Exporting masters and versions
I am trying to export photos from Aperture to an external drive just as jpegs and raws, not as library. So first I exported versions, now I am exporting masters and trying to put them to the same folders (to keep all versions of the same photo together) and it turns out that Aperture gave the same names to masters and versions which makes it impossible to save them to the same folder. Any advice here?...
JaneTsv wrote:
By the way - Aperture creates thousand os versions for the same photo. Is there a way to delete duplicates after exporting (it gives them different names)?
?!? No it doesn't. Where are these thousands of Versions coming from? Are they from 'create new versions when making adjustments' which you can turn off? Are new Versions appearing when you export? This statement doesn't make sense.
JaneTsv wrote:
I see... Looks like apple did their best to keep people from moving from Aperture to other programs...
Step 1. Select all Versions in the Library.
Step 2. Export Versions using a Project Name subfolder format.
Step 3. Export Masters using a Project Name subfolder format.
There is no step 4. That's all there is to it.
You end up with a Finder folder for each Project, containing both the Master files, plus Versions in whatever file format you chose.
If you're having huge problems with lots of duplicate Masters from Aperture exporting a copy for each Version, it's still only a three step process:
Step 1. Select all Versions in the Library.
Step 2. File>Relocate Masters... using the Project Name subfolder format. This will move all the Masters out of the Library package and into a regular folder structure.
Step 3. Export Versions using a Project Name subfolder format into the same top-level folder.
Again, no step 4, you're done.
Ian
Similar Messages
-
Can I export masters and versions during the same export?
All,
Is there a way to export a master and it's versions at the same time?
If I have a master called 'waterfall.nef' and I have a couple of 5* versions of that master, I would like the resulting export to look like the following in the target folder:
[image date] waterfall1.nef
[image date] waterfall2.tiff (or .jpg)
[image date] waterfall3.tiff (or .jpg)
This way, I keep the master and the resulting 'picks' grouped together in my main library. (I plan on only keeping current year images in the aperture library. Older images will be exported to my main library and referenced in Aperture.)
Thanks for any suggestions,
PNo, taking a photo during video will always cause a short pause, and you will also hear the shutter click on the video.
Mike Sowsun
S110, SL1, 5D Mk III -
Importing Masters and Versions from iPhoto
Is it possible to import both Masters and the associated Adjusted Versions from iPhoto into Aperture 3?
The manual tells how to import the masters into the Aperture library but does not seem to tell how to import the corresponding versions adjusted in iPhoto.In iPhoto all images are masters in a sense. When you adjusted an image in iPhoto a duplicate image was made and the adjustments were done to the duplicate giving you two separate files.
When you import your iPhoto library into Aperture these two files (the original and the adjusted image) are two separate files as far as Aperture is concerned. Aperture will keep them together and apply keywords to each to help you sort it all out once you running the Aperture library but they will not have the same master version relationship that masters and versions created in Aperture have.
So when you import your iPhoto library all images will come over, you don't need to do anything special to get the adjusted images. -
Hello everyone, I have done some google searching and have not found an answer to the following question:
Example - I go to a event and shoot 200 pictures, import them into Aperture...then I make edits to 25 photos in Aperture - now I want to put all the images on a disc or thumb drive (originals and the edited versions) - for a total of 225 images that I can share with whomever.
Is there a simple way to do this? Export originals and versions in one move?
Thanks for the help everyone.
I DO NOT have the "create new versions when making adjustments" option checked, as I have found that when returning to a photo multiple times to makes edits creates too many versions.
Any advice appreciated.
Thanks,
SteveThis will work better than what I currently do.
Thanks for the help.
It seems there is not a "one click" option to get the edited and unedited versions exported - which is fine. The above work around should work great.
Thanks Frank!
Steve
PS - sorry I did not give you much to work with - I was referring to this quote...
*QUOTE*If instead you just want to export both the edit version and the unedited version you can do that in one step, just
File->Export->Versions*END QUOTE*
This only exported the edited versions, and not the unedited versions of the same image. Maybe you mistyped, or I misread - either way no big deal.
Thanks again!
Steve -
How to export both masters and versions w/ metadata?
When traveling I import photo files into Aperture on my laptop and edit them. When I get home I would like to export "everything" - masters, versions, and metadata, so that I can then import all of this into Aperture on my desktop. Or, perhaps there is another way to transfer all of this information into Aperture on my desktop? The export menu seems to give only the option to export either masters or versions, but I want to basically duplicate on my desktop a particular project from my laptop. Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated. Thank you!
You get the option to either add the contents of the being-imported Library to the being-imported-into Library, or to merge the contents. In neither case is the being-imported-into Library replaced.
It is always a good idea to maintain a practice Library of a few hundred images, and to use it to try out any actions you fear might destroy your work.
There is an entire chapter in the User Manaul on using Library files. It is part of the general introduction to Aperture (viz.: the first seven chapters), all of which is recommended reading as it provides the foundation needed to achor your exploration of the rest of this complex, powerful program.
What you want to do is part of that power -- it is specifically provided as a feature of Aperture:
This is particularly useful if you use a portable computer when on location or away from your studio, and a workstation at your studio. Any work done in the field can be exported from your portable computer as a library file and then merged with the library file on the workstation at your studio.
In your case, either export everything ("Export→Project as New Library") from the "field" computer, or simply import the entire "field" Library. The details of the workflow are up to you to determine. They will likely depend on what Images you want to maintain on your "field" computer -- whether that Library is a one-time only collecting basket, or is used for processing or showing Images collected on previous excursions.
Message was edited by: Kirby Krieger, added a bit. -
Batch rename masters and versions
Like a dummy, I imported a huge photo shoot without using the easy re-naming.
Now, I want to rename every photo. I want to keep the numerical order, as it is critical for organizing the project photos. I want the Masters to be renamed (and I assume then that the versions just stay "version1" etc...). I have all my photos in stacks by master and version (not different masters).
How can I batch rename, keeping the sequential order that is already there.
(I have read the manual. I have searched on this forum. I still am a little unclear and, hence, the question.)
Thanks in advance!If the images are referenced to an external location (outside Aperture's Library) then you can easily renaming them using Automator.
Copy all the images you are going to rename to a temp location. Just in case something goes wrong.
With Aperture closed open Automator, in the finder select all the images you need to rename and drag them to the right part of automator's screen. Now on the very left part select Finder, on the second column, near the bottom drag the rename finder items action to the right part, just under the window with all your images listed. Click on don't add so it will just rename the files (you made a copy previously). Select replace text and enter the old and new text. That way it will keep the numerical part of your files.
Press play and wait for the action to finish.
Check in the finder that the files have been renamed properly.
Open Aperture and go to the project with those images. If the masters can't be found go to File/Manage Referenced files... and in there you can reconnect to the right location. Usually this step won't be needed unless you move the masters to a new location. -
Deleting masters and versions in Aperture
I can't seem to delete either masters or versions from my aperture project or library. I select the picture, press apple-delete, get the expected dialogue boxes warning me what will happen, but when I go ahead and press delete nothing happens. Very frustrating
Hi,
I can't seem to delete either masters or versions from my aperture project or library. I select the picture, press apple-delete, get the expected dialogue boxes warning me what will happen, but when I go ahead and press delete nothing happens. Very frustrating
After the dialog box, you should be pressing the <Enter> or <Return> key to confirm, not the <Delete> key. -
Deleting Masters and Versions and pics duplicating as versions
I'm working with a small library of some flower images and had done a 'quick and dirty' auto adjustment and easy rating [4]; then I went back and on the Versions [selected Adjustments are Applied to have only the versions show up in browser] noted some are Rejects [X]. I thought I could then delete the two images, one master and one version.
But, when I go in to delete the Master it just does it = without a warning [I have show warning selected in prefs] - but when I go in to delete a =Version 2 it gives me the Delete Masters Warning....in other words, Aperture is treating Versions like Masters and Masters like Versions.
Also when I go into List view to check things I find Master is [for instance] 9.47mb but so is Version 2 the same size = in other words when I do an adjustment and create a Version it's not just creating small kb size versions via data but is actually duplicating and then applying the adjustment.
These are pics in the library not referenced.
[I'd put a picture here but don't know how and hope my description makes sense]Thanks = I reread it and am thinking of the images in that way. As I tried to explain, In the library were images which I reviewed and made adjustments to [auto adjustment plus rating]. Then I did a filter to show only Versions [in which images that show are where adjustments were applied] so that only Versions would so up, marked some as Rejects with X and planned to delete those but not the masters for them.
When I would go to delete the Version [its name would have Version 2 in it], it was treated as if it was a Master and the Delete Masters warning would come up. But when I would go to delete a Master [not a version] no such warning would come up at all even if there were a version and master associated together.
I went to List view to check and be sure and what I am seeing is that the Master has 9.4 mb in size but the Version which was created by the auto adjustment + rating ends up also with 9.4mb and not just a few K for the data -- so that what appears to me to be happening is that the Master image is, in fact, being duplicated and not just having data changes applied = there is no size differential between the Master and the Version, in other words. -
Moving masters and their versions between libraries?
Is it possible to move masters and their versions between libraries?
the best and easiest way (that i have found) is to create a new project and put the masters and versions in there ... use export project to "extract" and then import the project in the different library ...
this is if you only want to move one or two masters/versions, if you want the whole project disregard creating the new one and moving images ... -
Can someone please explain file sizes as they relate to Masters and Versions? I still get confused about this point. I would think my Master image would contain the most data, and therefore have the larger file size than its versions. However, perhaps I am mistaken on this point. When I export Masters, the file sizes are always a lot smaller than the associated versions that I export.
When I export a version, I am exporting it at JPEG Original size, so isn't this compressing the master? I thought this would cause it to have less data? I'm just really unclear about why the sizes differ and what is going on. For example, my Master JPEG might be 2MB, but an exported version of that image could be something like 4.46MB.
Macmacorin wrote:
Corky,
Thanks, great stuff!
I have a few follow up questions. I hope it doesn't get too confusing.
1. The camera takes a picture. When I see an image size in Aperture of 2 MB, is that the same size that the image file was when the camera took it? Then it compresses it into a JPEG even if I was shooting in JPEG instead of RAW? So the 2 MB size image gets compressed to say 1 MB and then upon import into Aperture it gets uncompressed again and is seen at 2 MB?
With Aperture, the reported size of the file in the Metadata Inspector pane is about the size on disk (slightly smaller in my experience, but close). I am not sure what Aperture is doing here, but you can think of it as the space used on disk by the Master file. Aperture is not reporting the un-compressed (expanded) file state as Photoshop does when you work on the same file.
In the case of a digital camera, you capture an image and the sensor in the camera records the brightness value of the scene on the 'photo sites' of the sensor (the amount of photo sites on the sensor is expressed in Mega Pixels (means million pixels) by multiplying the number of sites in width by the number of sites in height). In this instance, Photo Site is expressed as pixel (3200 pixels x 2400 pixels = 7,680,000 pixels - or 7.68 Mega Pixels). The light captured by the camera travels through a color filter matrix where each site has a color value assigned to it.
When you shoot JPEG, the camera takes the brightness data from the sensor, combined with the color data collected and applies what is called a 'demosaic' process which predicts what color each adjacent pixel is to create a color image with smooth transitions between colors. The camera then processes this data (and applies compression in camera) to create a JPEG. This process does throw out data the camera software (firmware) decides is unnecessary to create a final JPEG image.
Current digital cameras do a good job (for the most part) of processing a nice JPEG image. If you shoot RAW, you are telling the camera not to process the sensor data and to save the uncompressed data for you to do the processing via a RAW processing program such as Aperture.
In short, the 2 MB file size you see in Aperture is what your camera delivered to the camera card after processing (although it might be 2.3 MB or something on disk).
2. If my scenario in #1 is correct, I still don't understand why a version being exported at a level 12 quality (which is where I set it) comes out roughly twice this size. Obviously I am missing something here. I understand about it being compressed less upon export if the quality setting is at 12, but it is still getting compressed, so how does it become bigger than the original size to begin with. Again, I am missing something there, so a little deeper insight would be helpful.
Based on my answer to #1, your Master file is 2 MB on disk and Aperture is reporting that to you. It is not telling you what size the uncompressed file size is prior to applying any adjustments and then re-compressing.
3. I do set my export quality settings to 12 as I want the highest quality file to be sent to photo processing sites for printing purposes. A) is this necessary and meaningful to get the best quality prints? B) Do I need to change the DPI settings to something higher than the default 72 when I export these versions for printing? I was always under the impression that 72 DPI was standard for viewing images on a computer screen, but not ideal for printing. Is it beneficial to change the DPI to something higher - 300 for example - for the purpose of exporting images to be printed?
For printing, you will want to export at 150 - 300 DPI. I have read many articles and some books which talk to this and most say that 240 DPI is as good as 300 DPI for all but fine art printing on high end machines. I typically use 150 DPI to start and see what the print looks like. There is no magic number for printing, it really is about verifying the result once printed and then you will know what setting you like the best.
One thing is that the higher the DPI you use, the smaller the size of the print at the native (original) resolution of your image. So for a 3200 x 2400 pixel image, you would exchange pixels for dots (in Dots Per Inch) which is used by the printer to put ink on paper.
3200/300 = 10.66 inches wide x 2400/300 = 8 inches tall
3200/150 = 21.33 inches wide x 2400/150 = 16 inches tall
In the examples above, you could print the same image at 10.66 x 8 inches or 21.33 x 16 inches depending on which DPI setting you export to print with.
4. I export versions and not masters when I am printing images. I do this because I generally make all of my edits in Aperture and I want those versions to be printed. It still seems odd to me that exporting versions gives me a larger file size than when I export masters. Don't the masters get exported with the same quality settings - i.e. 12 - upon export?
Exporting the versions is expected because that is when any adjustments are 'baked in' to your final file outside Aperture.
Exporting the Master is basically copying the original imported image file out of Aperture. There is an option to write IPTC information to the Master on export, but - to the best of my knowledge - that does not require any uncompress / re-compress process.
Aperture only reads the data in the Master once to generate an image on screen for you to work with (at least this is my understanding). It's the version that is subject to any re-compression on export, not the Master. In this way, Aperture protects the original Master file from destructive alteration.
Anyway, those are my understandings. There are many here who are way beyond my skill / knowledge level, so hopefully I have expressed the information accurately and adequately. -
Hi,
I'm having a lot of problems with exporting masters with folders (albums).
I have project like:
Project
->Album1
->Album2
->Album3
If I want to export that, Aperture would export only photos with out folder structure.
I chose "Project Name / Folder Name" in "folder naming presets" but he created folder only for project and not for albums.
All I want to do is select an project, export masters and have the same folder structure in finder.
What I'm doing wrong?
Is not Project->Albums right workflow ?
I have some two months projects with hounders of Albums and more than 10000 images. It would be very time consuming creating all this folders and arranging images in finder again.
I would be really glad if someone could help me with this.
thx and regards,
GregorI also wanted to do the same for a long time, because that used to be the way I worked before using aperture, but ultimately, it doesn't really matter that much. If you export your masters with xmp sidecars, you can easily search them with any other dam software, or even find the xmp's (and hence the image) with spotlight.
I think the reason why you can't use album names while exporting is that albums are an arbitrary collection of images. You can have an album in one project containing images of another one, for example. There's also no way to avoid duplicates on export when exporting albums.
That being said, it would be possible to create an applescript to do what you want, without too much fuss.
j -
Library photos: are they originals or originals and versions?
Hi,
In my library photos: are the thumbnails the originals, can it contain versions? I deleted numerous images from my library photos, when I delete them from the trash, a pop-up asks if I want to delete all versions... are these thumbnails the originals or can it contain versions also.
Thank you
BarbBarb,
the forum software is acting up today - I see your question only in the email notifications, not in the thread?
With respect to deleting masters and versions, you may also have a look at Frank Caggiano's user tip: Deleting version also deleted the master
Because my iphoto crashed, I've spent many long hours on the support line with Apple. Then, my iMac was in the Apple store for 2 weeks while all the techs attempted to repair the crash. As part of the recovery of photos, the tech and I created one Aperture managed library. To ensure we didn't lose any photos, I, along with the Apple tech imported all the photo files in Finder; we knew we were going to get duplicates, even triples, but this was to ensure I didn't lose any photos. I now want to delete the duplicates, etc. In the library photos, I sorted the images by size and started to delete the duplicates and triples leaving just one image. Would you suggest another way?
So you got the images without any original filenames from a data recovery software? Then your images neither have the original filename, nor the creation date, nor any tags and keywords?
That is a really bad situation - sorry. The standard duplicate annihilator programs look for duplicates based on filenames, dates,sizs. But they will not be able to recognize your triplets of thumbnail, preview, original by comparing the content of the image. Aperture certainly cannot do this.
And I know of no newer external tool that can do this, but google for it. Maybe there are recent developments I am not aware of. Comparing the content of images with pattern recognition tools is a standard algorithm that should be available by now as a tool.
I sorted the images by size and started to delete the duplicates and triples leaving just one image.
Without any metadata to the images I see no other way. But it would help to bek the problem down into smaller batches of images - "divide and conquer" is a well-known approach to make hopelessly complex problems tractable.
I'd start by creating smart albums based on the size to keep the thumbnail sized images out of the way.
Then create projects for images you can recognize as images of certain events, like family pictures, vacation pictures.
Then drag the the images to their corresponding projects - even if you can only find a few groups that you can create, this will you save a lot of scrolling when comparing. It will be much easier to compare and recognize images, if there are not so many of them in the project or album you are looking at.
Regards
Léonie -
I'm trying to export my Aperture masters to use in Lightroom, can't get the ratings to export. Tried writing the IPTC data to the masters and adding the IPTC4XMP file when exporting, neither worked. The ratings show up in Lightroom if I export the versions. These are all .jpg's that I am exporting. Any ideas on how to fix this?
ThanksThere are two problems here:
1) Aperture does not modify its "original" files on export. Meaning with the JPEG files that Aperture will NOT modify them, and it will not write IPTC data to them. It exports the XMP sidecar files, as you're seeing.
2) Adobe will NOT read IPTC sidecar files for non-RAW images. So if it sees a JPEG file, it will not look for an XMP sidecar file. It just doesn't read them, so the data won't be imported by Lightroom.
If you are using JPEG files, then probably the solution is to check the box in Aperture to tell it to write XMP metadata to the original files. They're not RAW files, so they're not proprietary in any way, so writing the XMP metadata to the JPEG files is probably pretty safe. -
I have trimmed some R3D flies in Premier Pro and I want to export the trimmed versions in full res to my hard drive, i.e. I want to export the files so that they end up on my hard drive in the same native format. I don’t see an option for this in Premier Pro when I go to export. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks!Premiere Pro
Aperture has the ability to work with files in their existing location. They are called "referenced masters." When you import images, you should select the "In their current location" in the "Store Files:" drop down box. Have a read of the documentation for full specifics. Unsure how you can resolve your duplication; might be some work but next time have a read of the manual first
Information for versions is stored in the Aperture database (library file). The masters can be inside the library file itself, or they can be somewhere else. -
Export Masters to include star ratings, places, faces, and tags?
I have 25,000 photos at about 2.5 mb each that I have imported into Aperture. The original import file was about 60gb. The current Aperture file is about 205gb. If I export masters, I get a file that is 60gb (same aas the orignal import file. If I export versions, I get a file that is about 150gb. During import, I may have had the import adjustment preset at "quick fixes"; possibly creating a new version for all 25,000 photos.
I tried importing orignal masters with no auto adjustments ad by setting previews at lower quality and the dimensions that match my macbook pro with about a 40% change in file size.
All of my photos have now been adjusted, tagged, geo-tagged, and facial recognized. I do not want t lose that.
I am trying to export the masters to an external drive with all of my star ratings, places, faces, and tags in order to import them to a smaller file.
Once, I get all of my adjusted photos into Aperture, I do not really care about the masters.
How do I export my master files with all of the tags? Or how do I export my versions without having to keep the bloated file of 150gb instead of 60gb? What is attached to the versions that would more than double th efile size?
Thank youSunblock,
Once, I get all of my adjusted photos into Aperture, I do not really care about the masters.
Don't take this the wrong way, but what you are trying to accomplish goes agains the most basic design of Aperture. Aperture is intended to keep your masters safe and unadulterated, while giving you the opportunity to export your versions on demand.
If I export masters, I get a file that is 60gb (same aas the orignal import file. If I export versions, I get a file that is about 150gb.
Your versions do not take up 150 GB in the Aperture library. They take up several K for the "recipe", and then some small thumbnails and preview images. The only reason you see that the versions are 150 GB is because you exported them and looked at what Aperture generated at your request.
How do I export my master files with all of the tags? Or how do I export my versions without having to keep the bloated file of 150gb instead of 60gb? What is attached to the versions that would more than double th efile size?
Your masters are supposed to stay exactly the same as when you imported them. However, when exporting masters, you can choose, in the Metadata selection, to "Include IPTC"; this includes some of the metadata. I am unsure of the exact items it includes, though. Some of the things you can do in Aperture are not supported by general metadata formats.
As for exporting the versions, you don't get a "bloated file". Rather, you get many (25000?) files. Depending on your export preset, it is entirely possible that each exported version is larger than its corresponding imported master. Check the "Export Preset" selection when you export versions to see what format Aperture is making. There is nothing "attached" to versions. Each one is a completely independent picture file.
I am trying to export the masters to an external drive with all of my star ratings, places, faces, and tags in order to import them to a smaller file.
Not sure what you are getting at here. What do you mean by "import them into a smaller file?" Do you mean that you want to get rid of your Aperture library package (which is actually hundreds of thousands of files) and replace it with a different Aperture library which is smaller? Again, you might want to rethink this. It is not what Aperture is intended for -- you are giving up good, quality photos for something inferior. Why do you want to replace your photos with something inferior?
nathan
Maybe you are looking for
-
Two problems in BSBM benchmark of Oracle 10g with Jena Adaptor 2.0
Hi, all. I'm proceeding BSBM benchmark for Oracle 10g with Jena Adaptor 2.0. I'm using the codes that were introduced in Jena Adaptor 2.0 guide document, and I've applied Jena patches to Oracle 10g (10.2.0). But, two problems are occured in benchmark
-
Issue while Upgrading to SQL 2014 from 2012. " The specified Edition upgrade is not supported."
Hello Team I am seeing this issue while I am trying to do an in-place upgrade from SQL Server 2012 to SQL 2014. Both being Enterprise Editions I am still seeing the below error message in the Feature Upgrade checks. " The specified Edition upgrade is
-
Can't view (background) image in new tab by middle click (14.0.1)
after i update to 14.0.1 (from 13.0.1) it happened :(
-
I'm getting strange results when using the last Gigabit ethernet port (port #3) on my brand new Enterprise 5220. Here is the output from ifconfig -a: lo0: flags=2001000849<UP,LOOPBACK,RUNNING,MULTICAST,IPv4,VIRTUAL> mtu 8232 index 1 inet 127.0.0.1 ne
-
I have been using visual studio 2012 and created(database project) a project using database Microsoft access.I want to move it in to SQLserver 2012 how and where shall i start from. please help ? or just explain how to start a database project using