Managed or referenced images?

Hi all,
since I started to use Aperture I preferred to do not import the master files in the Aperture library, but just today I thought: which is the best solution in terms of hard disk volume and speed?
If I decided to copy all the master files in the Aperture library what would happen to the existing metadata and adjustment in Aperture library?
Will they be deleted or not?
Thanks for your attention!
Simone

Simone76 wrote:which is the best solution in terms of hard disk volume and speed?
Trying to keep Master originals on a single drive usually sooner or later overfills the drive.
Aperture consists of a Library that runs the show and remembers edits but (with Referenced Masters) does not actually hold the large Master images themselves. That way even a laptop drive can hold an Aperture Library of 100,000 images by referencing Master images that live on external drives. To store Master images by "Reference" when you go to import, on the right hand side of the import window you must select "Store files in their current location."
If you do not actively select "Store files in their current location" Master images will be stored in the Aperture Library and the Aperture Library typically will become very, very large. This second method is called Managed Masters and works just fine - - until one runs out of space on the Library hard drive.
If I decided to copy all the master files in the Aperture library what would happen to the existing metadata and adjustment in Aperture library?
Will they be deleted or not?
Properly done it is possible to relocate Masters without losing data or adjustments.
-Allen Wicks

Similar Messages

  • How can I tell whether a project has managed or referenced images

    Hi all,
    Another noob question.
    I started working with Aperture and imported about 20GB of photos from my hard drive into one big project. But I can't remember whether I imported them as managed or referenced images. I want to clean up my drive and delete one set of these if they're duplicates.
    Is there an easy way to determing if the images in the Library are managed or referenced? I've looked all over for an answer, but can't find one.
    Thank you!

    The "badges" in the lower right corner of each image will tell you if the image is a "referenced" image.
    See this page for an explanation of the badges: http://documentation.apple.com/en/aperture/usermanual/index.html#chapter=11%26se ction=9%26tasks=true
    The badge icon will either be a small rectangle (which represents your photo) with an arrow (indicating that the real photo is elsewhere -- aka "referenced", or it will the rectangle will have a red slash through it, meaning it's a referenced image but the master is currently offline.
    There's a third possible icon... which is yellow warning triangle (has a "!" in it) with the arrow. This means the referenced master was not found (e.g. the Mac can find the filesystem & folder, but your image is not there.) This means someone decided to delete or move images in the filesystem -- bypassing Aperture.
    On a related note... it is possible to change your mind about whether you want images to be "referenced" vs. "managed". The "Aperture" -> "File" -> "Relocate Master..." will allow you to pick a folder on the hard drive and Aperture will copy the masters to that location -- converting a "managed" image into a "referenced" image. The "Aperture" -> "File" -> "Consolidate Master..." will do the opposite... it will convert a referenced image to a managed image, but does offer the choice of whether the "copy" vs. "move" (e.g. do you want to leave a copy of the image out in the filesystem which is no longer associated with Aperture vs. have the only copy of the master living inside the Aperture library.)
    Message was edited by: Tim Campbell1

  • Managed vs referenced images conundrum

    Hello all,
    I have started using the Aperture 3 trial for about a week and my head is already swimming over the choices to make over managed vs. referenced images. I've read the manual, the "exploring" doc and several posts with respect to this topic and sometimes feel like I'm off to the races, only to then get stuck in the mud. I'm guessing that my case is not all that unusual and hope that someone who has gone down this road can offer up the solution that worked for them and why. I've worked with Aperture on a small set of photos and would not like to import the rest to use it in earnest. Prior to Aperture, I imported about 7000 photos using the camera manufacturer's software, Canon Image Browser, then also Nikon ViewNX. I previously "organized" these by creating a separate folder for each full CF card, which I named with the camera model and the date range, eg. S70-100907-110112. Once I had enough, I burned a CD as backup.
    I have a copy of this organization on my laptop, my desktop and the backup CDs, so for some reason I feel slightly attached to it, though it does not provide much information. For this reason and to more easily be able to see which files I have or have not imported into Aperture (somewhat worried I'll leave something behind), I thought I would use referenced images. I also thought referenced images would allow me to utilize my stack of old 20 - 80 GB hard drives as on & off site backups. I also have a 1 TB OWC external drive that I bought for this purpose and possibly Time Machine (yet another issue to plan out). While copying over the files from the Nikon, I realized that the camera was re-using file names after each upload emptied the CF card. Nikon ViewNX creates a new folder for each upload, so there's no conflict, but I think Aperture may see them as duplicates. I have since asked the camera to use persistent serial numbers for naming files.
    I intend to rate all my images, delete the bad ones, then keyword and improve the good ones. Can anyone who has waded through this type of problem share how they came to whatever scheme worked for them?
    Thanks,
    Scott

    3) How to partition external disks to use with vaults and Time Machine.
    With Disk Utility
    I know you could not tell from the way I worded it, but I want to know how much of the 1 TB external disk to partition for Time Machine, how much for Aperture Vaults. I know to use Disk Utility for partitioning disks.
    A Vault for a Managed Library is a complete back up of the Library. A Vault for a Referenced Library is not much of a back up as you also need a back of the referenced files. Actual saved disk space? Zero.
    I was not suggesting that referenced masters saved any space, just that it made it easier to back up those masters in whatever sized chunks one chooses. I believe that a vault cannot be spread across multiple disks, right? Assuming that is the case, then a large library of managed masters will require a single large partition for the vault. With referenced masters, you can save one set of files/folders to one disk, another set to another disk. One rebuttal to this is that my collection of 20 to 80 GB drives can still be used for archives since the Masters can be read from the Terminal, and therefore backed up using rsync.
    You can only have one Library open at a times. So, go to search for something and sure as eggs it'll be in the other one... It's also unnecessary. You can do a simple keyword to separate the two kinds: 'Snap' and 'Art'. Now you can restrict your searches to either.
    A good point. Also importing files to 2 different libraries becomes a huge hassle. Do I put it in the Art or the Snap library? Did I already? Is it in both? Did I miss it?
    I think one of the best arguments I came up with for managed masters is related to vault maintenance. Deleting bad pictures is a big part of organization. If you delete a managed master, that delete will be carried into subsequent vault backups. If you delete a referenced master, you will need to manually carry that delete forward into your self-maintained backups. This is taken care of if you use rsync with the --delete option, but most people don't use rsync.
    Yes, I'm over-thinking it, probably because of the assumption that once it is done, it's a pain to change.
    Thanks,
    Scott

  • Organize as "managed" or "referenced"?

    I am an aperture newbie. I have 78 gb pictures "organized" in approx 50 folders stored in "Pictures" folder on my new 300 gb iMac harddrive. I have a 320 gb external drive that I manually backup using TM.
    I would like to be able to do 2 things:
    find a picture quickly, and
    use photoshop to alter selected pictures
    After reading many posts, I still don't know whether to import my pictures as managed images or leave them in my original folder and reference them.
    Any suggestions? Thanks

    On a laptop or on an iMac you probably do want to manage by Referencing image Masters. Hard drives slow as they fill, so at some point - perhaps immediately - you will want your Masters on one or more external Firewire 800 hard drives. If your external is USB-2 only, that is not good for Masters (but ok for backup) because USB is slow on Macs. OWC <http://www.owcomputing.com/> has good Firewire800 solutions.
    With Referenced Masters, simply Finder-copy each new batch of images to the external hard drive and eject the camera card. Then (after backup of images) from within Aperture Import the images by Reference (when you go to import, on the right hand side of the import window select "Store files in their current location").
    Existing images on your hard drive can similarly be imported selecting "Store files in their current location" however personally I would move the originals to an external drive prior to importing into Aperture because trying to keep originals on the single iMac or laptop internal drive will sooner or later overfill the drive.
    During the import process is also a good time to assign all manner of keywords, so take some time in advance thinking about keywording.
    A good rule of thumb is not to fill any drive more than 70%, and for best speed keep important drives no more than 50% full.
    Good luck!
    -Allen Wicks

  • Vault restoration with referenced images - SEEKING HELP

    Long story short: I have, had, a library that contained both managed and referenced images. 2 vaults set up for managed images, RAID system set up for referenced images.
    Rebuilt library the other day because Aperture was moving kinda slowly. Followed the typical protocol of backing up first then rebuilding and to later back up again. In the middle of rebuilding, Aperture froze (Activity Monitor said Aperture was using only .50% of resources) and hung there for over 8 hours. Force quite wouldn't work. Had to hard restart.
    Problems surface with the primary library. Decide to restore from recently backed up vault. Worked for only 13 projects but hung/froze again on the 14th project for another 8 hours.
    Freaking out that my redundant back up system completely doesn't work, I put the managed projects back together in a new library by going into "show contents" of the vault and importing projects individually. This took another day of work. Managed projects are working just fine now and are backed up once again.
    Referenced projects will not import at all. I can not reconnect them to their referenced images in any reasonable manor. The only way I've figured out how to do this is by hand, placing the referenced master image file into the "show package" content file of the said image. This is a daunting task for the 7 weddings of 700-1000 image each. Even if I do this, there is no guarantee that the project will import with out issue.
    Anyone know how to do this? Does anyone know what happened here? Any thoughts would be greatly helpful.
    Thanks in advance,
    cd
    Mac Pro 2x2.66GHz, 4 GB RAM, duel HD displays   Mac OS X (10.4.10)   MacBook Pro 17" 2.33 GHz 3 GB RAM

    Andreas Yankopolus wrote:
    Dudley,
    I'm experiencing the same problem on my MacBook Pro: Aperture will periodically show all of my reference masters as being disconnected. They're on the laptop's internal HD, which is the only one connected to it. Quitting and restarting Aperture usually reconnects them temporarily.
    My main piece of advice is to not install Leopard. It's been nothing but trouble for me, my wife, and a friend that's done so. If there was an easy way to drop back to 10.4.11, I'd do so in a heartbeat.
    Hi, Andreas
    I think there is something else going on. (would like to know what it is). We've been on Leopard/Aperture combo since day one and running without any hickups on PPC, Intels and Laptops.
    Is there anything that seems to trigger this disconnect?
    victor

  • Managing backup systems for referenced image masters

    The manual says:
    +Aperture doesn’t back up the masters of referenced images located outside the Aperture library. *You must maintain your own backup system of referenced image masters.* Aperture does back up the versions, previews, and metadata information associated with referenced images, but not the masters themselves.+ (my bolding)
    So, somehow, I ended up with some images (older, it seems) in the vault but other images (newer) as referenced. An incomplete back up to the vault. I understand how I can move those referenced to the Vault but:
    1) is there a fast way to find and select all the referenced masters for this move? Like a menu item or a button in a dialog box that says "Find and move all referenced Masters to the vault"? Simple eh?
    2) why does Apple not allow you to keep referenced Masters out of the vault but a copy of the Master backed up in it? When it goes to reinstall (hopefully never!), it can just reinstall the whole vault in Aperture - if need be. I could live with this especially if it makes backing up all my Masters easy and recovering all of them assured.
    3) Since #2 is not possible for now - how do people back up referenced files and why do you do referenced over Vaulted or a combination of the two (which is what I have but, not knowing I was doing this)? I would like to be able to look at images on my MacBook Pro but really keep the bulk of the images and editing on a MacPro.
    4) when I imported iPhoto to Aperture, did they all come in as vault Masters or referenced?

    Joseph Coates wrote:
    ...when I imported iPhoto to Aperture, did they all come in as vault Masters or referenced?
    Images are imported according to settings you select. Probably you initially imported using a Managed-Images Library. To import by Reference from within Aperture, import images from the hard drive folder into Aperture selecting "Store files in their current location."
    ...how do people back up referenced files
    Using any normal data backup method. I like to simply manually Finder-copy to external hard drives.
    and why do you do referenced over Vaulted or a combination of the two (which is what I have but, not knowing I was doing this)?
    Actually the correct syntax is Referenced over Managed. Vault refers to one type of backup routine that does include Managed Masters.
    The primary problem with using a Managed-Masters Library instead of a Referenced-Masters Library is that for almost all modern digital photogs using Aperture their quantity of image files will grow quickly, rapidly taking more and more space on a single internal hard drive if Managed-Masters keeps all image files on a single internal hard drive.
    Hard drives slow as they fill, so unless a multi-drive SATA/eSATA array is used a Managed-Library drive will sooner or later lose performance. Use of Referenced-Masters allows the Library to forever stay small enough not to overfill a single drive.
    Personally I consider separate backup of Masters outside Aperture's Vault protocol a benefit, not a negative.
    Using a Managed-Masters Library works even for for laptop/iMac owners if completed Projects with Masters are constantly purged from Aperture but that is inappropriate workflow for most photogs, and the benefits of using a Managed-Masters workflow are minimal.
    I would like to be able to look at images on my MacBook Pro but really keep the bulk of the images and editing on a MacPro.
    Although various user workarounds exist, the issue of synching your laptop Library with your desktop Library has not (yet) been addressed by Apple. IMO Apple's failure (still) to address this key issue is a travesty; Apple's single-user Filemaker has had that capability since the 1980's.
    I suggest going to "Provide Aperture Feedback" under the Aperture menu and requesting that Apple provide single-user synch capabilities for two Libraries (such as the laptop/desktop setups that you and I both have). Note that it is important to specify single-user, two-Libraries, because multi-user scenarios are entirely different solutions that - unlike single user solutions - are usually very complex and expensive.
    -Allen Wicks

  • Referenced Images Say They are Referenced But Are Not.

    Is anyone having the following problem? I have about 4500 images that were Imported into Aperture as Referenced. Have been working with them over the past month. Tried making a Web Journal recently and after exporting the pages, many of the images did not show up in the web pages although the caption did. I went back to my Album and went through the images. The ones that didn't show up in the web pages were very strange looking within the Album. As a thumbnail they looked fine but when I put the loupe on them at 100% it was obvious that they were some sort of small jpeg or something due to lots of jaggies and poor quality. Even though the Reference icon was supposedly fine, telling me it was online since it did not have a yellow warning label, for some reason Aperture was not accessing the original RAW file.
    I now have hundreds of images I have to try and find in the Album that say they are referenced but really are not.
    Prior to this web journal problem showing up Aperture had been showing me many of these files were not online even though the drive was definitely hooked to the computer and I was able to go to the same images via the Finder and actually see that they were there. One minute the overall project registered images offline, I would click on an Album and they would register as Online. Then switch back to the Project and amazingly they register as online. Back down to the Album and it tells me they are off line. Back and forth from project to album and a different icon 50% of the time. I knew something was up.
    I eventually tracked down many of the images that said they were online but by reviewing them it was obvious they were not due to the jaggies I mentioned above. When I would find one like this I went to Manage Referenced Photos and reconnected the image even though it's telling me it is already connected. After doing this to many of the images I reproduced the web pages and they then showed up. I nearly had all the images showing up except for one that I must have missed in reconnecting so I went back to do just that. As I scrolled through the Album and the Web Journal, many of the thumbnails would turn gray and then finally an image would show up. This happened to dozens of images. I found the one that had not shown up in the last export of the web pages, reconnected it (even though it said it was connected) and then exported the web pages again. Unfortunately I was back to square one. Once again dozens of images were now not showing up in the export of the web pages again.
    I just can't believe how buggy 1.5.2 seems to be. I thought maybe it was something to do with Repairing Permissions so I went and did all of that. Still no luck! Anyone else experience anything like this? I'm about ready to give up on this software.

    Victor,
    Yes larger hard drives will help but the day they are large enough to fit in a laptop with a professional photographers entire collection is a long way off and may never happen. There is no reason why Referenced files needs to be so difficult. Two quality programs that handled it with ease was RAW Shooter (now gone having been bought by Adobe) and Photo Mechanic which is superb for some tasks. For Aperture to have this many issues with referencing images is unacceptable and the market place will bear this out. I've quite using the program all together and have gone back to Photo Mechanic combined with IView and Photoshop. There's still room for an Aperture like product but Apple better get moving to make it work better. Microsoft just announced some of the upcoming IView capabilities that will be available next year. Adobe has CS3 and Lightrooom and I'm guessing Photo Mechanic isn't resting on it's heels. I really, really wanted to like Aperture and I worked with it day in and day out for nearly two months. As time went on the Referenced files just kept getting more and more unstable and I lost a ton of work due to it no longer being able to see some of those files.
    MacBook Pro Mac OS X (10.4.7)
    MacBook Pro Mac OS X (10.4.7)
    MacBook Pro Mac OS X (10.4.7)

  • IPhoto library - managed or referenced

    Hi,
    I am new to OS X and I am still looking for the best way to use build-in applications before I start looking elsewhere. Next up: photos.
    I do have substantial library of images from different sources. Generally, I like sorting and managing them myself. In the past (Windows era) I used picasa to quickly view, sort, and delete photos and Photoshop to edit them. So I ran a quick test:
    1. copy smaller directory of images to my Mac (/Users/user/Pictures/folder_1)
    2. import folder to iPhoto
    3. View
    It looked OK so I tried the second. Soon I realized, that all images are duplicated in the iPhoto folder. That brought me here where I learnt about "managed" and "referenced" libraries. It seems, that folks here argue against using "referenced" approached. I think by now I sort see the differences, but I am not sure if I really understand the consequences. So, what would experts here recommend if I'd like to be able to do following:
    1. picture organization (in iPhoto and on the hard drive)
    2. the hard drive organization comes from my current back-up practices (I use rsync):
         a. copy/update folders to home file server
         b. burn one or more folders to DVD
         c. file server makes additional copy to different HD (sort of like mirroring but not quite in real time)
    3. make sure I keep originals (jpeg, tiffs, and most often raw files)
    4. in future I might want to switch to Lightroom or Aperture to catalog/organize images
    What bugs me about "managed" approach that I have no control over HD organization, which might be ok, if everything else works.
    So to my outstanding questions:
    =======================
    I. I am not sure how to properly back-up my images. Is there a way in iPhoto to back up everything? Or in another words, what would be a proper way to back up images from iPhoto?
    II. What can I do when I run out of disk space while using managed library?
    III. What will happen when I move image folder while using referenced library? Will all the links/pointers be updated?
    IV. Can I simply delete iPhoto's "library folder" and start from scratch? I could also try (which I did not) to make a new library ...
    V. Can one convert managed iPhoto library to Lightroom/Aperture while maintain corrections, keywords, tags, etc?
    I do realize that this has tons of information and questions, but I feel this is quite convoluted problem. I'd rather spend some time in the beginning to set it up correctly rather than pulling my hair later on.
    Thanks for your advice.
    Cheers, R>

    First off, you need to make a clear distinction in your head between your photos and the files that contain them. Best way to explain this: The Beatles wrote a song called 'Let It Be'. They didn't write an mp3 called that. Tht mp3 is just a container for the song. So too that Jpeg, Tiff or whatever is just a container for the Photograph.
    iPhoto is designe for folks who want to organise their photos and don't really want to bother with the files. Import the photos and then forget about the files. They're stored somewhere - and where matters very little.
    So, if you're concerned about organising Files forget about iPhoto. You'll never be happy with it. It just won't do what you want.
    I make this digeression to begin with because pretty much all your specific queries treat the Photos and Files as interchangebale concepts.
    Specifically: to Managed v Referenced:
    1. There is no difference in functionality. You get no extra abilities either way. None whatever. There is no functional advantage to running a Referenced or Managed Library, it's just file storage. Why? Because you never access the files anyway.
    2. There are big differences in the reliabilty if the Library. If you run a Referenced Library then you run a greater risk of damaging the Library yourself - especially as a new user.
    So, run a Managed Library. It's safer.
    So, this question actually makes no sense - if you take my meaning:
    1. picture organization (in iPhoto and on the hard drive)
    You can't organise pictures on the Hard Drive. You can organise the files, not the pictures.
    the hard drive organization comes from my current back-up practices
    Change your back up practises. You're not just backing up files now, you're backing up a database - that's your files and  whole lot more.
    3. make sure I keep originals (jpeg, tiffs, and most often raw files)
    Iphoto does this automatically. It treats the original like a film shooter treats the negative. It will never alter it in any way. You can export the original at any time, or revert to it from an edited version.
    4. in future I might want to switch to Lightroom or Aperture to catalog/organize images
    There is an upgrade path to Aperture. There ins't one to Lightroom.
    What bugs me about "managed" approach that I have no control over HD organization, which might be ok, if everything else works.
    Organise your photos in the iPhoto Window in any way you want. Events, Albums etc. If you want to migrate at some point in the future to an app that does'nt have an upgrade path, then you export from iPhoto to the Finder.
    Apps like iPhoto2Disk or PhotoShare will help you export to a Folder tree matching your Events.
    I. I am not sure how to properly back-up my images. Is there a way in iPhoto to back up everything? Or in another words, what would be a proper way to back up images from iPhoto?
    With a Managed Library you back up the iPhoto Library from your Pictures Folder. This gets everything.
    II. What can I do when I run out of disk space while using managed library?
    Move the Library to a bigger disk. You can run a Library from any disk formatted Mac OS Extended (Journaled)
    Or make a second Library. Or third.. etc
    IV. Can I simply delete iPhoto's "library folder" and start from scratch? I could also try (which I did not) to make a new library ...
    Yes, from the Pictures Folder. Or hold down the option (or alt) key key and launch iPhoto. From the resulting menu select 'Create Library'
    V. Can one convert managed iPhoto library to Lightroom/Aperture while maintain corrections, keywords, tags, etc?
    To Aperture, yes. You can simply import an iPhoto Library. To Lightroom, sort of. As I descibed above you can export from iPhoto to the Finder. However, what to export? The Original will be just that - the original and that will contain no metadat added in iPhoto. Or, the Editied version which will have all the metadata but won't be the original...
    Note: these issues exist no matter what Manager you migrate from or to - you have pretty much the same issues if you go from, say, Lightroom to Aperture or vice versa.
    As I said at the beginning, the key thing to decide is whether you want to manage files or photos. Once you settle on the answer to that it will be easy to decide which way to go.
    This thread:
    https://discussions.apple.com/thread/3062728?tstart=0
    Discusses some of the issues specific to running a Referenced Library in iPhoto is some detail.
    By ll means post again if you want more.

  • How to move referenced images to a new Hard Drive

    All my Aperture referenced images (about 80.000) are stored at a 300gb firewire HD. That's not enough and I plan to move all my photos to a new HD, 1Tb probably.
    I understand that I can't move the images directly from one drive to another. So what's the easiest and painless way to upgrade and still maintain the integrity of Aperture Library ?

    {quote:title=Bauhausler wrote:}I understand that I can't move the images directly from one drive to another.{quote}
    Well, that's exactly what you can (and should) do. Then use the "Manage Referenced Files..." command.
    Take a look at my answers in this recent thread:
    http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?threadID=1721897
    Regards
    Paul K

  • Updating Referenced Image Folder names

    Hi,
    My Aperture library is a Referenced Library. My referenced images are stored on an external FW 800 drive and my file system is setup as: Folder Name/Project Name. This has worked great for me, but causes issues when I make changes to the organizational system of my library. I know that Aperture is smart enough to still link the correct files even if the folder/project system is off.
    My question is: How do you keep the folder system synced and intact when using a Referenced Library after making changes to the names of Projects, etc? Is this possible? If not, what system of fouler organization works best for keeping things simple, organized and in sync with as little confusion and downtime in terms of work flow?
    I'm looking for some general (and specific) ideas from users here.
    Thanks,
    Mac

    macorin wrote:
    The question for you is: What need are you trying to meet by mimicking in your Master file storage and retrieval structure?
    Kirby,
    First, thanks for the lengthy and helpful response. In thinking about what you wrote, I probably don't need to worry about my Master file storage structure. So long as Aperture is able to find my Masters no matter the folder, project, album they sit in, I should be fine. My initial thinking was that if I wanted to access my Masters (for some reason) outside of Aperture, it would be easier for me to know where everything was. That being said, I don't really ever need to do that, as everything can be done straight from within Aperture. Still, it just makes me a little uneasy knowing that my images are organized and structured one way in Aperture and another outside of it where those images are linked to.
    Don't let it make you uneasy. Even if they are all in one 55-gallon bag (or Finder folder), they are easily sorted by date (and time) taken, and by file name. These two alone -- esp. if you have renamed your Masters with a good and rigorously applied file-naming convention -- should meet every need you might have.
    Moreover, your Aperture Library of images should be deeply hyperlinked. That's a big reason to use Aperture. None of those hyperlinks are create-able in a file storage system.
    At the risk of being (even more) off-putting than usual: think on that. Beginning to understand that difference allows you to manage your data in much more successful ways.
    The second reason I was asking is because when I import into Aperture as a Referenced Library, I also back up those images to a second external hard disk. I generally keep this back up archive organized and structured the same way as my Masters structure. If I ever deleted a Referenced Master and then later on wanted to re-import it from my back up archive, it makes it easier to find things, etc if they are organized the same way.
    I don't buy it. Can you give an example of a situation in which you need to find a file and you don't know the date it was taken (at least roughly) or some part of the file name?
    Your Masters need almost no storage structure at all.
    IME, once I started using Aperture's extensive image management tools, I found I had almost no -- zero, nada -- file management needs beyond back-up.
    If you read what I wrote just above, I guess this plays to that. How do you manage your back-up file management system if things change in ways that I have suggested, i.e. renaming projects, etc and moving things around from one project to another?
    I try to keep two additional copies of every Library and every set of Referenced Masters at all times. One set is kept off-site. It's not hard to do -- but I do run copy operations that last all night. Aperture's Vault can serve as one of the Library copies. I have found it easier to manage when I don't use Vaults, so I stopped using them. If you find Vaults convenient, use them.
    Just to be clear: My main goal is to make sure that my back-up file management structure mimics my Aperture Library Folder, Project, Album (well, not album as you can't organize at this time by album name) structure. I am not talking about the structure of where my Masters are stored, but rather the structure of my back-up. I hope this makes sense.
    This does not make sense. +File management+ refers to Referenced Masters and not to Aperture Folders, Projects, or Albums.
    Your Aperture Folder, Project, & Albums (all of 'em) structure is part of your Library. Back up your Library, and you have backed up that structure.
    The files an Aperture user needs to back up are
    - your Aperture Library (an OS X package of hundreds of thousands of files)
    - all your Referenced Masters.
    That's it.

  • Corruption of the Location of Referenced Images

    In other threads we have discussed problems with Aperture becoming confused about which referenced files it is supposed to connect with. Here is my analysis of one aspect of this problem.
    When you have a group of referenced files, if you move some of them to another folder on the same volume or rename them Aperture attempts to find the moved file and change the reference to it. This might be what you want, or it might not, so Aperture ought to ask you whether to change the reference or not. But it does not.
    If the volume on which you have your original files is not mounted, Aperture will mark the files as unavailable but will not change any links. This is clearly the behavior one would expect.
    A problem occurs when your files are missing, but the volume they were on is mounted. This might happen if, for example, if one of your folders had been inadvertently deleted and needed to be reclaimed from a backup disk. In this situation Aperture "reconnects" the references in your Aperture library to what appears to be arbitrary files on the volume. The new references likely bear no relation to the files you really want. This is clearly not the behavior you would expect or want. When this happens it is usually impossible to use the "Manage Referenced Files" command to reconnect the files, because the correct files and the ones now referenced in the database aren't the same size and don't share the characteristics which permit the "Reconnect" button to be enabled when the reference and correct file are selected in the "Referenced File" dialog. Even the "option key" trick which sometimes allows the "Reconnect" button to be forcibly enabled will not work once this happens.
    Obviously, this is a potentially catastrophic issue if a huge number of file references become corrupted in your library. The only way to fix things that I have found is to reimport all of the correct referenced image files, then lift and stamp metadata and image corrections from the corrupt reference entries in the library to the "new" referenced files. This is extraordinarily tedious if the number of files affected is large.
    In any event, this is a serious bug and it should have been found long ago in Apple quality assurance testing and fixed. It ought also to be possible to just hand enter the correct reference to a referenced image in the library if nothing else works.

    Possibly going to settings, general, international, region format, then select the country you are in.

  • Aperture 3 : Pics managed or referenced : how can I find out ?

    Hello,
    can someone please explain how I can find out if my prictures in the Aperture libary are  referenced or managed ?
    Regards
    Andreas

    Andreas, if you did not change any settings in the Import panel, your original image files will we imported as managed and stored in the Aperture library. The setting is in the "Aperture" brick of the "Import" panel - check the option "Store Files". This should show "In the Aperure Library".
    If you want have changed this setting and want to find out for individual images, how the originals are stored, select an image in the Browser and use the command "File > Show in Finder". This command will only be available for referenced originals.
    To check the location of all originals at once, use a smart album (File > New > Smart album) or a search with the added rule: "File status is" and the setiing "Managed" or "Referenced". For a referenced library the the search with "Managed" should turn up no images and searching with "Referenced" should turn up all.
    If you have a referenced library, but did not want to have one, it is dangerous, for you may have accidentally deleted origininal image files. You can use "File > Consolidate" to move any referenced files back into your library, see Aperture 3 User Manual: Working with Referenced Images
    In that case, I'd recommend to check also with the search rules "File Status is offline" and "File status is missing".
    Regards
    Léonie

  • New user - managed or referenced masters?

    I finally jumped and bought Aperture after having outgrown iPhoto and gone through the Ap2 and Lr demos.
    Now begins the process of migrating my current and old photos into Aperture.
    Right now I've got less than 15k photos. I have an organization scheme in mind, but I'm looking for advice as to whether I should go managed or referenced.
    I realize that this isn't an all or nothing decision (it is really a project setting), and that I can change my mind later if necessary.
    Managed:
    + simple
    + vaults backup images and Ap-specific data
    - doesn't play well with Time Machine
    Pros for referenced:
    + can span multiple drives
    + works well(better) with Time Machine
    + can easily share masters with other apps (I don't plan to)
    - vaults only backup Ap-specific data, not images
    Have I missed anything?
    Any recommendations?

    I prefer Referenced Masters even on a Mac Pro. IMO it makes for a clean backup workflow and a forever-logical organization. And Referencing Masters ensures that the size of the Library will always be small enough that it need not cause a hard drive to exceed 50% full and reduce speed.
    • Finder-copy images from CF to a labeled folder on the intended permanent Masters location hard drive.
    • Eject CF.
    • Burn DVD copies of the original images.
    • Eject DVDs.
    • Import images from the hard drive folder into Aperture selecting "Store files in their current location."
    • Review pix for completeness (e.g. a 500-pic shoot has 500 valid images showing).
    • Reformat CF in camera, and archive DVDs of originals off site.
    Note that the "eject" steps above are important in order to avoid mistakenly working on removable media.
    -Allen Wicks

  • Managed or Referenced files?

    I'm using Aperture 1.5.6 for a year and although pretty familiar I still have a few questions about managed vs referenced files and they are:
    1) Are all Aperture features available to both managed & referenced files. i.e., metadata, keywords etc. etc.?
    2) If I choose to change referenced files to managed from my hard drives into the Aperture Library are those files duplicated or now only in the Aperture library?
    Thanks

    Despite this quote from page 140 of the User Manual,
    "Choose whether you want the image files moved or copied to a new location by clicking the 'Move files' or 'Copy files' button".
    If you choose to store them in their current location, they are neither moved nor copied.
    If you choose to have them stored in the Aperture Library or elsewhere they are copied.
    This is probably a good thing because, no matter what you do, it keeps your iPhoto Library intact.
    DLS

  • Managed or Referenced?

    1St time user of Aperture here, coming from a Windows environment. I am a bit lost at the moment wit Aperture and how it works and why it does certain things. Firstly, managed or referenced. Which is best? I want to import my camera pics and keep them in one place. Referenced?

    rwboyer wrote:
    This is a fabulous idea. NOT!
    Why the heck wouldn't you just round trip your image using something like say.... Edit with? Why the heck are you even using something like Aperture with this philosophy? I would suggest you just stick with PS and Bridge.
    Wow, did you just wake up on the wrong side of the bed or something
    Because round trip creates duplicate tif/psd file that's ~3x the size of raw file. With Ap v2, at least it save is in the same folder as where the referenced master file resides. It used to be completely useless because Ap would store the new tif into ApLib, even if the master was referenced.
    As a matter of fact, I do use PS from time-to-time, along with CaptureNX for things that simply cannot be done within Aperture. I am not a pixel peeper so I really don't use PS other than to integrate text or create layer-based multiple images that ends up in other applications like Powerpoint, Keynote slides.
    Doing what you suggest is the best possible way to wreak havoc with your workflow. Even if you are using LR that has no capability to do anything but referenced images this is not a good idea. Let me see I have like 300,000 images. I really love to remember where they are or look up a physical location and then go there with another tool and screw with the master image so that I wreak havoc on any nondestructive adjustments that Aperture/LR understands. Possibly screw up my metadata. Oh no wait I'll just redo things I have already done in a different tool and then save a copy somewhere and reimport that copy and add a bunch of metadata again. Yea that's good, that's way better and easier than just using "edit with". <----Sarcasm End Rant.
    </div>
    Diverse ideas are good thing. Really, not being sarcastic or argumentative.
    There are more than one way to do things, as you know. While doing what I suggest may not make any sense to you, it makes sense to me and possibly others.
    What is implicit in you basis is that if one let Aperture manage the masters, there is no need for disciplined file structure to store and backup the images by the user - other than let Vault/TM do it. And by using round-trip "edit with", Ap will manage that too. Since disk space is cheap, who cares. Its simple. I appreciate the argument for it. It just not for me. I find the option for easy direct access to master files more valuable than to have Ap manage my files.
    Btw, I've never lost metadata by direct access of the files. They do get destroyed in PS with layers and fusing images and text but those really don't matter in this context.

Maybe you are looking for