External HD, Photoshop and Aperture

So I need your help. I have Aperture on my Mac but have also got Photoshop on a netbook. I am running an airport extreme wireless network and am trying to figure out how I can make both the PC(with Photoshop) and the Mac (with Aperture) read wirelessly from the same catalog of pictures on my external hard drive. I have formatted the disc to Mac journalled and the pc will read but not write. So I formatted to fat32 and the mac will not work wirelessly but will work if I plug in the HD via usb. Is this possible to have them both work over the wireless network or am I just dreaming??
Thanks to anyone that can help

For the future, the app should live on the boot drive. Keep from overfilling the MBP's internal hard drive by using a Referenced-Masters Library rather than the Managed-Masters Library that Aperture most unfortunately defaults to.
-Allen Wicks

Similar Messages

  • NEF exposure value difference in Photoshop and Aperture

    We shoot paintings with a Nikon D2X and 4 SB-800 flash units. We keep a Macbeth in the frame until we get an LAB value of around 85-90 (RGB around 230, 230, 230) in the white patch. Until recently we have used Nikon Capture to control the camera and then opened the images in Photoshop (by way of Adobe Camera Raw) to read the exposure values. On our last shoot we moved to Aperture. Testing had previously shown a variation in the range of three LAB points for previously shot NEFs between Aperture's raw interpreter and Adobe Camera Raw. When we returned to the office and began to process the images we discovered that NEF files opened in Aperture showed the LAB exposure of 85-90 we saw in the field, but when the same NEF files are opened in Photoshop, the white patches are blown out. If we open them in Aperture and transfer them to Photoshop as TIFFs the exposure is the same as Aperture shows -- 85 to 90. As an experiment we opened one in Nikon Capture NX. The values match Photoshop and not Aperture.
    If anyone is interested in helping on the diagnosis, here is a link to one of our NEFs with the offending white patch:
    http://www.catalogueraisonne.org/tmp/2008-06-19_144.NEF
    Does anyone have an explanation of this huge difference of exposure values between Adobe and Capture NX on one side and Aperture on the other?

    Hi,
    Well I've downloaded your NEF file but I'm afraid I'm not seeing the difference that you are. I've loaded the image into Capture NX2, Aperture 2.1, and Lightroom 2 Beta (which is, in effect, using the ACR engine. There is a slight difference in values between them all, but only very slight. Aperture gives readings of 95.3% for luminance; LR gives me R:98%, G:99% and B:99% and Capture NX 2 gives me Readings that average 254 (which must be 99%). None of them are therefore technically blown out, however both LR and CNX2 show them the white patch as blown out if you switch on the lost highlights indicator. Aperture doesn't show them as blown out.
    So the difference range is a matter of 4% roughly, which I think can simply be put down to slight differences in RAW converters and the contract curves that they apply.

  • Aperture, Photoshop, and Apple's possible direction for Image Editing

    All,
    After using Aperture now for several days, and reading many different forum topics, in particular this one which speaks of desired enhancements to Aperture:
    http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?threadID=253594&tstart=0
    there is one thing that really sticks out on my mind. While all of us photographers have slightly different specifics to our workflow, in general they are very similar. And with respect to Aperture, there is one huge area where most of us seem to be hitting the brick wall: image adjustments, and by extension, image file management. Let me explain what I mean.
    I think it is a fair generalization to say that the vast majority of serious digital photographers are using Photoshop (or some other image editing app, but I'm just going to refer to Photoshop for convenience) for post-processing of some kind. In using Aperture, and figuring out how to fit it into workflow, we've got this situation of how to move from organization and image library management to the full gamut of image adjusting functionality (photoshop) and back again to library management. The need to use photoshop then exposes the issue of how files are stored on the filesystem, etc. Stay with me here...
    I have found myself thinking, and it is pretty clearly demonstrated in the forum topic mentioned above where folks are making suggestions for improvements to Aperture, that there's this barrel people are over in knowing whether Photoshop and Aperture should live in the workflow together, or whether Aperture should (or is intended to) replace Photoshop in the workflow. This got me to thinking about the fundamental question -- what is the intent, i.e. the vision for Aperture? Is it meant to replace Photoshop, or restated, is Aperture meant to be the app in which all image adjustments are to be made, OR is Aperture meant to just ease workflow, and is it intended not to be the primary app for image adjustments, but rather integrate with the primary image adjustment app?
    The reason I bring this up is that the answer to this question makes all the difference in what enhancement requests and what people should expect from Aperture now, and in future versions. If Aperture is the primary place for image adjustment, then its obvious that there are some very significant additions that need to take place to Aperture, and likewise, the issue of putting images on the filesystem becomes much less important. However, if Aperture is a workflow-easer, then such image adjustment improvements are minimally important if at all, and filesystem / Photoshop / PSD file integration becomes paramount.
    I know what Aperture does, what features it provides, etc. But I can't help but realize that its not really that clear (or I just don't understand yet) what the full scope of Aperture now and in the future is intended to be, and the forum topics are pretty decent documentation of the fact that the user base at this point is fairly cloudy on that too.
    I can't help thinking that in the midst of the Apple pro line of tools, where we have tools that edit: video, audio, DVD creation, text effects, and now digital photography workflow, that there's one glaring hole: static image editing, i.e. a direct Photoshop competitor. I went through the Aperture video demos before Aperture shipped, and watched these photo pros talk incessantly about how "now there's an app that addresses how I work -- Aperture". That's great, but Apple has to know the role that Photoshop plays in present photography workflow -- for those pros too. So I'm sitting here thinking to myself, why would Apple roll out such a product with some clear workflow hurdles to common Photoshop usage.
    Ok, here's the punchline: does anyone else here have a sneaking suspicion that Apple is not to far off from releasing their own image editing application that's a direct Photoshop competitor? I mean come on, Final Cut Pro, Motion, Sountrack, and by extension of the CEO to Pixar, Renderman. How can you not have a static image adjustment application entering the scene at some point?
    I'm curious what others think. I'm just trying to make sense of how to fit the neat stuff I see in Aperture into a workflow that doesn't play very nicely with Aperture at some points (because I'm using Photoshop).
    Brad
    Powerbook G4-1.33GHz-17" / Powermac G4-1.4GHz   Mac OS X (10.4.2)   PB: 1GB RAM, Radeon 9600-64MB / PM: 1.25GB RAM, Radeon 9000Pro-128MB

    So Apple adds curves adjustments,
    we'll need noise reduction, greater sharpening
    capability, etc., etc., and then when we have all
    those features, surely we'll need masking and select
    capability to perform those adjustments selectively,
    etc. Where does it end?
    Actually that could be a good cut-off point - add a few more/better 'global' adjustments but leave all mask, selection and layer based tasks to external editors. Personally, I used to swear by curves, but haven't really touched them in PS for a year since shooting more RAW and learning how to use the shadow/highlight adjustment properly. Sometimes for overall colour for JPEGs, but that bit can be done just as well in levels.
    My workflow isn't particularly typical, but here goes.
    Type of photography - stitched panoramas as a professional, plus general snapshots/nature/landscape as hobby. Single user with no network storage.
    Currently I use a very organised folder structure in the Finder, along with aliases in DragThing docks for easy access to final stitched files, all with their own unique ID. RAW conversions are done in ACR/PSCS2, or Bibble if I'm in a hurry on the laptop. About 40% of the panos are shot in RAW, 40% are bracketed JPEG and the remaining 20% are 'single' JPEG. The panoramas go through quite a lot of post-processing in PS using a whole series of actions and AppleScripts.
    I'm expecting my workflow to look something like this:
    1) Download directly into Aperture, possibly with added help from Automator/Applescript when it comes to proper date-based names.
    2) Divide download into a new album for each panorama.
    2a) If it is a people pano there will be quite a lot of duplicate shots for each panohead position - make a stack for each position and choose picks - this bit will speed things up enormously by itself. Reorder stacks to fit correct order of images going around the scene.
    3) Export to TIFF (sometimes JPEG) and stitch using PTMac (sometimes Realviz Stitcher). Oh, and any people who think Aperture is limited, buggy and bad value should go and look at Stitcher - it costs the same, has a far more limited feature set, is on version 5 and by comparison makes Aperture look bug-free.
    4) Bring stitched panorama into Photoshop to adjust seams through layers if needed, flatten, final tone adjustments (usually using shadow/highlight), possibly some colour tweaks, sharpen. For bracketed shots I will blend together the three exposures at this point using a custom action - this kind of thing is unlikely ever to make it to Aperture.
    5) Bring final print-ready file into Aperture for cataloguing/backup.
    5a) If file is too big for Aperture, make a smaller version for cataloguing and store original file in Finder. This gives me a good file for 90% of purposes, with the huge file available with a bit more work.
    Too big? I've found that Aperture gets sluggish with files over 18-20,000 pixels wide, and chokes totally somewhere between 25,000 and 32,000 pixels wide - 'image format unsupported'.
    To summarise - organise and convert in Aperture, stitch in specialist software, do PS-specific stuff then bring final image back in to join the source images.
    Ian

  • Aperture - Edit with External Editor - Photoshop

    Hi,
    I recently made my first attempt via Aperture to "Edit with External Editor" and in my case I have the preferences set to export to Photoshop CS4 Extended. The External Editor File Format (in preferences) selected is TIFF and as advised by Apple's Help menu this is set at 16-bit. The External Editor Color Spaces is set to Adobe-RGB (1998).
    I selected an image with some barrel distortion, hit the export button, and Aperture sent the new master to Photoshop. I did my fixing and saved. This automatically sends the updated file to Aperture. This is very handy and practical but I was shocked to see the size of the new and fixed file. The original file was a JPEG at 4MB and the new fixed file was a colossal 200+ MB file. I ended up throwing away the new file - too large.
    I am just wondering if this is normal? This is my first time using the Edit with External Editor in Aperture and I am also quite clueless about using Photoshop efficiently and properly. Could I have done something differently and received the new and fixed file at a smaller size?
    Thanks for your advice and help.
    Chau

    Chau wrote:
    I am just wondering if this is normal? This is my first time using the Edit with External Editor in Aperture and I am also quite clueless about using Photoshop efficiently and properly. Could I have done something differently and received the new and fixed file at a smaller size?
    This is normal.
    TIFF files get rather large and the 200 MB sounds about right. If I send a 1.63 MB JPEG at the same settings in PS CS5, I get a 134 MB TIFF after applying the Lens Correction filter and saving.
    If I send the same file as a TIFF 8-bit in Adobe-RGB (1998), I get back a 54.73 MB file.
    You could therefore send as an 8-bit TIFF to reduce the size. Additionally, the PSD format tends to return a slightly smaller file size (51.xx MB in the case here).
    A JPEG file is actually only an 8-bit file, so it isn't really necessary to go to 16-bit, but many users like to protect against further degradation of the JPEG when editing externally (especially from posterization where smooth gradients - such as a sky - start to break down into visible steps in the color transition).
    I personally send as TIFF 8-bit in the sRGB color space and if the image shows degradation, then I might change to the TIFF 16-bit (or simply not use that image).

  • I have an external hard drive set up as a Time Machine backup on my IMac. I want to add a second external hard drive and put my Aperture Photo Library on it. Is there a way to have the photos on this second hard drive automatically back up to the Time Mac

    I have an IMac with an external hard drive set up as  a Time Machine for automatic backups. I want to add a second external hard drive and load my Aperture Photo Library on to it so that the library can be shared by both me and my wife. Is there a way to automatically backup the photo library that will be on the second hard drive to the Time Machine hard drive?

    Open System Preference > Time Machine
    Click Options....
    Ckick on external disk in list and hit the - button below the list to remove from the Exclusion list
    Allan

  • External disk for Time Machine and Aperture Vaults

    I'm planning on buying an external HD for backups with Time Machine and I will also be using it for Vaults in Aperture.
    Should I partition the disk into two volumes, one for each, or will TM and Aperture co-exist quite happily on the same volume?
    I'd rather use a single volume as, in my experience, partitioning a disk always results in one volume filling up long before the other, however integrity of the backups is the most important requirement.

    I strongly agree with V.K.
    The other big reason to partition is, as you say, one volume will fill up before the other.
    That's exactly how TM is designed to work -- fill up whatever space you allocate to it. Unlike traditional archive-type backup systems, it manages it's space and deletes backups automatically. As you probably know, it keeps it's hourly backups for 24 hours, then deletes them, except the first of the day, which becomes a daily backup and is kept for a month. Similarly, after a month, one of those daily backups becomes a weekly, and the others are deleted. But the weeklies are kept as long as there's room. Unless something goes wrong, you never have to do a thing.
    So, if you have other data in that same partition, TM will, eventually, fill up the remaining space, limiting the space available to Aperture.

  • Moving aperture masters to external hard drive and changing to reference

    I am using my iMac's internal drive to store manage my aperture masters and versions. I'm now up to 200 GB and aperture at times is running very slow . I believe i have to move my masters to an external harddrive but i'm not sure how and then once I do how do I convert to using reference files? ? In this configuration will using the vault feature stop backing up my masters if they are separated?

    Thank you for your help. One question if I down load my masters directly to the external harddrive as you suggest and then import into Aperture as referenced files won't that mess up the hierarchy system that Aperture sets up. When I relocated all my masters to the external HD Aperture automatically set them up as specific folders corresponding to all of my projects in a well organized hierarchy if I haphazardly download first to the Hard drive and then import will this then be messed up? ie will I need to specifically organize how I do my original masters download to the Ext HD from my compact flash?

  • I am unable to change location for editing photos.  I tried the advanced drop down menu in iPhoto and have 2 locations for editing-iphoto and aperture.  I want to add photoshop.  Can anyone help? Thanks.

    i cannot change editing location from aperture to photoshop in iphoto.  i followed directions to advanced tab in iphoto and have 2 choices for editing photos-iphoto and aperture.  any suggestions on how to change the sites?  thanks.

    Not sure why you would have Aperture there as it's not an editor.
    To change, just select Aperture again, and this will give you the dialogue to change the choice.
    Regards
    TD

  • Photoshop and elements 13  Working in iPhoto Want to edit image using photoshop elements Did the following  IPhoto Preferences Advanced Edit Photos: In drop down menu chose in Photoshop Elements  Also control click and chose edit in external editor  Drop

    Photoshop and elements 13
    Working in iPhoto
    Want to edit image using photoshop elements
    Did the following
    IPhoto>Preferences>Advanced>Edit Photos: In drop down menu chose in Photoshop Elements
    Also control click and chose edit in external editor
    Drop down menu edit photos in external program>photoshop Elements
    Go to to the image I'm working on  --- selected the image, the clicked on edit. When nothing happened I double clicked the image. Still elements didn't open. Then I opened the Elements editor, went back to iphoto and tried the entire process again. the photo still didn't open on Elements 13 for editing.
    I have 3 Elements 13 books as well as looked on line--all my references say the exact same thing ---- iPhoto>Preferences>advanced>edit in external program>photoshop Elements
    I uninstalled and reinstalled both iPhoto as well as Elements.
    I spoke with application technical support.  There appears to be nothing wrong with my copy of iPhoto.  However there is no support from Adobe.  I waited for over 1.5 hours for chat support several days ago, and finally gave up.

    You are probably choosing the obvious file rather than the correct file as the PSE editor. The actual editor is hidden away inside the Support Files folder. The PSE file at the top level of the PSE folder in Applications is just an alias for the welcome screen and what you're describing is exactly what happens when you choose that. You want this one:

  • I just installed Photoshop and want to use it as the external editor.  I also have PS Elements on the computer and the only external editor I can get iPhoto to recognize is PSE.  Any help in changing the external editor to PS would be appreciated!

    I just installed Photoshop and want to use it as the external editor in iPhoto.  I also have PS Elements on the computer and the only external editor I can get iPhoto to recognize is PSE.  Any help in changing the external editor to PS would be appreciated!

    Welcome. I am using Photoshop CS5 and this works fine for me. Possibly Adobe has changed this in CS6. Hopefully, LarryHN will have further suggestions. Best.

  • Why  will photoshop not open after loading it to new iMac computer from an external hard drive and I get this message: Licensing for this product has stopped working:error code: 150:30

    Why will Photoshop CS4 not open after loading to new iMac from an external hard drive and I get this message: Licensing for this product has stopped working:error code: 150:30

    A Photoshop installation is tied to the machine it was installed on. Moving it to or from a hard drive breaks the licensing.
    The answer is easy: Reinstall CS4 from your disc. and apply all updates.
    Gene

  • Images in Photoshop and Lightroom not matching on external display

    On my external display the same image viewed in Photoshop and Lightroom is diplayed differently.
    My set up:
    Macbook pro running Mountain Lion (10.8.4), DVI connected NEC Spectraview 271. Photoshop CS4 and Lightroom 5. Both displays calibrated using Spectraview 5 software and an Eye one pro puck. Photoshop working space is Prophoto RGB and is set to preserve embedded profiles. I'm using Andrew Rodney's and Bill Atkinson's test images to try and figure this out.
    Behaviour:
    With the same image displayed in Lightroom and Photoshop on the Macbook screen they match perfectly. If I drag the Lightroom window across to the NEC it changes (as you would expect - richer colours & higher contrast). If I drag the Photoshop image across to the NEC it also changes but no longer matches the Lightroom image (cooler colours).
    So, I don't really know whether Photoshop or Lightroom is displaying correctly, and whether they or the OS are to blame. I had assumed it was Lightroom as the image is more pleasing but this obviously isn't necessarily the case. What is clear is that somewhere there is a difference between how Lightroom and Photoshop are converting the image numbers for monitor display on the NEC.
    Does anyone know how to find out what display profile Lightroom and Photoshop are using?
    Is it possible they are both using the same profile but one is not using the NEC hardware calibration? (Seems unlikely as I assume it would be impossible for the NEC to be using different internal look up tables at the same time)
    Could the OS be tripping up one and not the other in some way?
    Could the X-rite software (which I don't use but is installed) somehow be interfering?
    Anybody able to shed some light?
    Thanks for any help,
    Tom

    I'm having trouble with Lightroom 5 soft proofing with reds too.  To rid my propossed print of a gamut warning I must totally desaturate or change my paper profile to glossy (or both).  This is odd because my monitor is calibrated, I'm using the correct paper profiles etc and when I ignore the gamut warning my prints are looking good. This isn't helpful to you but at least your not alone....

  • Can I move cache to external hard drive to save disk space for photoshop and bridge?

    Can I move cache to external hard drive to save disk space for photoshop and bridge?

    So could I take everything off my external hard drive, save it to my Mac, then re-format it for my Mac and move everything back to the external hard drive?
    Yes. Keep in mind that you need to back up all data, including the data on an external drive. So if you're going to use the external drive to store original data, as opposed to backups, then you really need another one to back up the first one. You also need to back up the data on your internal drive, of course. This isn't optional. You must do it, or you'll lose everything sooner or later. All disk drives fail eventually, often with no warning.
    If I do that how do I format the external hard drive for my Mac?
    Launch the Disk Utility application and search the built-in help for "erase."
    Would it be easier to just buy a external hard drive that is for a Mac?
    All external hard drives work with Macs. Some might come pre-formatted for use with Macs, but it only takes a few minutes to do that yourself.

  • I placed my aperture library on a 1 TB external drive (the file is 300 GB) and Aperture churns and churns but will not open the file. I don't know if the file is too large or if it is the external drive or what? any ideas? Smaller files will open.

    I placed my aperture library on a 1 TB external drive (the file is 300 GB) and Aperture churns and churns but will not open the file. I don't know if the file is too large or if it is the external drive or what? any ideas? Smaller files will open. This is very annoying.

    If this is an external USB drive, you must understand that USB is really, really slow. There may be nothing wrong except for that.
    In my opinion, USB external drives are only acceptable for backups, and to get "near Hard Drive" performance, you need FireWire.

  • HT5260 Hi, my name is Gerard and my iphoto library is getting very large I would like to know if I can store all or most of my photos in a external hard drive and access them from Aperture?

    Hi, my name is Gerard and my iphoto library is getting very large I would like to know if I can store all or most of my photos in a external hard drive and access them from Aperture?

    Moving the iPhoto library is safe and simple - quit iPhoto and drag the iPhoto library intact as a single entity to the external drive - depress the option key and launch iPhoto using the "select library" option to point to the new location on the external drive - fully test it and then trash the old library on the internal drive (test one more time prior to emptying the trash)
    And be sure that the External drive is formatted Mac OS extended (journaled) (iPhoto does not work with drives with other formats) and that it is always available prior to launching iPhoto
    And backup soon and often - having your iPhoto library on an external drive is not a backup and if you are using Time Machine you need to check and be sure that TM is backing up your external drive
    LN

Maybe you are looking for