the masters, but 14 of the 160 are still there.
I have two questions:
First, does anyone have any idea how the master files could be deleted so I can avoid this in the future? I am beginning to think this is simply a corruption of the database (not reassuring).
Second, is there any way to recover the versions that clearly exist in the project so I can reimport these as masters? While viewing them in the browser, I can zoom in to the original resolution on both the master and the edited version, but can't perform any further edits to the image (although I can add metadata). I'd be happy to retrieve a JPEG version, even though it appears I have lost the original raw file.
By the way, I have already performed all three library repair options on Aperture launch (Repair Permissions, Repair Database and Rebuild Database).
Thanks for any help,
Dave

From the OP's other thread:
I have three vaults (on three HDs) backing up one Aperture library (two onsite and one for offsite backup). Two of the vaults simultaneously became corrupted and I could no longer back up to them.
That plus the live library seems like 3 to me.
You wrote:
With managed-Masters one can back up a broken Library to a dozen perfect drives and all that results is a dozen identically broken Libraries.
Which is why backing up without verify the backup is a meaningless exercise. This goes for any backup method, How do you know your TM or CCC backup or simple copy of your masters is good?
If the Masters are backed up prior to Aperture the problem resolves (versions still lost).
And this is true also for managed libraries.
If (backed up) Referenced Masters are used and the Library becomes corrupt the problem resolves (versions still lost).
Not sure what you are trying to say here.
Proper use of Vaults also save Versions, but only prior to the time that the Library became corrupted - and we do not necessarily know the instant a Library becomes corrupt.
Proper use of vaults also saves masters if the library is managed. Ans see above for why we verify backups.
Look I agree that the masters need to be backed up in other than the vault (or TM or CCC or any one place). I use the Aperture backup dialog in the input window:
But once the masteres are backed-up referenced masters has no inherent saftey advantage over managed masters. In fact if all you do is backup before import and then place the masters on their own disk they are slightly less secure as they are only in two places.
In my operation I have my masters in three places, the import backup location the library and the vault I create from that library. In fact I have multiple vaults so in fact I have my masters in a minimum of 5 places. And its all fairly transparent.
So continue to sing the praise of referenced masters, for some and in some situations they are the way to go But from a security standpoint they have no advantage over managed masters.

Convert from PSE10 to Lightroom - metadata concerns

After one too many frustrations with PSE, I've been looking for an alternative program. I don't care about editing - metadata (Organizer type features) are my focus. I looked at a few non-Adobe programs - a big problem with them is I can't import my PSE10 catalog, with 12,000 photos. On the PSE forum, the most common advice was to go to Lightroom, so I was holding out hope for that. However, I've played with the LR 5 trial for half a day now, and as far as I can tell, it doesn't make good use of the PSE catalog either! This is very disappointing for me, but I'm wondering if some of you folks can show me things I'm missing.
I'm looking into to converting from PSE10 to LR 5 on a Windows 7 machine. I have about 12,000, half TIFs from scanned images and half JPGs from digital cameras. As I said, I only care about metadata management. My focus is genealogy, so getting the original dates of scanned pictures captured is very important, and these often are only roughly known.
My main issue is that it seems to me that LR is taking the metadata from the photo files, not the catalog. I used the LR feature "Upgrade Photoshop Elements Catalog". The reason I say this is for two reasons:
(1) When PSE10 writes tags to files, it adds to any tags that are already there. So although PSE10 shows only the updated set of tags in the GUI, the photo files have both old and new tags. After doing the LR Upgrade PSE Catalog, I'm seeing old and new tags. It appears to be ignoring what is in the catalog and looking at the file. (As far as I know, the old tags are not present in the PSE catalog anymore, so it can't be looking at the converted catalog.)
(2) PSE10 allow you to tag photos with incomplete dates (e.g. no time, no day and/or no month). But if PSE10 has an incomplete date, it won't write it to the file (very annoying for working with historical photos). But LR does not show these partial dates, it only shows complete dates. In this case, I'm not sure if LR is showing the metadata in the photo files, or if it dropped the PSE10 catalog date info during the "Upgrade".
So my main question is, am I missing something with regards to the import, or am I correct in my impression that this "Upgrade PSE Catalog" isn't doing much of anything? (ExifTool shows all the metadata in the photo files -- much more complete than LR for that matter -- so what am I gaining by importing the PSE catalog into LR?)
A couple other miscellaneous questions if I may:
-- In PSE10, there is a notes field in the metadata, which goes into XMP-album in the photo files. Does LR not support this? As far as I can tell, LR supports only a few XMP namespaces, with no support for others.
-- In LR in the Folder pane, I have no scroll bar, so I can only see the first few entries. This seems to be a serious bug to me. Or am I missing something?
-- It appears in LR that one cannot show your entire catalog in the main pane sorted by folder then by file name. Is this correct? (This also seems to be a major drawback to me!)
-- When I try to change the date of a photo (Edit Capture Time in LR), it forces you to enter a complete date/time, unlike PSE10. Overall, it is much easier to manage these dates in PSE, it seems. Does LR handle incomplete dates to any level?
-- When I did my PSE import/"Upgrade", it assigned the wrong file names to some of my photos (it used file names from other photos in the catalog). Is this a known issue?
I imagine I have a very unusual vantage point, but at this point it seems that PSE is far superior to LR! And I'm not happy with PSE10!! Anyways, thanks in advance for your input. Sorry about the long post - wasn't sure if I should divide it up or not.
Bill

This is a reply to the post from John R. Ellis...
You mentioned "Adobe has never bothered to fix...". Note that the last post by Michel B in this thread
http://www.elementsvillage.com/forums/showthread.php?t=78779&page=2
indicates that PSE11 can handle this.
You say "After importing.... I used ExifTool to append..." Did you do this file by file, or with a script? A Perl script? (The reason I ask is that I would have to learn Perl, so I would have to decide how much this means to me...)
Regarding your suggestion to use fake dates
"(e.g. "1970" => "1/1/1970 00:00:00")"
I've been aware of this since I read it in your psedbtool material a year or two ago, but I've resisted making such changes. When dealing with historical photos, you want the ambiguity. In fact, you'd like to use things like "About 1970" and such. I wish the photo metadata community would get on board with that.
Regarding your point about catalog conversion, for me it sounds like it would be just as good to import the photo files directly. (Better for me, I think, since converting the catalog seems to lose the folder hierarchy in the LR Folder view for some reason. However, if I'm going to import the photo files directly, then LR has no advantage for me over any other program that I can see. The ExifTool GUI utility does a much better job with the metadata in general - the key drawback for me being the fact that you have to type out the keywords each time you want to add one to photo. Looking at the ACDSee Pro trial, that appears to handle metadata better than any of the Adobe products - the critical drawback being that it uses its proprietary XMP namespaces, meaning interoperability issues. LR has drawbacks for me, such as not being able to sort by folder than filename in the main view pane and the lack of support for other XMP namespaces (and the Folder pane scrollbar thing). So at this point I'm in a state of depression. As far as I can tell, I only have a partial solution to my problems - upgrade from PSE10 to PSE11. Truly a depressing notion!!

New user - managed or referenced masters?

I finally jumped and bought Aperture after having outgrown iPhoto and gone through the Ap2 and Lr demos.
Now begins the process of migrating my current and old photos into Aperture.
Right now I've got less than 15k photos. I have an organization scheme in mind, but I'm looking for advice as to whether I should go managed or referenced.
I realize that this isn't an all or nothing decision (it is really a project setting), and that I can change my mind later if necessary.
Managed:
+ simple
+ vaults backup images and Ap-specific data
- doesn't play well with Time Machine
Pros for referenced:
+ can span multiple drives
+ works well(better) with Time Machine
+ can easily share masters with other apps (I don't plan to)
- vaults only backup Ap-specific data, not images
Have I missed anything?
Any recommendations?

I prefer Referenced Masters even on a Mac Pro. IMO it makes for a clean backup workflow and a forever-logical organization. And Referencing Masters ensures that the size of the Library will always be small enough that it need not cause a hard drive to exceed 50% full and reduce speed.
• Finder-copy images from CF to a labeled folder on the intended permanent Masters location hard drive.
• Eject CF.
• Burn DVD copies of the original images.
• Eject DVDs.
• Import images from the hard drive folder into Aperture selecting "Store files in their current location."
• Review pix for completeness (e.g. a 500-pic shoot has 500 valid images showing).
• Reformat CF in camera, and archive DVDs of originals off site.
Note that the "eject" steps above are important in order to avoid mistakenly working on removable media.
-Allen Wicks

Organize as "managed" or "referenced"?

I am an aperture newbie. I have 78 gb pictures "organized" in approx 50 folders stored in "Pictures" folder on my new 300 gb iMac harddrive. I have a 320 gb external drive that I manually backup using TM.
I would like to be able to do 2 things:
find a picture quickly, and
use photoshop to alter selected pictures
After reading many posts, I still don't know whether to import my pictures as managed images or leave them in my original folder and reference them.
Any suggestions? Thanks

On a laptop or on an iMac you probably do want to manage by Referencing image Masters. Hard drives slow as they fill, so at some point - perhaps immediately - you will want your Masters on one or more external Firewire 800 hard drives. If your external is USB-2 only, that is not good for Masters (but ok for backup) because USB is slow on Macs. OWC <http://www.owcomputing.com/> has good Firewire800 solutions.
With Referenced Masters, simply Finder-copy each new batch of images to the external hard drive and eject the camera card. Then (after backup of images) from within Aperture Import the images by Reference (when you go to import, on the right hand side of the import window select "Store files in their current location").
Existing images on your hard drive can similarly be imported selecting "Store files in their current location" however personally I would move the originals to an external drive prior to importing into Aperture because trying to keep originals on the single iMac or laptop internal drive will sooner or later overfill the drive.
During the import process is also a good time to assign all manner of keywords, so take some time in advance thinking about keywording.
A good rule of thumb is not to fill any drive more than 70%, and for best speed keep important drives no more than 50% full.
Good luck!
-Allen Wicks

Managed or Referenced files?

I'm using Aperture 1.5.6 for a year and although pretty familiar I still have a few questions about managed vs referenced files and they are:
1) Are all Aperture features available to both managed & referenced files. i.e., metadata, keywords etc. etc.?
2) If I choose to change referenced files to managed from my hard drives into the Aperture Library are those files duplicated or now only in the Aperture library?
Thanks

Despite this quote from page 140 of the User Manual,
"Choose whether you want the image files moved or copied to a new location by clicking the 'Move files' or 'Copy files' button".
If you choose to store them in their current location, they are neither moved nor copied.
If you choose to have them stored in the Aperture Library or elsewhere they are copied.
This is probably a good thing because, no matter what you do, it keeps your iPhoto Library intact.
DLS

Convert from Managed to Referenced

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for