Images imported from Aperture showing up 'washed out' in Lightroom.

I am aware that Lightroom uses ProPhoto RBG. When i export images from Aperture to a folder then import into Lightroom the images appear very different. Is there a setting i am missing as the images seem 'washed' out in Lightroom. When i export to the desktop and open in Photoshop they look the same as in Aperture. After i import to Lightroom and open in Photoshop they still look washed out.
New to Lightroom and trying to find the right alternative to Aperture.
Many Thanks in advance.

You are probably right, it is an issue with color profiles and gamut. Aperture does use a different raw converter, which will create some variance. In fact, many like the look of straight Aperture raw conversions over straight ACR conversions. But if the washed out look is dramatic, and Photoshop opens your raw files okay, then it must be a profile issue.
It may help to explain how you are exporting from Aperture. Are your source files raw files, PSDs, TIFFs, or JPEGs? Are you exporting masters, or are you exporting versions? If you're exporting versions, take a look at your "source preset" when exporting. What color profile are you embedding?
Although if you are embedding any color profile, Photoshop and Lightroom should pick it up.
All I've read is that Lightroom manages profiles more transparently than Photoshop, but perhaps someone could jump in here and say how it is managed.
Finally, what purpose are you exporting and importing into Lightroom? If you're migrating your library to a Lightroom catalog, you may be best served by using the Aperture migration plug-in.
Aperture import plugin now available
The plug-in still has issues with foreign characters, importing all previews, and face keywording and keywording previews. You'll be better off waiting until these issues are fixed. Even if you can't, the plug-in would still be a better option than a manual attempt, unless you're doing something other than migrating your Aperture library.

Similar Messages

Images removed from Aperture 2010

1. On the hard drive upon which my vaults are stored, getting a directory called "Images removed from Aperture [name of vault]." Any ideas please as I've only just noticed these on a pretty organised system.
2. My Aperture has always been slow, crashes several times a day even though it was bought new in Jan 2010 and is just back from the Genius bar and still doing the same. Any ideas?
3. One of my largest libraries will no longer open. It was going through a repair and became stuck for a day so I closed it. Since then Aperture will no longer open via clicking on it in the Finder. It does have a vault (I'm guessing 95% up to date) associated with it, but I'm not sure if I should now go to the next step and open the Vault and restore from there (or however I do it).
4. How best to organise my libraries, eg have one for every month (take huge number of images of my boys and client shoots) or have one per year with projects of months within. I have then albums for the events under those months. I don't (yet) use Folders as haven't found a use for that extra level or organisation, but should I?
5. Is it ok to copy the contents of Show Package contents and use that to make an additional copy. I'd read that I could Show Package contents, then select all with "." a period, then select Kind.. Images and then just copy the contents to another directory. I'm thinking of this route given my unreliability of Aperture, original the trial then used the serial number to upgrade beyond trial.
6. Should I reinstall Aperture using the serial number or by disk? Haven't done that before, as it was an internet download.
Lots of Qs, my first post
thanks
Catherine

catherinelacey wrote:
1. On the hard drive upon which my vaults are stored, getting a directory called "Images removed from Aperture [name of vault]." Any ideas please as I've only just noticed these on a pretty organised system.
These contains masters that were removed from the library between vault backup operations.
2. My Aperture has always been slow, crashes several times a day even though it was bought new in Jan 2010 and is just back from the Genius bar and still doing the same. Any ideas?
By Aperture you mean your computer system? Without more information it would be difficult to answer this. What did Apple say when you brought it in?
If you got Aperture in Jan 2010 you started with version 2 correct? What version are you running now?
3. One of my largest libraries will no longer open. It was going through a repair and became stuck for a day so I closed it. Since then Aperture will no longer open via clicking on it in the Finder. It does have a vault (I'm guessing 95% up to date) associated with it, but I'm not sure if I should now go to the next step and open the Vault and restore from there (or however I do it).
Large libraries can take over a day to do repairs or updates. It's tough to wait but most times that's the best course of action. Have you tried to repair it again? If you can;t open it or repair it and you have a vault for it you might as well restore it. That's what the vault is for. If you decide to restore and have questions post back.
4. How best to organise my libraries, eg have one for every month (take huge number of images of my boys and client shoots) or have one per year with projects of months within. I have then albums for the events under those months. I don't (yet) use Folders as haven't found a use for that extra level or organisation, but should I?
This is a huge topic and best addressed in a separate post. There are plenty of resources covering this topic both in this discussion group, in the Aperture users manual and on the web. Familiarize yourself with them and than post back with specific questions.
5. Is it ok to copy the contents of Show Package contents and use that to make an additional copy. I'd read that I could Show Package contents, then select all with "." a period, then select Kind.. Images and then just copy the contents to another directory. I'm thinking of this route given my unreliability of Aperture, original the trial then used the serial number to upgrade beyond trial.
What your describing doesn't make sense from a systems standpoint. The most it would do, if it worked, is get out your image files and previews but in no way that Aperture could use unless you imported them. Even if it worked you would lose all your adjustments, keywords etc.
It's never a good idea to go into the Aperture library at the package level. The smallest misstep can have bad outcomes. If you ever need to copy the library you just need to drag the .aplibrary file.
6. Should I reinstall Aperture using the serial number or by disk? Haven't done that before, as it was an internet download.
As long as you have the serial number you can install from either.
Lots of Qs, my first post
thanks
Catherine
It would be best if in future posts you tried to focus on a single issue. Long posts usually don't get the kind of response you would like as they can be hard for the reader to get through. Be specific and you're more likely to get multiple responses. You may want to take a look at [Help & Terms of Use|http://discussions.apple.com/help.jspa] to get some idea as to how these groups work.
Good luck and welcome to the list.

I cannot view images imported from nikon d4

i cannot view images imported from nikon d4.
I have just upgraded to the most current version of aperture and when I import images from my qxd card it looks like it is importing but no images show up.

So the images show up in the Import pane of Aperture but after you press the Import button they do not show in the project you are importing into?
Does this happen for both Raw and JPG images?

Import from Aperture Created Extra Collections (2 for 1)

I used the Aperture Import plugin to import my Library to start fresh with Lightroom 5. It created many extra "collections" that I now don't know what to do with. It would take me hours to change the hierarchy in Lightroom now that this has occured.
Sample Aperture Hierarchy:
PERSONAL FOLDER
     FAMILY FOLDER
          SISTER PROJECT - contains photos
          DAD PROJECT - contains photos
          MOM PROJECT - contains photos
How they transferred to Lightroom 5 Hierarchy using SISTER as example:
PERSONAL COLLECTION SET
     FAMILY COLLECTION SET
          SISTER COLLECTION SET
               SISTER COLLECTION (NAMED "PROJECT PHOTOS") - contains photos
Essentially, it duplicated efforts and created two (a collection set and a collection) for every one project in aperture. (see SISTER above)
It did this for hundreds of collection sets/projects! It seems in order to correct this I would have to go back and remove the last COLLECTION SET for every COLLECTION and Change it to a COLLECTION INSTEAD (renaming it from "PROJECT PHOTOS" to the COLLECTION NAME). I tried some of this but it didn't seem to want to let me move the COLLECTIONS named "Project Photos" into the COLLECTION SET?
My questions are:
Is there a way to change or clean up my aperture library so it won't import this way? (Considering just deleting the Lightroom Catalog and starting from scratch with a new import). I have to have the sub categories for organization.
Is there an easy way to change a collection set to a collection and have all the pics show up there. I tried moving photos from the collection into collection sets and it would not let me.
Is there a way to choose/customize how it imports from Aperture and select whether things = collection sets or collections?
Should I use regular import instead? Will that work differently and if so what are the steps?
What is the correct hierarchy based on the Aperture example above as to how I should be organizing my photos?
Finally, In terms of my CATALOGUE; I am not thrilled that it brought everything in by day (3/13/2015, 3/12/2015) into my catalogue! Is there an option to tell it HOW to import? Say by month? Will I have to keep up this sequence every time I import now? (I plan to import/sync with SmugMug from now on: Iphone to SmugMug to Lightroom)
Thanks and any help is appreciated!

and obviously that's not possible directly from Aperture (why not?),
Obviously it is, consult your Aperture Manual. But here’s a hint: Start with File -> New -> Book...
What do I do wrong?
You’re using the iPhoto command: Show Aperture Library, correct?
When you do this you’re accessing your Aperture Previews. IF you want to use better quality images either a: use better quality Previews in Aperture, or export the images from Aperture and import to iPhoto.
Regards
TD

Images imported from QT exported image sequence have jagged edges

Hi
I've come across something strange which I'd like to resolve.
I export an image sequence from QuickTime.
I then import this into Aperture.
But the images imported into Aperture now have jagged edges where there has been any movement in the original footage.
The images originally exported from QuickTime look absolutely fine when viewed with preview, they have the expected blurring on moving objects, but no jaggedness.
Now, a bit more detail.
The footage I'm exporting from was shot by me and came from a Final Cut Pro edit.
The codec in the QT movie is Apple Intermediate Codec and this is interlaced.
The jagged edges on movement look to me like the problem of interlaced not being converted to progressive.
However the exported images from QuickTime don't display this when viewed in Preview, it is only when viewed in Aperture that the jagged edges become apparent.
I have tried exporting from QuickTime to jpg, png and psd, but the problem is identical no matter which format I use.
I really want to now use Aperture to improve these exported images, but with this jagged edge problem I can't.

Hi JNorris--
Sounds like you need to apply the deinterlace filter (Effects tab: video filters: video: deinterlace) to the stills your exporting.
See if that makes a difference to start.
T.

Star Rating bar does not appear with images imported from file

Using Elements 11, cannot get the Star Rating bar to appear under images imported from file, although the intro to the program shows this as happening automatically.
Hope this goes through, as I have also created an account, but the question does not seem to be get a post.
Help!

Have you enabled Organizer to show details? You can enable show details by checking View > Detail is not already checked

Error when trying to import from Aperture Library

I'm trying to import my Aperture Library into Lightroom using the "Import from Aperture Library" plug-in. Every time I get a "?:0: attempt to index a nil value" error as soon as I click the Import button. I've tried removing Lightroom (and its ancillary files) and re-installing, I've tried different destination disks for the import, I've repaired the Aperture Library, nothing helps - the same error appears every time. I'm using a Retina iMac with OS X Yosemite and LR 5.7.1. Any suggestions? Thanks, Jack

Hi Jack
I think it may still be work in progress and you may need to wait a little. Problems have also been reported importing from iPhoto. See this thread:
https://forums.adobe.com/message/7088434

Folder labeled "Images Removed from Aperture Vault #1"

Hi all,
I was just looking at everything that's on the External Hard Drive on which I have my Aperture Vault. There's another folder on that EHD labeled "Images Removed from Aperture Vault #1." Noodling through that folder, it seems to be every master that I've deleted, broken down my year, month, and even day.
Is this normal behavior? Can I delete all those sub-folders, etc.? Should I keep the folder itself? Did I somehow set this up initally?
Anyhoo, thank you all for any suggestions.

Yes it is a normal but unreported feature. When you run the vault command the vault created is a snapshot of the current state of the library. If there is a previous vault for this library then images that are in the vault but no longer in the library are moved to the folder you referred to.
If you are certain you do not want any of those images anymore you an delete them.
regard

Can I delete the folder in the vault drive called "images deleted from Aperture Lib" ?

I am reorganizing and separting my main Aperture library into smaller libs...in my vault drive there is a folder (always been there) that is called "images deleted from Aperture library"...it contains the images I deleted after emptying the Aperture trash. It is large (200Gig) and I want to delete it in finder (put in the trash then delete it...is this a safe practice? Thanks...Steve

Yes.
When you delete photos from Aperture that are in a vault, the next time you update the vault, the images from the vault will be moved to that folder. You can delete it as you see fit... it's your last and final chance to decide if you didn't want to delete a file

Costco and soft proofing show dull washed out image

OK, so I am trying to utilize my nearest costco to print some images from lightroom 5. I am getting back dull washed out prints.
Facts:
I shoot in RAW in manual mode
I am using sRGB when I do my post processing
I export to jpg for printing
I used the costco LR5 plugin from Alloyphoto to upload to Costco
I have installed the printer profiles from drycreek for the specific location/printer and have chosen the correct profile as I export
I made sure that I chose to have Costco NOT autocorrect the color
Even when I use LR5's soft proofing, I get the same result on my monitor
I checked the print I got back and it says that they did NOT autocorrect (taken with a grain of salt)
The machine they are using is a Noritsu QSS-A, so I know my profile is correct
I have attached a screen shot of what I am seeing.
Why am I seeing this on my soft proofing as well as my prints?
How can I solve this and get vibrant prints?
Any advice would be helpful.
Message was edited by: moviebuffking

moviebuffking wrote:
I have calibrated my monitor as good as I can get without specific hardware. I have 18 years experience calibrating monitors (via optical media and my eyes), so I know that mine is very close.
It is virtually impossible to "accurately" set the Luminance, Gamma, and Color temperature "by eye." This is most likely the cause of your prints not matching the screen image you see in LR. That being the monitor's Luminance (i.e. Brightness) level is too set to high.
http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/article_pages/colour_management/prints_too_dark.html
To see if this could be your problem I downloaded the posted screen shot and cropped out the 'Copy' image, which has your adjustments applied to it. Here are my results:
Click on image to see full-size
I needed to apply a full F stop (+1.0 EV) of Exposure correction to achieve a good midtone brightness level for the print image. You'll notice I also added -50 Highlights and +50 Shadows along with +25 Vibrance. I bet the image with my adjustments added looks way too bright on your uncalibrated monitor.
You have two (2) issues–Monitor Calibration and LR Basic Panel Control Adjustments
Monitior Calibration
I would highly recommend investing in a hardware monitor calibrator such as the X-Rite i1 Display and ColorMunki, or Datacolor Spyder models. If you tell me what make and model monitor you are using I can recommend specific calibrators.
Temporarily you can try adjusting the monitor "by eye" to get it closer to the desired 120cd/m2 Luminance, 2.2 Gamma, and 6500K Color Temperature using the test patterns at this site:
http://www.lagom.nl/lcd-test/
When the monitors Brightness and Contrast controls have been correctly set the screen image should look much closer to the prints you have recently made with the LR Soft Proof adjustments. So in fact you will be adjusting the monitor to make it look bad with the LR adjustments you applied. The proper monitor settings will make the Lagom test patterns look correct AND should make your bad Costco prints now match the screen image using you original LR settings.
After changing the monitor's Brightness and Contrast settings try readjusting a few of the image files you had printed and send them to Costco as check prints. Compare them again to your monitor's screen image. They should be much better!
LR Basic Panel Tone Control Adjustment
LR's PV2012 Tone controls can provide much improvement to your raw image Highlight and Shadow detail. Start with all of the Tone controls at their '0' default settings and adjust them from the top-down in the order shown below.
1. Set Exposure for the midtone brightness ignoring the highlight and shadow areas for now. Setting Exposure about +.5 EV higher than what looks correct for the midtones seems to work best with most images.
2. Leave Contrast at 0 for now. You’ll adjust this after the first pass.
3. Adjust Highlights so that blown out areas are recovered and “fine tonal detail” is revealed.
4. Adjust Shadows to reveal fine detail in dark areas. For most normal images simply setting -Shadows = +Highlights (Example -50 and +50) works very well.
5. The Whites control sets the white clipping point, which you can see by holding down the ALT key as you move the slider. Adjust it to the point where you see clipping just appear with the ALT key.
6. The Blacks control sets the black clipping point, which you can see by holding down the ALT key as you move the slider. Adjust it to the point where you see clipping just appear with the ALT key.
7. Now go back and adjust the Contrast control to establish the best midtone contrast.
8. Lastly touchup the Exposure control for the best midtone brightness.
9. If necessary “touch-up” the controls using the same top-down workflow.
moviebuffking wrote:
Am I correct in assuming that the soft proof (with a certain profile) is a "preview" of what that print will look like?
Soft Proof does two things. It shows you what the image's colors will look like in the target color space (i.e. printer profile). You can see what (if any) colors are "out of gamut" by clicking on the small icon in the upper-righthand corner of the Histogram. You can also see if any of the colors fall out of your monitor's gamut by clicking on the small icon in the upper-lefthand corner of the Histogram.
When you check 'Simulate Paper & Ink' the Soft Proof image's contrast and color saturation are changed to make it look closer to what the "reflective" print image will look like when held next to the monitor for comparison. Many people have difficulty using 'Simulate Paper & Ink' since it requires using precise light levels for viewing the print and a well calibrated monitor.
In summary my best suggestion is to purchase and use a good hardware monitor calibrator on a scheduled basis to insure you have an "accurate" screen image inside LR and other color managed applications like PS.

Downsized images when imported from Aperture

The latest batch if images I imported into iPhoto from Aperture were somehow downsized to half the size, ie from 3888x2592 to 1944x1296. In other words, cut in half. This has never happened before. Previously, the iPhoto image had the same dimensions as the image in Aperture. Would this have something to do with Lion? I need images with over 3000 pixels on at least one side to sell them. Thanks. Larryt

How did you "import into iPhoto from Aperture"?
If you're using the media browser (File -> Show Aperture Library) then what you're getting are you Aperture Previews. The size of these is set in your Aperture Preferences.
If you exported from Aperture then the export preset you used in Aperture is what defines the size of the image.
So, no, this has nothing to do with Lion and only to do with the settings you are using in Aperture.
I can't help but wonder though, why you are using iPhoto at all, if you use Aperture. Is this complexity necessary?

I am trying to use the new plug-in for import from aperture. But the "import" button always disappears ... any help out there?

Hi there
I have up-dated LR to the latest version and like to use the plug-in for the import from the Aperture library. I follow the steps suggested by an article, have saved all picture into separate folders (folder = project name) and still, after the analysis of the library, the "import" button disappears and I am stuck and can't import.
Any ideas what can be done/must be done to get this working?
Regards
Diethard

I am having the same issue, i've selected my Aperture library, and the "import" button does not activate. Any idea how to fix?

Aperture and mobileme = washed out picture after downloading?

Hi,
Synced a few albums from Aperture to a few mobileme gallery's so a few friends could download the pictures very easy. One of them asked me why i screwed up the pictures because the all appeared to have a washed out look on his pc.
Tried it myself and it's true.
If i download a picture from the gallery and open in in Xee on my mac it appears to be washed out, in preview it looks ok. On a windows pc in the default picture viewer same result.
Opening the file in photoshop it appears to be ok.
Tried to talk to a mobileme support guy but he couldn't help me with it.
test album: http://gallery.me.com/reinoutsmit#100099&bgcolor=black&view=grid

Don't fully understand what you are observing in Aperture. For me originals show Adobe RGB, as do the images seen in the MM gallery within Aperture, and as do Downloads from that MM gallery. (I primarily use SmugMug these days, and not MobileMe galleries).
Secondly, I don't correlate what William said with viewing of a Download -- but would perhaps with Online? Any download should view fine, unless the problem is with the viewing app? And as I said, everything I could view a download with displayed fine.
Third, another discussion, unrelated to Aperture discusses similar issues with profiles -- see:
http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?threadID=2272826&start=15&tstart=60
Ernie

Import from iPhone shows outlines only, can't import

This has been a recurring issue for me for months. Here is a summary.
iPhoto 09 v8.0.4 (latest) sees my iPhone but the import dialog shows only outlines of the new photos and won't import to my MacBook Pro. I have tried suggestions in other threads including repairing permissions and creating a new iPhoto library but it still shows only outlines. I have attempted to import using Image Capture and it fails to save anything although it does see the iPhone just like iPhoto and Aperture.
This has happened with my previous 3G iPhone and now with my 3G S. It also happens if i try to import into Aperture.
At this point I am suspecting there is something corrupted in the Macbook Pro because when I connect my iPhone to my MacBook Air it sees everything fine.
Where should I look for the problem? I want to avoid restoring everything if possible. I just upgraded to iLife 09 but the problem existed prior to that.

I'm having the exact same issue. I'm currently trying the Image Capture route. I hate restoring my phone as I'm not sure if this is a long term fix or not. I'm exploring different options now and will let you know if I figure anything out.
Edit: figured a bit out– the "invisible" files I'm seeing are the files transferred from apps like hipstamatic, tilt shift generator, and camera+. I'll try contacting the devs of one of these apps to see if it's a common issue.
Edit #2: Figured out the rest. The "invisible" files had nothing to do with my problem. My problem was lack of hard drive space. Apparently 4GB (well over the amount needed to import the photos) wasn't enough. I deleted some files which bumped it to 10GB and now they import just fine. Hope this helps.
Message was edited by: mattrwilson

Unlogged Missing Photos After Import From Aperture

Hi!
I have just made the switch from Aperture to Lightroom, and have use the 1.1 version of the Aperture import plugin.
In my Aperture Library I have, according to the Library -> Photos: 11105 Photos, however after importing to Lightroom, I have only 10967 photos. I have checked the import log, and there were 4 items which failed to import - 3 were .mpo files (panoramas from an xPeria) and 1 was a .gif file. This leaves a deficit of 133 photos that I can't account for.
Is there any way to compare the aperture library to the lightroom library to see what is missing?

*WARNING* Once agin, this is a VERY long post! And this contains not only SQL, but heaps of command line fun!
TLDR Summary: Aperture is storing duplicates on disk (and referencing them in the DB) but hiding them in the GUI. Exactly how it does this, I'm not sure yet. And how to clean it up, I'm not sure either. But if you would like to know how I proved it, read on!
An update on handling metadata exported from Aperture. Once you have a file, if you try to view it in the terminal, perhaps like this:
$ less ApertureMetadataExtendedExport.txt
"ApertureMetadataExtendedExport.txt" may be a binary file. See it anyway?
you will get that error. Turns out I was wrong, it's not (only?) due to the size of the file / line length; it's actually the file type Aperture creates:
$ file ApertureMetadataExtendedExport.txt
ApertureMetadataExtendedExport.txt: Little-endian UTF-16 Unicode text, with very long lines
The key bit being "Little-endian UTF-16", that is what is causing the shell to think it's binary. The little endian is not surprising, after all it's an X86_64 platform. The UTF-16 though is not able to be handled by the shell. So it has to be converted. There are command line utils, but Text Wrangler does the job nicely.
After conversion (to Unicode UTF-8):
$ file ApertureMetadataExtendedExport.txt
ApertureMetadataExtendedExport.txt: ASCII text, with very long lines
and
$ less ApertureMetadataExtendedExport.txt
Version Name    Title   Urgency Categories      Suppl. Categories       Keywords        Instructions    Date Created    Contact Creator Contact Job Title       City    State/Province Country Job Identifier Headline        Provider        Source Copyright Notice        Caption Caption Writer Rating IPTC Subject Code       Usage Terms     Intellectual Genre      IPTC Scene      Location        ISO Country Code        Contact Address Contact City    Contact State/Providence        Contact Postal Code     Contact Country Contact Phone   Contact Email   Contact Website Label   Latitude        Longitude       Altitude        AltitudeRef
So, there you have it! That's what you have access to when exporting the metadata. Helpful? Well, at first glance I didn't think so - as the "Version Name" field is just "IMG_2104", no extension, no path etc. So if we have multiple images called "IMG_2104" we can't tell them apart (unless you have a few other fields to look at - and even then just comparing to the File System entries wouldn't be possible). But! In my last post, I mentioned that the Aperture SQLite DB (Library.apdb, the RKMasters table in particular) contained 11130 entries, and if you looked at the Schema, you would have noticed that there was a column called "originalVersionName" which should match! So, in theory, I can now create a small script to compare metadata with database and find my missing 25 files!
First of all, I need to add that, when exporting metadata in Aperture, you need to select all the photos! ... and it will take some time! In my case TextWrangler managed to handle the 11108 line file without any problems. And even better, after converting, I was able to view the file with less. This is a BIG step on my last attempt.
At this point it is worth pointing out that the file is tab-delimited (csv would be easier, of course) but we should be able to work with it anyway.
To extract the version name (first column) we can use awk:
$ cat ApertureMetadataExtendedExport.txt | awk -F'\t' '{print $1}' > ApertureMetadataVersionNames.txt
and we can compare the line counts of both input and output to ensure we got everything:
$ wc -l ApertureMetadataExtendedExport.txt
   11106 ApertureMetadataExtendedExport.txt
$ wc -l ApertureMetadataVersionNames.txt
   11106 ApertureMetadataVersionNames.txt
So far, so good! You might have noticed that the line count is 11106, not 11105, the input file has the header as I printed earlier. So we need to remove the first line. I just use vi for that.
Lastly, the file needs to be sorted, so we can ensure we are looking in the same order when comparing the metadata version names with the DB version names.
$ cat ApertureMetadataVersionNames.txt | sort > ApertureMetadataVersionNamesSorted.txt
To get the Version Names from the DB, fire up sqlite3:
$ sqlite3 Library.apdb
sqlite> .output ApertureDBMasterVersionNames.txt
sqlite> select originalVersionName from RKMaster;
sqlite> .exit
Checking the line count in the DB Output:
$ wc -l ApertureDBMasterVersionNames.txt
   11130 ApertureDBMasterVersionNames.txt
Brilliant! 11130 lines as expected. Then sort as we did before:
$ cat ApertureDBMasterVersionNames.txt | sort > ApertureDBMasterVersionNamesSorted.txt
So, now, in theory, running a diff on both files, should reveal the 25 missing files.... I must admit, I'm rather excited at this point!
$ diff ApertureDBMasterVersionNamesSorted.txt ApertureMetadataVersionNamesSorted.txt
IT WORKED! The output is a list of changes you need to make to the second input file to make it look the same as the first. Essentially, this will (in my case) show the Version Names that are missing in Aperture that are present on the File System.
So, a line like this:
1280,1281d1279
< IMG_0144
< IMG_0144
basically just means, that there are IMG_0144 appears twice more in the DB than in the Metadata. Note: this is specific for the way I ordered the input files to diff; although you will get the same basic output if you reversed the input files to diff, the interpretation is obviously reversed) as shown here: (note in the first output, we have 'd' for deleted, and in the second output it's 'a' for added)
1279a1280,1281
> IMG_0144
> IMG_0144
In anycase, looking through my output and counting, I indeed have 25 images to investigate. The problem here is we just have a version name, fortunately in my output, most are unique with just a couple of duplicates. This leads me to believe that my "missing" files are actually Aperture handling duplicates (though why it's hiding them I'm not sure). I could, in my DB dump look at the path etc as well and that might help, but as it's just 25 cases, I will instead get a FS dump, and grep for the version name. This will give me all the files on the FS that match. I can then look at each and see what's happening.
Dumping a list of master files from the FS: (execute from within the Masters directory of your Aperture library)
$ find . -type f > ApertureFSMasters.txt
This will be a list including path (relative to Master) which is exactly what we want. Then grep for each version name. For example:
$ grep IMG_0144 ApertureFSMasters.txt
./2014/04/11/20140411-222634/IMG_0144.JPG
./2014/04/23/20140423-070845/IMG_0144 (1).jpg
./2014/04/23/20140423-070845/IMG_0144.jpg
./2014/06/28/20140628-215220/IMG_0144.JPG
Here is a solid bit of information! On the FS i have 4 files called IMG_0144, yet if I look in the GUI (or metadata dump) I only have 2.
$ grep IMG_0144 ApertureMetadataVersionNamesSorted.txt
IMG_0144
IMG_0144
So, there is two files already!
The path preceding the image in the FS dump, is the date of import. So I can see that two were imported at the same time, and two separately. The two that show up in the GUI have import sessions of 2014-06-28 @ 09:52:20 PM and 2014-04-11 @ 10:26:34 PM. That means that the first and last are the two files that show in the GUI, the middle two do not.... Why are they not in the GUI (yet are in the DB) and why do they have the exact same import date/time? I have no answer to that yet!
I used open <filename> from the terminal prompt to view each file, and 3 out of my 4 are identical, and the fourth different.
So, lastly, with a little command line fu, we can make a useful script to tell us what we want to know:
#! /bin/bash
grep $1 ApertureFSMasters.txt | sed 's|\.|Masters|' | awk '{print "<full path to Aperture Library folder>"$0}' | \
while read line; do
openssl sha1 "$line"
done
replace the <full path to Aperture Library folder> with the full path to you Aperture Library Folder, perhaps /volumes/some_disk_name/some_username/Pictures/.... etc. Then chmod 755 the script, and execute ./<scriptname> <version name> so something like
$ ./calculateSHA.sh IMG_0144
What we're doing here is taking in the version name we want to find (for example IMG_0144), and we are looking for it in the FS dump list. Remember that file contains image files relative to the Aperture Library Master path, which look something like "./YYYY/MM/DD/YYYYMMDD-HHMMSS/<FILENAME>" - we use sed to replace the "./" part with "Masters". Then we pipe it to awk, and insert the full path to aperture before the file name, the end result is a line which contains the absolute path to an image. There are several other ways to solve this, such as generating the FS dump from the root dir. You could also combine the awk into the sed (or the sed into the awk).. but this works. Each line is then passed, one at a time, to the openssl program to calculate the sha-1 checksum for that image. If a SHA-1 matches, then those files are identical (yes, there is a small chance of a collision in SHA-1, but it's unlikely!).
So, at the end of all this, you can see exactly whats going on. And in my case, Aperture is storing duplicates on disk, and not showing them in the GUI. To be honest, I don't actually know how to clean this up now! So if anyone has any ideas. Please let me know I can't just delete the files on disk, as they are referenced in the DB. I guess it doesn't make too much difference, but my personality requires me to clean this up (at the very least to provide closure on this thread).
The final point to make here is that, since Lightroom also has 11126 images (11130 less 4 non-compatible files). Then it has taken all the duplicates in the import.
Well, that was a fun journey, and I learned a lot about Aperture in the process. And yes, I know this is a Lightroom forum and maybe this info would be better on the Aperture forum, I will probably update it there too. But there is some tie back to the Lightroom importer to let people know whats happening internally. (I guess I should update my earlier post, where I assumed the Lightroom Aperture import plugin was using the FS only, it *could* be using the DB as well (and probably is, so it can get more metadata))
UPDATE: I jumped the gun a bit here, and based my conclusion on limited data. I have finished calculating the SHA-1 for all my missing versions. As well as comparing the counts in the GUI, to the counts in the FS. For the most part, where the GUI count is lower than the FS count, there is a clear duplicate (two files with the same SHA-1). However I have a few cases, where the FS count is higher, and all the images on disk have different SHA-1's! Picking one at random from my list; I have 3 images in the GUI called IMG_0843. On disk I have 4 files all with different SHA-1's. Viewing the actual images, 2 look the same, and the other 2 are different. So that matches 3 "unique" images.
Using Preview to inspect the exif data for the images which look the same:
image 1:
Pixel X Dimension: 1 536
Pixel Y Dimension: 2 048
image 2:
Pixel X Dimension: 3 264
Pixel Y Dimension: 2 448
(image 2 also has an extra Regions dictionary in the exit)
So! These two images are not identical (we knew that from the SHA-1), but they are similar (content is the same - resolution is the same) yet Aperture is treating these as duplicates it seems.. that's not good! does this mean that if I resize an image for the web, and keep both, that Aperture won't show me both? (at least it keeps both on disk though, I guess...)
The resolution of image 1, is suspiciously like the resolutions that were uploaded to (the original version of) iCloud Photos on the iPhone (one of the reasons I never used it). And indeed, the photo I chose at random here, is one that I have in an iCloud stored album (I have created a screensaver synced to iCloud, to use on my various Mac's and AppleTVs). Examining the data for the cloud version of the image, shows the resolution to be 1536x2048. The screensaver contains 22 images - I theorised earlier that these might be the missing images, perhaps I was right after all? Yet another avenue to explore.
Ok. I dumped the screensaver metadata, converted it to UTF-8, grabbed the version names, and sorted them (just like before). Then compared them to the output of the diff command. Yep! the 22 screensaver images match to 22 / 25 missing images. The other 3, appear to be exact duplicates (same SHA-1) of images already in the library. That almost solves it! So then, can I conclude that Lightroom has imported my iCloud Screensaver as normal photos of lower res? In which case, it would likely do it for any shared photo source in Aperture, and perhaps it would be wise to turn that feature off before importing to Lightroom?

Images imported from Aperture showing up 'washed out' in Lightroom.

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for