How to reduce size of images in Aperture ?

My situation, lots of pics, most ~5mb in size, most now do not need that high a quality, and in need of reducing disk space usage. Is there an application or a technique within Aperture, that will allow me to select images and then have those images reduced in size, say from 5mb to 2.5mb?
Thanks for any assist.

Well if those images are not important and it is unlikely you would want to do anything other than look at them, then why not grab an external drive and relocate the masters there and leave them at home.
That way you free up space but still have the generated previews in the library to take with you. You can control the quality of the previews in the preferences and then force Aperture to generate the previews again from the masters with the new settings by selecting the photos in question in the browser and holding the option key after bringing up the context menu.
Combined with ratings for example, you could then make low-res, highly compressed previews for the unrated photos, go back and change the preferences and make progressively higher quality previews for the higher rated photos, culminating in full-res, high quality previews for the 5 star photos.
That's the way I'd do it.

Similar Messages

How to reduce size of image without loss quality

I am website developer design a website http://www.ritikakaur.com/ in wordpress php i am new in photoshop and i want to use some image plz suggest me how can i reduce size of image without loss of image quality.

Which file formats are eligible for your purposes?
non-destructive compression has limits, so you may have to compromise.

How to reduce size of image in Selection Screen

Hi all
I am trying to add an image in Selection screen and i want to reduce size of image .
Please help me asap.
Thanks & Regards
Shaveta

Hi Prashat
I tried by reducing the size of container , But scroll bars appears automatically .
The size of Picture remains same .
Please tell me if there is any option to fix the size of container ... so that picture reduces its size automatically .
Thanks & Regards
Shaveta

How to reduce size of image while uploading it in livecycle pdf.

Hi,
I have created a pdf with Image field using live cycle designer.
I have selected "Sizing: Scale Image to fit Rectangle".
Now the problem is the pdf which i have created is 1.5MB and if i import or upload a 2.5MB image in image field then the size of pdf becomes 6MB.
I have around 20 image fields in my pdf report , so if people keep uploading high resolution images in the pdf then the pdf becomes more then 15MB, slow and unmanagable.
Is there any way by which even if I upload a 5MB image the it should automatically reduce image size?
As the users does not bother to reduce the size of image they just upload high resolution and large size image in pdf.
Please tell me the way through which i can reduce the image size automatically while uploading.
Regards,
Kartik Shrivastava

Hi Prashat
I tried by reducing the size of container , But scroll bars appears automatically .
The size of Picture remains same .
Please tell me if there is any option to fix the size of container ... so that picture reduces its size automatically .
Thanks & Regards
Shaveta

How to reduce size of image from original size

hi,
I want to draw an image in particular width and height, for example that image has original size (300,300) but i want some time that image in (200,200) size and some time that image should draw in (100,100) size . how to do this ??
Actually when i draw that image in small area that large one image it draw as overlapped the remaing with and height of image in that small area..
pls , help me

hi,
i guess scaling will help. if i remember correctly, the java tutorial contains details of scaling.
good luck
======
Kiran

HOW TO REDUCE SIZE OF IMAGE?

when i open my mac book the image is so large i do no see the whole page

Check in System Preferences>Universal Access>Seeing and see if Zoom is turned on. If you have toddlers or cats this can accidentally turned on by hitting a group of keys that include Option + Command + 8.
To prevent this being accidentally activated in the future go to SystemPreferences>Keyboard>Keyboard Shortcuts>Universal Access and uncheck all the boxes.

How do I find duplicate images in Aperture?

How do I find duplicate images in Aperture AFTER importing my entire library from iPhoto? There must be a way to do that, right?
Please let me know the secret.
Thanks!

Léonie, Thank you for your rapid reply!
I am using Aperture Version 3.4.3 and 9.4.2. I downloaded the Duplicate Annihilator but it gives me an error message that says this:
I have no idea what that is all about since I am using this library in iPhoto and Aperture. I already sent the company an email asking about the problem.
I am seeing dupes that came from my original photos in iPhoto and from iPhoto PhotoStreams with monthly dates; these are listed in my Apertrure Projects listing. Is there a way to SAFELY dump these dupes?
Thanks!
Robb

How to reduce size pdf file with 10.5.8

How to reduce size pdf file with 10.5.8, I know it can be done with snow....

Look at this link.
https://discussions.apple.com/thread/1292868?start=0&tstart=0
 Cheers, Tom

How to reduce size of the executables

Colleagues,
I just would like to share small tip, which may be useful for someone else.
Sometimes size of LabVIEW - based executable is pretty big (especially if you have placed arrays or graphic on the front panel, then set values as default, etc). Time to time we have discussed - how to reduce size of the builded executable. One possible soultion is open source Ultimate Packer for eXecutables - UPX and it seems to be OK for LabVIEW - based apps. Also command line arguments passed correctly.
For example, Vision Assistant (which is LabVIEW-written itself) packed from 7 MB to 5 MB and works.
with best regards,
Andrey.

In the days of <$100 1TB HDs and 20mbps FIOS, this seems less and less of a real problem that needs to be solved.
I am curious if this works also with older LabVIEW executables. Many years ago I was beta testing a similar utility and it would break LabVIEW executables. They were able to work around it but the compression benefit was less.
Just curious.
From the UPX documentation:
"Obviously UPX won't work with executables that want to read data from themselves"
LabVIEW Champion . Do more with less code and in less time .

How do I reduce size of image/document that I am emailing

How do I reduce size of document emailing

The only way is to compress it into a ZIP or similar file.

How to reduced size of PNG images

size of my application is increases because I used PNG images . Is there any way to compress the PNG images size which will help me to reduce the size of application

Did you try to save all PNG files in the big PNG file?
This can help you to reduce size of file header of multiple PNG file.
however this coz you to change display PNG file process by
cut from big PNG file instead of read and show from each multiple file.

How to reduce size of C:\Windows\winsxs folder in windows 2008 R2?

Hello,
Is there any way to reduce size of C:\Windows\winsxs folder in windows 2008 R2
simular to
DISM /online /Cleanup-Image /SpSuperseded
Many thanks

Okay maybe some background on the root of the problem would help.
Windows XP (and Windows 2000) used a fast and great mechanism called Hotfix Installer (Update.exe) to install updates. Updates installed in very little time. If you wanted to further reduce update times on Windows XP, you could just temporarily stop the
System Restore service and updates would install at crazy speeds. Note that this is not recommended for novice users who don't know advanced recovery methods, as some updates can sometimes cause your system to stop booting so you cannot even uninstall them.
The method the Hotfix Installer used was simple, it just installed a new version of files to be updated at %windir%\system32 and %windir%\system32\dllcache (the Windows File Protection cache). For files that were in use, a restart copied them from dllcache
to the system32 folder. This is simple file-based servicing. The hotfix installer (Update.exe) also supported various command line switches like /nobackup which means not to backup files it patches. Again, this is not recommended for novice users as some updates
can screw your system even after the comprehensive testing Microsoft does before releasing them. But if you won't be uninstalling any updates (usually one only requires uninstalling updates if they cause problems), you could save a ton of disk space by not
backing up the files it patched. The Hotfix Installer backed up files to C:\Windows\$Uninstall$KBxxxxxx folders so even if you did back up the files at install time, they could be safely deleted after a few days if no stability issues were found after using
Windows with the newest updates applied. Update.exe also supported the very important and convenient ability to slipstream a service pack or update into the original Windows setup files using the /s switch.
When Microsoft was developing Windows Vista, they realized that components had gotten too many interdepencies on each other and to service each file reliably without breaking another component that relied on it, Microsoft introduced what they called as Component
Based Servicing (CBS). You can read all about it in a much more technical way at The Servicing Guy's blog. What CBS does basically is it installs all files of the entire operating system, including all languages into C:\Windows\WinSxS and then it hard-links
files from there to C:\Windows\system32. This has the benefit of not having to insert the OS disc to add or remove any components, and some other advantages as well like offline servicing of a Windows Vista or Windows 7 image. But the design introduces a major
disadvantage of taking up a lot of hard disk space. Whenever an update is installed, it no longer installs it to C:\Windows\system32 and C:\Windows\system32\dllcache like Windows XP's hotfix installer (Update.exe) did. Instead, it updates the files in C:\Windows\WinSxS.
Now, Windows keeps multiple copies of the same file but with different version in WinSxS if it is used by more than one Windows component. The higher the number of components, that many number of times the file exists in C:\Windows\WinSxS. When a Windows Vista
update (.MSU) is installed, the components get updated, each and every one, instead of the files and the worst part is it still maintains the older superseded previous versions of components in WinSxS so the user would be able to uninstall updates. Microsoft
does say that some sort of "scavenging" or deleting older copies of components takes place but is scarce on the details. The scavenging seems to take place automatically at certain intervals in Windows 7 but not in Windows Vista. In Windows Vista, you have
to add or remove any Windows component for the scavenging to take place. And Microsoft says the scavenging will free up some disk space but in practice, on my system, I see my free disk space only decreasing on Vista as I remove or add any component. Windows
does not give the user an option to not backup the earlier versions of components like Windows XP's /nobackup switch in Hotfix Installer did. As as you install more and more updates on your system, they will take more and more disk space. This is one of the
primary reasons Windows Vista and Windows 7 are so bloated. Another reason for them being so bloated is the DriverStore that these OSes store. All drivers that are shipped with the OS and the OEM ones which you download and which are installed for a particular
system are staged in C:\Windows\System32\DriverStore. But let's not go there for now.
Now, an important thing to note is that the size of the WinSxS folder is not what Explorer or the dir command report, it is far less but is misreported by Explorer because it counts the hard links more than once when calculating size. That does not mean,
the size of WinSxS is not causing real-world disk space problems on numerous Windows Vista/7 systems in use today. Microsoft's ingenious recommendation to this problem of ever growing disk consumption is to install fewer updates to keep the size of the servicing
store under control. Of course, users cannot deny installing security updates and leave their system open to security holes. What they can do is install less optional updates, the ones that Microsoft releases on the fourth Tuesday of every month and also install
less of the hotfixes that are available by request from a Knowledge Base article. In short, you have to trade the number of bugs fixed in the OS by installing hotfixes at the cost of enormous amounts of disk space. The whole servicing stack is a total downgrade
to Windows XP's update.exe method. It causes heavy disk thrashing and slow logoffs/logons while Windows configures these updates at the Welcome Screen. Many systems are unable to boot because of failed updates. Another disadvantage of the "new" servicing stack
(and the redesigned Setup mechanism of Windows Vista) is the inability to do a true slipstream of service packs and hotfixes.
The time it takes to actually install these hotfixes online compared to Windows XP is also completely unacceptable. When you start installing an MSU update, it spends a lot of time determining whether the update applies to your system. Then, the update itself
takes much longer to install compared to Windows XP's Update.exe (hours instead of minutes if you are installing dozens of updates through a script). Finally, that post-installation process ("Configuring updates... Do not turn off your computer") takes several
minutes before shut down followed by a second post-installation process (configuration) upon restart before logon that also takes also several minutes and thrashes the disk.
I can install the entire SP3 for Windows XP in about 10 minutes after downloading the full installer. I can also install a slipstreamed-with-SP3 copy of Windows XP is about 45 minutes on a modern fast PC. In contrast, Windows Vista or Windows 7 do install
relatively quickly (in just about 15-20 minutes) on a modern PC but installing the service packs and updates takes more time than anything on XP did. Not only can service packs not be slipstreamed, but Vista Service Packs are not even cumulative, which means
if you clean install Windows Vista today, you have to install SP1 first which takes about 90 minutes, then SP2 which takes less time, then all the post-SP2 updates which do take hours to install. If you really HAVE to use Windows 7 or Windows Vista, you are
stuck with this slow update non-sense as Microsoft does not even acknowledge that there is any slowdown or loss of functionality in the new servicing mechanism. The fact remains: MSU updates are slow as **** and take too much time and as Windows 7/Vista get
older and Microsoft stops producing service packs, a clean install is going to take longer and longer to bring it up-to-date with all patches installed. Is is worth wasting your time on an OS whose servicing mechanism Microsoft completely screwed up? I once
again recommend you read more about the servicing stack and how it operates at The Servicing Guy's blog:http://blogs.technet.com/b/joscon/. To fix this messed up servicing stack, Microsoft also offers a tool
called CheckSUR for your system if it finds “inconsistencies in the servicing store”.
Microsoft's Windows Vista and Windows 7 products are not engineered with disk space in mind. It causes a problem, especially for SSDs which are still low capacity and very expensive. The only hope is that Microsoft again completely redesigns this servicing
mechanism in a future Windows release so it would not cause this growing disk space consumption issue, speed up installation of updates by an order of magnitude, not slow down logon and logoff, not prevent systems becoming unusable because of failed updates
being stuck at a particular stage and allow true slipstreaming.
Microsoft's response to this is vague - they simply state "Windows 7's servicing is more reliable than Windows XP" but they cannot acknowledge it is a million times slower and still unreliable...slow to the point of being unusable and sometimes leaving systems
in an unbootable damaged state. Of course they know all this too but can't admit it since it makes their latest OSes look poor. Moving from a very simple and fast update mechanism that worked to a complex one that requires endless “configuring” and repair
through CheckSUR is a product engineering defect.
Take a look at servicing-related complaints in Microsoft's own forums:
1.
Very slow install of updates to Windows 7
2.
Windows 7 - Updates are very slow
3.
Windows 7 Ultimate, it takes long time configuring updates
4.
"Preparing To Configure Windows. Please Do Not Turn Off Your Computer"
5.
Very slow update install at shutdown (Windows 7 Home Premium)
6.
Why does my computer run so slow when installing updates?
7.
Every time the computer is shut down, it always says installing update do not turn off your computer
8.
Computer is working slow and wants to do windows updates all the time
9.
Windows 7 Update install time taking a very long time
10.
Windows wants to install 6 updates every time I log off or put the computer in sleep mode
11.
Problem In Configuring Windows Updates at the time of Startup
12.
Computer really slow after latest updates
13.
Windows hangs up in "configuring updates"
14.
Why can't windows 7 install updates?
15.
Every time computer is shut down, receive Installing updates, do not shut off....
16.
How long does it take for the Windows 7 Home Premium updates take?
17.
Windows 7 "Installing Update 2 of 2" for 12 hours now
18.
Updates causes endless reboots
19.
Updates stuck installing for over 24 hrs. Computer does not boot
20.
Cannot load Windows 7 after installing 2 critical updates
A proper solution to this problem would be to completely re-engineer and rewrite the servicing mechanism so it operates with the speed, reliability and pain-free operation of the XP servicing mechanism.
I don't see this situation improving in Windows 8 either. Good luck with your Windows tablet taking hours to install service packs and updates. Now, do iPads take that long to install updates?
Microsoft understated the real system requirements to keep a Windows 7/Vista system running. System requirements at install time may be 15 GB of free disk space but over time, this number increases to alarming levels as you install more service packs and
post SP-updates. You can find out the real size of the WinSxS folder using a tool like cttruesize (ctts.exe) (download it from
http://www.heise.de/software/download/cttruesize/50272 and run ctts -la -a -l C:\Windows to find the correct size minus the hard links which MS says causes Explorer to misreport the WinSxS
folder size but the fact remains that even with the correctly calculated size of WinSxS, the disk space requirements of Windows 7 to keep it updated are unacceptable, especially for people's SSDs which are running out of disk space!

HOW DO YOU SIZE AN IMAGE TO A SPECIFIC WIDTH AND HEIGHT ?

I need to size an image to 851 X 315, as recommended by Facebook to fit into the Timeline, but when I type 851 in the width, the Height goes to 532.
the problem is when I change the height to 315, the length is reduced again, which is not supposed to.
Should I unlink them and how? And would that cause distortions? thanks

set the crop tool to restrain to 851 x 315
Since your image is not proportional to that dimension, you will have to crop part of it out.

How to reduce size or compress PDF files?

Hi guys,
Does someone knows if there is a way to reduce the size of the PDF file with good quality even on Pictures and Scanned documents? I know the option 'export', 'quartz filter' 'reduce size', but the compression is so extrem. Many files can't not been read, the quality is so bad. Is there a additional app, software or extension that let the user play with the compression on pdf files and let it be more personalized like the dopdf V7 available for windows? i am very dissapointed with this. Please help or suggestion. I will appreciate it. Thanks

I have used the excellent PDF Toolkit app for a while, and its preformed well. Occassionaly it makes the document into a negative image...which Im noyt sure why...
Mathishk, im trying your online version out, and am impressed and admire the fact that you have done this.
Well done.
A TRICK i use often. Once all hires images are on the designed document - and its coming in at 15-20mb, just change the link to the images so they are 'missing' then make a pdf.
i.e 'Hi Res images' to HRes images - old'
The screen resolution of images is still great, but file comes in at fraction of the size.
You 'trick' the document to use screen images only. So my 18mb file comes in as 5.2mb.
Just remember to change the images folder name back, so files relink.
Andy

How to save a magnified image in Aperture or IPhoto

How do I save an image that I have magnified in Aperture or I Photo?

Product user wrote:
and save is in file
Could you post a screen-shot or otherwise verify this? I've been using Aperture for several years, several hours a day — I'm an Aperture Certified Pro — and I have, to the best of my memory, never seen "File ▹ Save" in Aperture.

How to reduce size of images in Aperture ?

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for