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.

Similar Messages

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.

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.

IPhoto Library file structure

I have consolidated a large number of photos into rolls with meaningful names (e.g. NOT Roll 108 etc.,) and when the roll is empty in iPhoto the title disappears. However, if I try to use othr applications to access the originals, all the old, empty rolls are still shown in the file structure. Can I safely delete these in Finder or will it affect iPhoto? I just want to tidy up the file tree for when I'm using something other than iPhoto for manipulating my photos.

BreizhRonB
an I safely delete these in Finder or will it affect iPhoto?
It is strongly advised that you do not move, change or in anyway alter things in the iPhoto Library Folder as this can cause the application to fail and even lead to data loss. Given that iPhoto is not removing them automatically may be because there are pics in the trash that belong to these Rolls (solution: empty the iPhoto trash). However, it might also be due to HD issues.
However, if I try to use othr applications to access the originals,
This is also not recommended. What other apps are you using? Photo editors? You can set any image editor as an external editor in iPhoto. (Preferences -> General -> Edit Photo: Choose from the Drop Down Menu.) This way, when you double click a pic to edit in iPhoto it will open automatically in the editor, and when you save it it's sent back to iPhoto automatically.
or
There are three ways (at least) to get files from the iPhoto Window.
1. Drag and Drop: Drag a photo from the iPhoto Window to the desktop, there iPhoto will make a full-sized copy of the pic.
2. File -> Export: Select the files in the iPhoto Window and go File -> Export. The dialogue will give you various options, including altering the format, naming the files and changing the size. Again, producing a copy.
3. Show File: Right- (or Control-) Click on a pic and in the resulting dialogue choose 'Show File'. A Finder window will pop open with the file already selected.
Also, many applications use the the media browser. However, the key information is that Users and/or other Applications should not attempt to access the iPhoto Library Folder.
Regards
TD
Message was edited by: Terence Devlin

Will Photo Library Manager help without library file

I recently upgraded to Leopard and added ilife to upgrade my iphoto from a reeaaally old version. I imported photos from the old version and Iphoto was working fine a couple weeks ago. Today, however, when I tried to open it, I got the Choose Your Library message. There is no library listed, nor can I find one. I have not done anything to iphoto or the library file since it was last opened and working fine. Will Photo Library Manager help if there is no library file? Is the albumdata.xml file in the iphoto database or is it somewhere else in my computer? Surely the files are there somewhere! What else can I do? I have a back-up but it has run since I last opened iphoto and I can't find a library file in there either. What is the library file called? Maybe I'm not looking for the write thing...
Thanks for your help. Any suggestions would be most appreciated.

Did you use Spotlight to try to find your library. If the library was inadvertantly moved to certain areas of the HD Spotlight will not find it. Download and run Find File to search for "Library6.iPhoto". If you get a hit it's a good chance it's the library. Good Luck.
TIP: For insurance against the iPhoto database corruption that many users have experienced I recommend making a backup copy of the Library6.iPhoto (iPhoto.Library for iPhoto 5 and earlier versions) database file and keep it current. If problems crop up where iPhoto suddenly can't see any photos or thinks there are no photos in the library, replacing the working Library6.iPhoto file with the backup will often get the library back. By keeping it current I mean backup after each import and/or any serious editing or work on books, slideshows, calendars, cards, etc. That insures that if a problem pops up and you do need to replace the database file, you'll retain all those efforts. It doesn't take long to make the backup and it's good insurance.
I've created an Automator workflow application (requires Tiger or later), iPhoto dB File Backup, that will copy the selected Library6.iPhoto file from your iPhoto Library folder to the Pictures folder, replacing any previous version of it. There are versions that are compatible with iPhoto 5, 6, 7 and 8 libraries and Tiger and Leopard. Just put the application in the Dock and click on it whenever you want to backup the dB file. iPhoto does not have to be closed to run the application, just idle. You can download it at Toad's Cellar. Be sure to read the Read Me pdf file.
NOTE: The new rebuild option in iPhoto 09 (v. 8.0.2), Rebuild the iPhoto Library Database from automatic backup" makes this tip obsolete.

Managed vs. referenced library??

I am test driving aperture and have been using Photoshop- Bridge to organize my photos. That is to say I keep them organized in folders which I create for each project. Each folder has a name that means something to me and is dated. I rarely cannot find a specific photo shoot. If I let Aperture organize the library will I have trouble finding the origional Master image. That is what I never liked with iPhoto. Would you recommend continuing to use my files which are on an external drive, as a referenced library, or should I just have Aperture create a Managed library out of my files?? Thanks.

This particular topic is driving me crazy because you all seem to take the opposite sides on this subject.
Here is my current setup and workflow. Can I get suggestions of the best ways to use aperture within these parameters
I have an imac dual core intel about 3 years old (imac7,1). It has six gb of ram and I just installed a new 2 TB internal drive. It currently has about 330 gb used.
I have attached to it the following drives: a 1 TB usb drive for time machine, a 2nd 1 TB USB drive which is a scratch disk for stuff I don't back up, and a 500 GB FireWire 800/400, usb which is partitioned in two. One partition is where I store a cloned back up via superduper and the other is where I have stored some test master photo files while I figure out the best way to use aperture.
I also use backblaze to back up the internal drive to the cloud. I am currently backing up about 250 GB.
I have around 20k photos on the internal drive inside iPhoto 11. I haven't touched those yet.
My photo workflow for new shots is to download the pictures to the external firewire drive then import the jpeg (I usually shoot in raw + jpeg) to aperture as a referenced import then cull the bad shots and then import the masters as referenced also. I also import the jpeg files to iphoto (so they are backed up).
I am going to have backup issues due the new 2 tb drive with the super duper clone (only have 500 gb available to the firewire drive. I could do the back up to the 1 tb usb drive instead and use the 500 gb firewire drive as my external drive for movies and photo masters. IF I do that then I’m going to have to backup everything again to backblaze (takes about six weeks to back up 250 gb). If I do that then I am living on the edge because I will only have one backup of my photo masters. That scares me.
The whole process scares me so much I have touched the iphoto library yet..
Ideas? Remember to KISS.

Striped software raid managed or referenced library

I am setting up a striped software RAID using a couple of internal drives on my MacPro in hopes of getting a little more speed out of Aperture 3. My question is should I keep a managed library on the RAID or should I keep a referenced library on the main startup drive and store masters on the striped RAID. Which would be faster? I am still using Aperture 2 right now and waiting to get an answer before I upgrade to 3. I plan to backup whatever is on the RAID to a Drobo.
Thanks of the help ya"ll

I would use referenced Even if you were putting both on the RAID. 2 drives Striped is not going to be a big benefit.
You will get more of a benefit putting your library on a separate drive than your raw masters and here's why. Raw files fall well into the category of Large block read speed that most current drives handle just fine, once it's read its in RAM so I usually don't recommend putting the RAWs on a striped raid of just 2 drives.
The real storage bottleneck is when the library is trying to write all of its filesystem previews and database changes to the drive concurrently as its trying to read raw masters at the same time.
If you understand Hard drive tech, you will know that For one volume to handle Small block random access read/writes and large block sustained reads at the same time is a recipe for a slowdown...
I'd put the Library on a dedicated SSD and your raws on your bigger internal drives.
Or... Just try putting the library on one drive and relocating the masters to another drive and see if you notice a difference first. I sure did!

Library File Structure Problem

I have 3 partitions setup on my computer, one running OSX, one for WinXP and another FAT32 partition I use to store data which is used by both operating systems. I recently copied my music library to this partition and set iTunes to use this partition (and subsequent sub-folder) as the primary location for my music library. While I am now able to enjoy my music library in OSX and WinXP I encountered a few problems.
1)The file structure for itunes with album art, separate folders for music, film, podcasts etc... did not transfer from it's original location in "My Documents\My Music" to the new location. As a result, whenever I download anything like a podcast or video it gets placed in the music section in iTunes which makes organizing and effectively browsing my library difficult. I am tempted to simply copy the original files to my new partition and then manually reorganize it. However, I'm worried it will have no effect on itunes and new downloads will still get misfiled regardless of file type or worse, I might render the library completely unplayable.
2) While most of my music is accessible to both Windows and OSX, occasionally I go to play a song in OSX and recieve an error message saying that the file cannot be located. If I manually search for the file it has no problem playing it. However, once I switch back to windows I encounter the same problem there. If I don't locate the file in OSX, it plays perfectly in WinXP. I have not switched the location of the file or any other related directories. Presently, a number of my songs remain unplayable in OSX as to not disrupt Window's ability to access all of my music.
Any assistance in ironing out these kinks would be greatly appreciated, thanks.

Anybody have any suggestions?

Why will CS4 not open DNG files converted from Olympus E-M1 raw files?

For several years I have been able to use the DNG Converter to convert .ORF raw files from my Olympus E-M1 and then open them for processing in CS4. Suddenly CS4 quit recognizing these DNG files saying "Photoshop could not complete your request because Photoshop does not recognize this type of file"
I have not changed any preferences. I'm using E-M1 v3.0, DNG Converter v8.3.0.141 on a Mac. I have deleted DNG converter several times, even reinstalled an earlier version but nothing changes.
However, CS4 will open DNG files converted from Pentax raw .PEF files from my K-5. Weird. It's the Olympus raw DNG conversions that won't open.
I can view the DNG converted files in question in Mac's Preview just fine but not CS4. Any ideas will be appreciated.

Be sure the DNG Converter's compatibility is set to provide support for your version of ACR:
Benjamin

Does converting from dvd to mpeg4 reduce file size?

Ive searched over and over and cant find the answer to this.
I ripped the DVD Bruce Almighty onto my computer using DVD decrypter. I then converted it using Videora Ipod converter. The ripped file was something like 6.5 gigs. The converted file is only 660MBs. Is this normal ?
Also I have seen it happen opposite, where I downloaded a clip of a diamond store robbery and it started as a 9,791KB Windows Media Audio/Video file and after i converted it, it became a 40,990KB Mpeg-4 Movie file.
Any help or explanation is greatly apreciated
Oh and I watched bruce almight and it worked great, im definately not complaining that it took up less space, just curious of why and if the videora default settings are possibly converting to a smaller bit rate or something that is going to reduce quality when watching on ipod or itunes.

yes thats compleatly normal. You're looking at 3 differant video formats that all compress differantly and efficiantly. The ipod uses Mpeg4 and h.264 which is a more efficiant version of mpeg4. What you have to rememver is when converting from other formats, the video becomes that new format and losses its old compression bit rate (how much data is prossesed per second) and format and gets a new bit rate and new format. Like when I edit video, its done in a format called DV on which 10 minutes of video takes 2 gigs. But the finished product becomes a dvd whichi can fit 1 hour of comparable video in the same space. Let me explain more.
Mpeg2 is the video format of dvds. Mpeg2 is a pretty effiant codec but requires a pretty high but rate to be acceptable. Mpeg4 can do with less data and achieve around the same quality. Also you have to remember that vidora is resizing the video to a lower resolution making the video even smaller.
As for a video getting bigger, thats normal as well. As I said is that the new file will achieve a new bit rate. Mpeg or wmv may need to be reencoded at a higher mpeg 4 bit rate to keep around the same quality of the original video. If you encoded the video at the same bit rate as the old video, youll loose alot of quaity form being double compressed.
All this is hard to explain if you know nothing about video formats and how convertion works. Hope some of this makes sence

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.

Converting from WMA to MP3 changes file locations

When I try to import my WMA files into the iTunes library, it converts them to MP3, which is OK, but iTunes "organizes" my music folder in it's own twisted image, even though I have the option "keep iTunes music folder organized" UNCHECKED. Does anyone know how to import WMA files and have them stay in the same place once they've been converted to MP3?

hi Alex!
Does anyone know how to import WMA files and have them stay in the same place once they've been converted to MP3?
just trying to clear something up ... do you have "Copy files to itunes music folder when importing" unchecked too?
love, b

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

Merging external managed libraries to one referenced library

I tried searching for this with no luck.
I have my main Aperture library on an external drive and have been using a managed library. I also have another drive with a separate managed library on it with older photos. My goal is to have one referenced library file on my internal drive and keep my masters on the hard drives. I would like to keep the adjustments and organization of the original libraries. Really, my goal is just to have my photos that are spread across 2 external hard drives in one library. It's about 2 TB's of data.
I tried exporting the photos from one project of my external drive to the internal drive and unchecked "consolidate masters", but it still moves the managed master files. I'm starting to think this is not possible. Help! Thanks. (and yes, I have everything backed up)

Welcome to the list. Make sure you read the [Help & Terms of Use|http://discussions.apple.com/help.jspa] when you get a chance.
What you wan to do is doable and isn't to hard. It's harder to describe the steps then to do it.
In a nutshell you will use *File->Relocate Masters* to turn your managed masters into referenced masters and then merge the two libraries. The order you go in will depend a lot on how much free disk space you have on the three drives (internal and the two externals) and how big the current libraries are.
If you have the space on the internal drive to hold one of the current libraries you could copy it to the internal and then relocate the masters to the external (less chance of needing to reconnect masters when you're done). If not hen relocate the masters with the library where it is and then move the library to the internal. Aperture Should still see the referenced masters but if not reconnecting them isn't to big a deal.
Once the masters in both libraries are referenced you could merge the libraries.
Don't have time now to go into more detail. If you need more help post back.

How long does it normally take to convert from PDF to Excel files?

How long does it normally take to convert from a PDF to Excel files?

Sara-
I did see your response. Thanks. The other thing that happened was after I enabled Adobe on my Dell it apparently knocked out my Mozilla. Now I can't get internet connection unless I use Internet Explorer which I would prefer not to. I'm going to visit our IT folks tomorrow and see if I can get some of this resolved.
The PDF files I obtained that I am trying to transfer to Excel may be too complex because there is a great deal of extraneous text information in the basic document that lies outside of the tables I want to transfer. I'm going to try and highlight the tables only and see if this works.
Thanks for taking the time answering.
Best,
Henry

Converting from Managed to Referenced Library-File Structure?

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for