Library Setup Opinions Appreciated

OK, I'm finally breaking down and soliciting advice on the setup of my library ... because, frankly, the more I read the less certain I am about what to do.
I've just purchased 2.0 and want to make a decision here before moving from 1.5.
I'm running a MPB as the primary machine and the HD is maxed out. The Aperture library is at ## GB and I've got gig more photos in an iPhoto library that was never imported or referenced into Aperture. It currently resides on an external drive.
I'd like to keep the most-recent masters on my MBP and then move the other masters off to an external. I'd like to have all the previews on the MBP, so I at least know what's in the complete library and can at least e-mail the older photos.
I would then take the iPhoto library and reference that in to have "access" to those images, too.
Does that sound logical?
Thoughts on the best way to do that?
TIA

Marc,
It sounds very logical. There may be a few things you should consider before beginning this re-structure of your images.
Since you are going to use Aperture for complete management of all your images then I will suggest that you make a very simple structure for storing your images on your external harddisk. It could be like this:
-Aperture Images (main folder)
--2008 (sub folder)
---01
---02
-- 2007 (sub folder)
---01
---02
Furthermore, you may consider to rename your images, so that each of your images gets a unique identification. Unless you are a highspeed shooter, then this naming convention could work for you:
"Date Time" -> 2008-03-21 11-22-33
This way your images will be nicely sorted within the folders on your external harddisk and it will be easy to find specific image files if you need to.
No matter if you have 100.000 images in Aperture all this can be done with a few clicks of your mouse. Here we go:
1. Connect your external harddisk and create a main folder for your images (fx. Aperture Images).
2. Open Aperture.
3. In the Inspector window select "All Photos".
4. Be sure that all your stacks are open. Stacks -> Open All Stacks.
5. Select all images (Command+A).
6. Select File -> Relocate Masters.
7. In the Finder like window select the "Aperture Images" folder on your external harddisk.
8. Select Subfolder Format: from drop down menu: "Image Year/Month"
9. Select Name Format: from drop down menu: "Image Date/Time
Note you may want to change the naming format and you do that by selecting "Edit" and make any adjustments you want.
10. Press "Relocate Masters"
When Aperture has finished relocating all your images AND if you have selected to rename your master image files then I will suggest that you adjust all your Version Names to reflect your Master Names.
1. In the Inspector window select "All Photos".
2. Be sure that all your stacks are open. Stacks -> Open All Stacks.
3. Select all images (Command+A).
4. Select Metadata -> Batch Change.
5. Select Version Name Format: from the drop down menu: "Master Filename"
If the preset "Master Filename" is not available then press Edit and add a new preset. Pick and drop the "Master Filename" into the preset line and save it.
Be sure that "Time Adjustment" are set to None and "Add Metadata From" is set to None. Press OK.
That's it.
When you import new images into Aperture then it will be a good idea to initially store those new masters inthe Aperture library and at the time of import to rename those masters as well as version according to the naming conversion you select to use.
When your library starts to fill up again then relocate selected masters like this:
1. In the Inspector window select "All Photos" and setup at filter that shows only "managed" files.
2. Select the files you want to relocate.
3. File -> Relocate Masters
4. In the Finder like window select the folder "Aperture Images" on your external harddisk.
5. Select Subfolder Format: from the drop down menu: "Image Year/Month"
6. Select Name Format: from the drop down menu: "Version Name"
7. Press "Relocate Masters"
Done.
It will be a very good idea to make a backup of your Aperture library BEFORE you do this re-structuring. Any error made will multiply very quickly.
Hope it helps.
Karsten

Similar Messages

  • External itunes library setup format-usb vs firewire

    I was wondering what would be the best external setup for my itunes library.  I have a 1.5TB usb 2.0 drive and a 2.0TB firewire 800 drive setup in a raid 0 format.  Would it be better to set it up with the firewire drive by itself?  I am trying to find the fastest setup possible.

    raid0 don't make any sense at all
    if just 1 of the harddisks die all data is lost
    and both usb2 and firewire800 will be slower then the harddisks so
    the speed inc the raid0 gives will not be noticed by you because
    the Interface is slowing you down

  • External Hard Drives and Time Capsule Backup Setup Opinions

    Bottom line up front:
    If you had two 1.5 Terrabyte Western Digital MyBook drives and an AirPort 1.5 TB Time Capsule, and you wanted duplicate backups of time machine (automated) as well as additional storage space for Movies and Photo's...
    How would you use these three devices to accomplish this?
    Also, these two drives are eSata, FireWire (400?) and USB 2.0 cabable.
    Any input or advice would be greatly appreciated.
    Many thanks in advance for your replies!
    Commentary below:
    After having lost 14,000 pictures from a Terrabyte drive from iOmega crashing, it's time to get serious about my data backup.
    I currently have the 1.5 TerraByte Time Capsule on my network humming along nicely. (or so it appears)
    I'm nearing the usable space of my iMac's hard drive.
    Also, I'd like to have an 'additional' backup of my Time Machine. Is this possible? i.e. two backups at two different times on two different disks?
    What would this group recommend as a way to set them up?
    i.e. formating? Journaling? No Journaling? Partitions for the iMovie and iPhoto libraries?

    hwilke01 wrote:
    Hi there- thanks for taking the time to read an respond. I have 320 Gigs of data on my iMac hard drive that I want to backup.
    then you have plenty of space to do backups and then some. back up via TM to the Time capsule. make a separate clone backup to one of the externals. you can partition it if you like. don't back up just imovie and iphoto to that drive. back up everything. this way you'll have double backups of everything. i suggest you use superduper or CCCloner for the secondary backups. that will give you a bootable clone as your second backup. make sure that the external drive is formatted properly. the partition scheme should be GUID and the format mac os extended journaled. to format a drive you open disk utility. select the whole external drive (model, not name) and click on the partition tab. set the number of partitions to 1 (or whatever), click on options and set the partition scheme to GUID. set the format to mac os extended journaled (that's the default) and click "apply".
    I'd also like to have a separate partioned backup of my iPhoto and iMovie databases. Is there a preferred way of doing this?
    Thanks again

  • HTML SharePoint Document Library setup

    Hi,
    Following the steps from https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/office/dn592160.aspx to associate a document library with an entity I've managed to implement everything but stuck on the step in which I add the button and then need to select the createOrUploadDocument method.
    But the method does not exist, only the AddEdit, View and other usual methods associated for any entity.
    Everything else was done correctly (relationship with DB (not intrinsic), and the sharepoint entity is indeed a Document Library.
    Any help appriciated.

    You have to add the document collection to the screen first. See:
    Implementing Documents in a SharePoint 2013 Cloud Business App
    (LightSwitch)
    Unleash the Power - Get the LightSwitch 2013 HTML Client / SharePoint 2013 book
    http://LightSwitchHelpWebsite.com

  • AAC vs. Apple Lossless, Library Setup

    I'm just starting out with setting up my iTunes Library on a new hard drive (20GB), which I'm pretty much going to devote to music. Under the Preferences > Advanced Tab > Importing, we have the choice of encoding, and I'm not sure which would be better, AAC or Apple Lossless (?)
    I'm planning to import around 400 CDs, and I've got another internal hard drive (120GB), to which I could go. This brings up, another question. When I set the place for my iTunes library, should I put in one spot, say on this newer, bigger hard drive, or could I split it across two different drives? If I wanted to move the library, after it's filled, how much of a problem is that?

    M,
    The AAC format uses about 1MB per minute of song (5MB for a 5 minute song), where the Apple Lossless Encoder requires about 5MB per minute of song (25MB for the same 5 minute song). The AAC format is quite sufficient for ipod and computer speaker use. You may want to consider the larger Apple Lossless or even AIFF for music intended for playback on elaborate home stereo and theater use, but the AIFF format is the largest (about 10MB per minute of song, or 50MB for a 5 minute song). Be aware that Apple Lossless encoded songs will only play on iTunes, quicktime apps and certain ipod models (not all). What that means is that if you burn a CD in Apple Lossless, it will not play on your home CD player. The only way to use Apple Lossless on your home CD player will be through an airport express.
    I regret I do not know the answer to your second question regarding splitting a library over two hard drives.
    Hope this helped.
    Terry

  • MPB overkill for me ? opinions appreciated

    Hello all,
    I'm buying my first Mac soon and keep bouncing between the mid priced MB or the 2.16 MBP, here is what I will use it for, do you feel the MBP will be overkill ? Also - I want to start with 1GB of memory and add more only if needed.
    Browse the internet
    pay bill online
    print documents in openoffice - use their writer/calc
    email
    download pictures off my digital camera to view/print
    must take online classes with XP - most likely use bootcamp
    I do like the independant video card, and 3GB max memory in MBP, but --- does it sound like the MPB would be overkill ?
    All replies are greatly appreciated.
    Bob

    "No offense David but I think the Macbook Pro is a better build than the Macbook (what exactly do you mean by better built?)"
    None taken. I said "in some ways". Namely, I think the MacBook has a more solid feeling keyboard, better display, no catch to get messed up, fewer problems with case warpage, and no issues with the finish coming off. Note that I said "I think" meaning that it's just MHO. Feel free to differ. But I have both the MacBook and the MBP in my house and I am very impressed with the MacBook's overall quality, esp. considering the price. For this reason, I have no reservations about recommending it to someone with the needs expressed by the OP.

  • Software Opinions Appreciated

    Based on the following, I really could use some opinions and input to help me make a sw purchase decision.
    I have a couple thousand of images. All these images have been purchased online. The images have been separated into 2 folders... one is a CC'd Images folder and the other is a Purchased Images folder. The images are divided accordingly whereas the CC'd Images have been sent out to printers, color corrected and returned as CMYK images, and the Purchased Images have had nothing done to them after the online download and sit as RGB files.
    MANY keywords have been assigned to every image in both folders. We need to simply be able to search and retrieve images for design - we do not (for the most part) do our own color corrections. I have been asked to research Lightroom, Bridge (which we currently use) and Aperture, do some comparisons. Again, we are only going to utilize the program for search, retrieve and image cataloguing. I might add that our scriptor wants to database all keywords and metadata, so whichever must be compatible with applescript.
    Anyone have opinions to share on those three?

    Hi Eric,
    There may be several keywords we would use as well as labeling and rating, but things like dates and orientation or actual photo information like res or colors wouldn't apply so much.
    For instance, we may be offering a new 3 star fund and wish to target an audience of middle age white americans living on the East Coast for retirement investment. Our search may be one or all of the following: label: 3 star, middle age, white, american(s), 30-50 years, 401k, retirement... and the list can go on.
    I am in the process of organizing and minimizing the keywords.

  • SAP Library setup

    Hi Everybody,
    I want to install the latest SAP Library in my laptop(personal).
    Please help me to find the information regarding the installation file of the SAP Library documentation which contains the documentation about the NW.
    Thank you very much.
    Kind regards,
    Ramesh.

    hi,
    if you want the actual help sources among the transactions (context sensetive)
    you have to make:
    call transaction SR13:
    switch to tab PlainHTMLHTTP:
    for online access:
    make entries like:
    docu_en - WN32 - IWBHELP - help.sap.com - saphelp_nw2004s/helpdata - EN - default=yes
    for offline access:
    change help.sap.com - saphelp_nw2004s/helpdata
    to to the corresponding path on your laptop:

  • Document Library setup

    Is anyone using the Groupwise library to access their main Novell file share instead of a drive mapping?

    jasont wrote:
    >
    > Is anyone using the Groupwise library to access their main Novell file
    > share instead of a drive mapping?
    Can't be done. However, who knows what sort of integrations Novell
    might be working on with their new FILR product.
    Novell Knowledge Partner
    Enhancement Requests: http://www.novell.com/rms

  • MUVO^2: Media Library setup & Playlist questi

    I just purchased and received a MUVO^2 which is my first MP3 player. I have been using Windows Media Player to manage my music collection. The Creative Mediasource software that came with the MUVO^2 had no instructions besides the online ones. I dragged and dropped the folders of music that I wanted on my player and that worked fine. Now I'm trying to manage the playlist function and I don't think I'm doing it right. I created a playlist in the organizer from files already on the player. When I moved the playlist to the player, it seemed to copy all the songs to the playlist folder as well. Doesn't it just need to point to the location of each song in the playlist and not duplicate the file? 4GB is good size but it isn't limitless and I will be out of room very shortly if each custom playlist duplicates files already on the player. Is there a better way I could've set my player up? Easer way to create playlists and not duplicate files?
    Thanks.

    Gerrit,
    The playlist feature on the MuVo 2 works like this:
    ) If you create the playlist in MediaSource and transfer it, the songs on it will be transferred with it. This can duplicate tracks.
    2) You can create playlists on the player by selecting it as the source and creating them on the player. This allows you to make them with songs that are on the player.
    Jeremy

  • Opinions appreciated - new vs. current production

    Hello all,
    I'm a soon to be new Mac user, I was bit by the Mac bug late 2005 when a co-worker had is 17" Powerbook at work. Since then I have been reading/watching hardware, news, getting educated, visiting my local Apple store, etc.....
    Now ---- I'm financially ready for a 15" MBP. But since I don't know Apple the way many of you do, I was wondering if you can share your experiences, on the following -------
    Is it best to buy hardware that is in production and got any bugs worked out, or safe to buy something new. Say if the MBP may be re-designed with new hardware in the next few months, would that be a safe bet or better with the current MBP production.
    Also software ---- how is new software, better to use what is currently out, are there growing pains ?
    I'm hope this does not get sensored, as I will buy hardware no matter what, but just wondering what the safest route is - best to buy what is currently out or safe to wait and get the latest.
    I'm not in dire need for a notebook today, I can easily wait a few more months if many feel it's safe to get the latest technology.
    Thanks,
    Bob

    With any hardware you buy at anytime, there is a risk you might get a lemon, but the risk is so small, that you likely won't. Given the fact that notebooks do have a tendency to break down more often I recommend at least getting AppleCare before your year is out, and don't wait till the the 11th month to get it either as it may not process in time. Contrary to popular belief there is no more risk from a Rev A than there is from the end of a line at getting a problem. I've had both. This board is primarily a problem solving board, so you will get a bias towards to the people who have had problems. Those who haven't rarely post.
    Another truth about buying Macs, is that no Mac has thus far come with the ability to boot an older operating system than the discs which came with it. Thus if you wait until Leopard is released, you'll wait until the software has caught up with Leopard compatibility. Tiger having been out now for a year and a half you'll find the majority of good Mac titles as Tiger compatible. Even better, you'll find quite a few titles support Universal, which means they are fully native to the MacBook Pro. Rosetta titles aren't as much, and Mac OS 9 titles won't work at all. I've written a FAQ* on migrating to Mac OS X which includes resources for compatible software and hardware:
    http://www.macmaps.com/macosxnative.html
    It is anyone's speculation as far as what Leopard will bring since Apple is very secretive about its release so far. All anyone knows is on http://www.apple.com/macosx/
    * Links to my page may give me compensation.

  • To upgrade or not - opinions appreciated

    Hello all,
    I purchased my first Mac in March 2007, it came with Tigersand I'm still using Tiger 10.4.11 It's solid as a rock, never problems with the OS or Macbook Pro. I passed up the upgrade to Leopard because I was not on Tiger very long and thought - why upgrade ?
    Now Snow Leopard is out - Tiger is still supported... The main reason why I was going to upgrade is because it's a 64 Bit OS - run quicker, and I will upgrade my memory for the 1GB I have to 4GB.
    I'm not a "power user", I use the Mac for email, heavy calendar usage for appointments, Internet, Open Office, I use Parallels, and I have a Me account to sync my Macbook Pro with my I-Phone.
    Do you recommend upgrading - or wait until Apple stops support on Tiger ?
    Also ---- I read ---- where I can use the "upgrade" version, even though I have Tiger, it's an "honor" system - anybody try this on Tiger ?
    Thanks,
    Bob

    First, I agree with Tom Gewecke that the performance improvement in Snow Leopard are very noticeable -- at least for me, this has been true on each of the Macs I have upgraded from Leopard to Snow Leopard. However, I have not upgraded a Mac that supports Tiger to Snow Leopard, so keep that in mind.
    Perhaps more importantly, I can't live without the new features of Leopard vs. Tiger now that I have gotten used to using them -- they increase my performance dramatically, & that is where I think the big gains are. Snow Leopard adds a few new features to the OS too, & I'm starting to appreciate them as well. (For instance, I regularly use the new built in text substitution feature to automatically expand unique abbreviations into whole words or phrases -- I never have to type out "Snow Leopard" or "Disk Utility" in these forums but instead just type "@SL" or "@DU" & they are automatically expanded for me.) You mention that you are a heavy calendar user, so you might find Snow Leopard's improved support for WebDAV in iCal useful -- since I run a local WebDAV server for use with iCal, I noticed this immediately.
    Secondly, it is not true that there are only a few 64 bit apps available. Almost all the bundled apps that come with Snow Leopard like Safari & especially Finder are both 64 & 32 bit capable. Since you indicate you have a Core Two Duo CPU in your Mac, Snow Leopard will load the 64 bit code & you should see a substantial increase in responsiveness for these familiar apps. However, note that you do not need to upgrade to Snow Leopard to use 4 GB of RAM -- both Tiger & Leopard support that as well. The difference is that Snow Leopard can support more than 2 GB +per application+, but you will rarely if ever need that much for any common app you are likely to run.
    Thirdly, I would never advise anyone to violate anybody's software license agreements; however, do not confuse Apple's marketing material with the Snow Leopard EULA. The $29 U.S. retail product is not an "upgrade" version & in fact is exactly like (& comes with exactly the same EULA) as the OS product in the Box Set, which is just 3 products boxed together & sold at a modest discount vs. the price of each item bought separately. Some users don't seem to understand that because of this, if Tiger users were violating the EULA by using the $29 version, they would be doing the same by using the same Snow Leopard disc with the same EULA in the Box Set. Obviously, this is not true.
    Part of the confusion about this is because there is an "upgrade" product, but it is not sold at retail & is clearly marked as such. Just make sure you avoid it & buy a retail Snow Leopard product & this will not apply to you.
    So, my answer to the upgrade or not question is a resounding "yes!" Just be sure to buy an appropriate Snow Leopard product & to back up at least your user files before applying it. (Cloning the startup drive is better but not absolutely necessary.) Also be prepared to update third party apps, since some may need revision to work with Snow Leopard, & try to avoid any hacks or "enhancers" to the OS as much as possible, since these things are almost always OS version specific & can cause all sorts of problems when the OS changes.

  • Delete songs from iTunes Library/Hard Drive directly from iTunes

    I have my library setup so that all the music is added to the music folder and then I add to the library manually in iTunes.  I would like to go through and delete some songs from my library but I would also like them to be deleted from hard drive.  Typically I will left click the song, click show in finder, cmd-delete in finder, and then cmd-delete in iTunes.  Since I need to do this for 100s of songs in my library, it would be nice if I could directly delete from the hard drive and library inside iTunes.  If anyone knows of any features, scripts, or what have you that I could do this, it would be greatly appreciated.  Thanks for your help!
    OS X 10.8.2 and iTunes 11

    First you need to make sure that the music files you want to delete are in the itunes music folder (you can relocate this in the advanced section of iTunes preferences). If the files are in a different folder, deleting them will only remove them from the itunes library, but not delete the files from the hard drive.
    Open itunes and select the songs you want to delete.
    If you are looking at them in an iTunes playlist, then hold the option key and press the delete key.
    If you are looking at them in the iTunes library, just press the delete key.
    You should get a popup asking if you want to delete the song(s) from your iTunes library. If they are songs purchased from the iTunes Store, you might also get a question about deleting them from iCloud. Select delete song and you should then get another popup asking if you want to move the selected song(s) to the trash. Select delete song. Once you empty the trash they should no longer be in the finder or the iTunes library.
    Hope this helps. I just tested it out with OS X 10.8.2 and iTunes 11.0

  • Aperture: Migration to new Mac (Referenced Library)

    Apologies if this has been covered before but I've used numerous searches and don't seem to be hitting the right combination of terms to bring up what I want.
    I currently have a flagging 2007 MacBook (OS 10.6.8; 2.16 GHz, 2MB RAM and only 7GB free of the 160 GB HDD). Aperture is struggling.  Time to upgrade.
    My Aperture Library is currently on the Mac and is 'Managed'.  I have contemplated moving the 50GB or so of Aperture Library to an external HDD and going 'Referenced', mainly because I still have some images I need to work on (even though Aperture is for obvious reasons ponderously slow with frequent SBOD on this machine) until I decide what to upgrade to (Macbook 15" or iMac with more bangs for the buck) and wait for the latest refresh of the line that I choose.
    Upon getting the new machine I plan to use the Migration Assistant to help with app/doc/settings transfer but what about Aperture?  I am not sure if it's best to:
    1) Get the new Mac now, migrate everything across (including Aperture and its Managed library) THEN move the Aperture library off the internal HDD to an external and going Referenced, or;
    2) Go Referenced now.  In which case when I eventually do then migrate Aperture to the new machine will it automatically 'point' to the correct location of the external HDD referenced library when what is left of Aperture copies across or is there and easier (or indeed more convoluted) process I will have to go through if I switch to Rferenced before getting the new Mac and migrating? 
    Accept of course with the new Mac the HDD will be so much bigger so there may actually be no need to go Referenced, at least yet.  Try as I might, save for HDD space I don't see that many benefits to Referenced
    On the new Mac front, while I like laptops, I find that the iPad and this Mac do most of what I want (e.g. surfing, mailing and running the odd few apps).  While a new MBP would be appreciated part of me still thinks that the more bang for the buck iMac is the better investment.  The only thing I MAY need to do is upload the occasional photo shoot on the move (by creating a new project) which, if stripped back to basics, this Mac miight still be OK for until I get back home and move the project to the iMac, reloacting to the masters to the referenced external HDD after.
    Any help appreciated.

    Hi,
    some consederations you may want to keep in mind. There is no definitive answer for the perfect library setup - it will depend on the size of your Aperture Library,  the amount of available disk space, on your workflow, and on your backup strategy.
    I currently have a flagging 2007 MacBook (OS 10.6.8; 2.16 GHz, 2MB RAM and only 7GB free of the 160 GB HDD). Aperture is struggling.  Time to upgrade.
    On that machine you really need to relocate your master image files to an external drive or free disk space in a different way. With only for 4% of empty space on the system drive, even a newer Mac will be very slow. Try to keep 20% to 30% of your system volume free.
    My Aperture Library is currently on the Mac and is 'Managed'.  I have contemplated moving the 50GB or so of Aperture Library to an external HDD and going 'Referenced', mainly because I still have some images I need to work on (even though Aperture is for obvious reasons ponderously slow with frequent SBOD on this machine) until I decide what to upgrade to (Macbook 15" or iMac with more bangs for the buck) and wait for the latest refresh of the line that I choose.
    For best performance the Aperture library should reside on your fastest drive, usually the System drive. If you want to go referenced, relocate the masters, but keep the library on the internal drive. Only if you have a very fast connection to your second drive, or two internal drives, it may be advantegous to move the whole library to the other volume.
    Managed, referenced, or mixed?
    Managed: A managed library is easier to handle, as long as it is reasonably small. With 50 GB Aperture Library you can continue with a managed library, as soon as you have more disk space available. The advantage of "Managed" is that you do not have to keep track of your masters on your own, and that they will be included in the vaults. You will need an incremental backup scheme that looks inside the library package however - like Time Machine, otherwise you will need to backup the whole library over and over again, even if you only changed one single image.
    Referenced: If your Library gets larger, and you have several hundreds of GB, then a managed library becomes a nuisance and it is time to go referenced. Very large libraries are difficult to move or copy  between disks; It will be wasteful to have several vaults, for each vault will include the same masters over and over again.
    Mixed: The Aperture library on the system drive, most of the masters on an external (or second internal) volume. This setup is perfect for laptops with limited space on the internal drive, but it will require that you have a well ordered strategy where to keep your masters, since Aperture will not manage them for you. There are two pitfalls to avoid: Accidentally deleting or modifying masters from the Finder, or accidentally relocating them to a place where you store other images that are not your masters. When you have several similar images in the same folder, it can be very hard to tell which image is the master that you need to keep and which is a redundant copy.
    The "mixed" setup is great, if you are on the road (bt will put mre strain on your memory or master management skills)- you still have your Aperture library with you and the master image files you are currently working on, but not the bulk of your masters. If you create high quality previews, you probably even will not notice, that most of your master image files are still at home.
    Upon getting the new machine I plan to use the Migration Assistant to help with app/doc/settings transfer but what about Aperture?  I am not sure if it's best to:
    1) Get the new Mac now, migrate everything across (including Aperture and its Managed library) THEN move the Aperture library off the internal HDD to an external and going Referenced, or;
    2) Go Referenced now.  In which case when I eventually do then migrate Aperture to the new machine will it automatically 'point' to the correct location of the external HDD referenced library when what is left of Aperture copies across or is there and easier (or indeed more convoluted) process I will have to go through if I switch to Rferenced before getting the new Mac and migrating?
    Accept of course with the new Mac the HDD will be so much bigger so there may actually be no need to go Referenced, at least yet.  Try as I might, save for HDD space I don't see that many benefits to Referenced
    From my experience, it is less troublesome to migrate a managed library with Migration Assistant. If parts of your Library are referenced, and you migrate the referenced masters as well, you may need to reconnect them, unless you only have to plug in the volume with referenced masters. Then Aperture should reference them correctly without extra trouble.
    Try as I might, save for HDD space I don't see that many benefits to Referenced
    Then stick to the managed setup until your library really becomes huge.
    On the new Mac front, while I like laptops, I find that the iPad and this Mac do most of what I want (e.g. surfing, mailing and running the odd few apps).  While a new MBP would be appreciated part of me still thinks that the more bang for the buck iMac is the better investment.  The only thing I MAY need to do is upload the occasional photo shoot on the move (by creating a new project) which, if stripped back to basics, this Mac miight still be OK for until I get back home and move the project to the iMac, reloacting to the masters to the referenced external HDD after.
    Any help appreciated.
    I am still waiting for my iPad to be delivered - right now I take a MBP on the road. For the new shoots I create a new Aperture library, do most of the tagging while I still remember how the images have been taken, and when back home I import the new project into my main library.
    Reagrds
    Léonie

  • Comments needed on my library structure

    Please forgive my aperture ignorance but..
    here is a screen shot of my library in aperture.
    http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2552/41102236340658b189e6o.jpg
    I started off using iphoto and imported everything into aperture.
    I think they are managed files (i.e. actually in aperture)
    I back photos up onto two external drives using time machine and vaults.
    wrt new imports, they come into the Blue "iphoto library" folder as a new project, then i move them into the blue "Events" folder where all my other events/photos are.
    Is this a bad way to do things? What are it's pitfalls and can or should i do anything about it?
    Help and opinions appreciated.

    A couple of things (but remember there are many ways to manage your library)
    - I had a number of iPhoto libraries. I keep them intact (either on my machine or on a server) and just added them to Aperture as referenced files only. Then easy to backup the iPhoto libraries only once since they do not change over time.
    - when you import from your card into aperture, just before you click the Import button just click down in your library somewhere other than under the iPhoto library and then click New Project. You can add folders etc and organize your projects however you want.

Maybe you are looking for