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.

Similar Messages

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.

Managed vs Referenced vs Dups vs Junk

I try to keep all of my photos in Aperture, either as Managed or Referenced. I believe 95%+ are Managed and the others Referenced. I had some issue some time ago that forced me to have some of the Photos as Referenced. How can I tell what photos are Referenced.
I have also accumulated quite a few jpeg files on my main drive. I believe most of them are in my Aperture library, but don't know what is and is not. I want to clean things up and recover space. Is the best way to figure what is not in Aperture is to import all of them and check the box don't import duplicates. Then when done delete all of them. In theory a lll my jpeg files on my main drive are in Aperture, EXCEPT... As per the first question I want to make sure I don't delete Referenced files.
Am I On the right track of what is the best way to get all of the jpeg files into Aperture if they are not and free up space
Jon

Typically referenced files have a badge on them which indicates that status. As far as using Aperture for all the photos on your HD, and strategies for that, it's harder for me to say. Again you can used the badges to see if they're referenced or not, I'd suggest using that as a guide.

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

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

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

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 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

Converting from Managed to Referenced Library-File Structure?

I'm about to convert my fully managed library (170GB) in Aperture 3.6 to a referenced library. I understand I select the files and then relocate the masters. What's the best way to do that if I want to maintain some semblance of the Aperture files/folders structure in the Finder environment? Wha't the best way to select all files- just go to "Photos" folder and select all?
I understand that the file structure in Aperture should remain unchanged. What I don't want to happen is for all my photos to just be dumped into a folder on my hard drive with no organization. Within Aperture they are primarily stored in folders (years) containing projects (months) which have albums (various shoots in a given month). If I select all photos in library, does Aperture recreate its internal folder, project, album structure as folders in Finder?
As I recall, there is an option when relocating masters to put them in various folder structures. Is there an option to keep the internal Aperture folder structure? I'd like to make the managed to referenced conversion in as few steps as possible and ideally maintain the same or very similar folder structure.
Thanks, Steve

Images are not files.
Images are what you see in Aperture.
Files are data containers, represented in various ways in the OS X Finder.
Aperture is a database of Images.
Finder is a database of files.
Just as the structure of your Aperture Library ("Library" = database; to the detriment of their users, Apple insists on cuteness over accuracy) is for you to create to meet your needs, the structure of your Finder database is for you to create to meet your needs. Many OS X users' file needs are similar, and so OS X comes with Finder pre-designed and populated.
Concerning yourself about the _file_ organization of your Images' Originals is, imho, time wasted. You didn't care about it when they were managed. There is little reason to care about it when they are referenced.
I detail some of this in this reply to a similar question.
Do whatever comforts you. But note the following:
- You cannot (as Frank has already answered) duplicate in a file manager the structure you have in your Image manager. The Images in Aperture are not files, and in important ways they are not filed like files.
- Aperture provides robust tools for managing your Images' Originals. You can move them in and out of the Library at any time, and you can relocate them to another location outside your Library at any time.
- Don't ever use Finder to perform any operations on your Images' Originals. You should use Aperture and use only Aperture to perform any operation (other than back-up) on your Images' Originals.
- Speaking of backing up: you must backup Referenced Originals yourself. Neither Aperture's Vault feature, nor backing up your Library, backs up Referenced Originals.
Unless you have specific reasons for doing otherwise, I recommend sticking to "one Project for each shoot", and, if referencing your Images' Originals, filing them under a top-level Finder folder by Project, with one Finder folder for each Project.

Convert from Managed to Referenced

Greetings,
I posted this question once before, just wanted to try again.
I followed Sierra Dragon's recommendation on upgrading my library (over 300GB in size). I am about to convert from managed to referenced, but I have a specific filing structure in Aperture that I would like to maintain on my FW800 drive.
Basically, every folder starts with the year, the 2 digit month followed by the name of the month, (2010 10 October). Within each of these folders are my projects. This sorting helps me keep track of my favorite subjects.... (My family).
That being said, when I convert, it would appear that Aperture will keep each picture in the project but not do so by folder. I want to maintain the folder structure. Does anyone have any input on how this is accomplished.
My thanks to all.
De Colores...
Michael

Hi Michael,
I don't have time this morning for a thorough (or, apparently, concise) response. See if this is in any way helpful.
I followed Sierra Dragon's recommendation on upgrading my library (over 300GB in size). I am about to convert from managed to referenced, ...
Good. Moving your Masters off your system drive (assuming that's where they are) should give you a performance boost as well as allowing you to expand your holdings.
but I have a specific filing structure in Aperture that I would like to maintain on my FW800 drive.
Why (I mean that)? What advantages do you get from this unique filing structure? Can those advantages be had with anything simpler, more standard, or easier-to-implement?
That being said, when I convert, it would appear that Aperture will keep each picture in the project but not do so by folder. I want to maintain the folder structure.
This is, ime, a waste of your time. Aperture already doesn't store your digital negatives this way. (Right-click your Aperture Library in Finder and select "Show Package Contents to see how Aperture stores your files. Look but don't touch.) When you convert from a Managed Masters to a Referenced Masters Library, your Library structure remains untouched: your Image Folder structure is not altered. All that happens is that digital negatives are moved, and the pointers in your Library are pointed to the new locations outside the LIbrary instead of the current locations inside the Library.
One of the powerful but odd things which Aperture does is to separate image management from file management. File management structures are fixed (and unwieldy). Aperture frees the user from those confines (and for many users, keeps this secret). You surely know this already, but now as you convert from a Managed Masters Library to a Referenced Masters Library is a good time to examine it again. You want to view your Projects by date? Go to Projects View and sort by date. You can group by year and drill down. With effective Project-naming, your can filter by type (e.g.: family, personal, work, birds). Your tools for image viewing are much more powerful. Want to see all shots of your dog during the first year of its life? No problem (as long as you've keyworded well). You can even set up Smart Albums -- as many as you like -- for this or (almost) any imaginable sub-set of your images. And when your interests change, you can delete the Smart Album (or Album) and not worry at all about losing your images.
I realize none of that is new to you. The point I'm trying to make is that your Library structure can and should be designed foremost to meet your image retrieval needs (and not your file storage needs). Each digital negative lives in one and only one Project. Beyond that, you are free. In your case, it may make sense to create a structure based on family rather than one based on date. The date structure is hard-coded into Aperture -- you can't lose it, you can always use it, and you don't have to reproduce it in your Library.
My suggestion is to treat separately your file storage from your image storage (don't use your file storage structure as your image storage structure), and develop an image storage structure which works great for you that is not based on "when shot". (And again, "when shot" is very valuable -- so valuable, it's irremovably hard-coded into your images and into Aperture, which is why you needn't recreate it.)
Back to your question: if Aperture won't create the Finder folder names you want, use the great Name Mangler to batch rename your Finder folders. At most you'll have to run it through twelve times, once for each month. This would be a one-time change. After that, you'll have to manually create new folders (might as well do them in sets of twelve), and then when you Import point to the storage folder.
None of that is, respectfully and imho, worth the effort.

Managed vs Referenced libaries in Aperature

Does anybody have an article, writeup or pointer on Managed vs Referenced libaries. The +- on each and issues, etc..

Aside from the snarky answer that this has been done to death , this article may be helpful: http://photo.rwboyer.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/Aperture3Organization.pdf
Managed:
+ Simple (less work for user)
- Big Library may overfill HD
Referenced:
- More complex (more work for user)
+ Allows you to spread across many HD.
Practical case: I used Managed Library from 2006 to 2012. Went to Referenced so that I could use an SSD.
That is the most concise reply I can come up with. Others will add refinements.
DiploStrat

Managed vs. referenced library??

I am test driving aperture and have been using Photoshop- Bridge to organize my photos. That is to say I keep them organized in folders which I create for each project. Each folder has a name that means something to me and is dated. I rarely cannot find a specific photo shoot. If I let Aperture organize the library will I have trouble finding the origional Master image. That is what I never liked with iPhoto. Would you recommend continuing to use my files which are on an external drive, as a referenced library, or should I just have Aperture create a Managed library out of my files?? Thanks.

This particular topic is driving me crazy because you all seem to take the opposite sides on this subject.
Here is my current setup and workflow. Can I get suggestions of the best ways to use aperture within these parameters
I have an imac dual core intel about 3 years old (imac7,1). It has six gb of ram and I just installed a new 2 TB internal drive. It currently has about 330 gb used.
I have attached to it the following drives: a 1 TB usb drive for time machine, a 2nd 1 TB USB drive which is a scratch disk for stuff I don't back up, and a 500 GB FireWire 800/400, usb which is partitioned in two. One partition is where I store a cloned back up via superduper and the other is where I have stored some test master photo files while I figure out the best way to use aperture.
I also use backblaze to back up the internal drive to the cloud. I am currently backing up about 250 GB.
I have around 20k photos on the internal drive inside iPhoto 11. I haven't touched those yet.
My photo workflow for new shots is to download the pictures to the external firewire drive then import the jpeg (I usually shoot in raw + jpeg) to aperture as a referenced import then cull the bad shots and then import the masters as referenced also. I also import the jpeg files to iphoto (so they are backed up).
I am going to have backup issues due the new 2 tb drive with the super duper clone (only have 500 gb available to the firewire drive. I could do the back up to the 1 tb usb drive instead and use the 500 gb firewire drive as my external drive for movies and photo masters. IF I do that then I’m going to have to backup everything again to backblaze (takes about six weeks to back up 250 gb). If I do that then I am living on the edge because I will only have one backup of my photo masters. That scares me.
The whole process scares me so much I have touched the iphoto library yet..
Ideas? Remember to KISS.

Mixed library - managed and referenced - and not sure what's best

I've just come back to try iPhoto after a long time away. In the old days I used it exclusively to manage my photo library but wasn't a fan of how it forced all my photos into it's slightly unfriendly folder structure in the Finder and hence sort of force me to only ever use iPhoto to manage them.
I graduated to learning Photoshop, got a DSLR, ditched iPhoto and maintained my own folder structure on the Finder. I was happy!
But now I've got iPhoto '08 and I see you can import to iPhoto but NOT copy to the Library. Great! So I've started loading in all my personal 'event' photos as opposed to the more arty stuff that 75% of my photos consist of. It's nice to view them in iPhoto. But now it's getting complex. Now I have some older photos from before that are managed wholesale by the app, and all these others that are allegedly only 'referenced'. So, why is the Library expanding pretty heavily? And why, if I move a photo or even delete it in the Finder, are those changes not reflected whatsoever in iPhoto. What's actually going on in that Library???
Furthermore, some of these new photos are Adobe RGB and others are sRGB. If I want to print a photobook via iPhoto, do I need to change them all to sRGB to maintain consistent colour in the book? And does that mean deleting all the photos in iPhoto, re-saving the originals as sRGB, then re-importing the referenced files? I ask because like I say, changing the FInder-based files does not seem to reflect in iPhoto.
So far I'm not liking this. I'm very unwilling to import duplicates into the Library, thereby doubling the space taken up by my images!

owen-b
Here's my 2 cents.
Best option: let iPhoto manage the files.
2nd best option: You manage them
Recipe for Disaster: A mixture.
Here's why: The folder structure in iPhoto is very plain and easy to follow (and has been since v6 - which is also when the ability to reference files came in). A Note about the iPhoto Library Folder:
In this folder there are various files, which are the Library itself and some ancillary files. Then you have three folders
Originals are the photos as they were downloaded from your camera or scanner.
(ii) Modified contains edited pics, shots that you have cropped, rotated or changed in any way.
(iii) Data holds the thumbnails the the app needs to show you the photos in the iPhoto Window.
Events in the iPhoto Window correspond exactly with the Folders in the Originals Folder in the iPhoto Library package file (Right click on it in the Pictures Folder -> Show Package Contents).
You can move photos between Events, you can rename Events, edit them, create them, as long as you do it via the iPhoto Window. Check out the Info Pane (wee 'i', lower left) the name and date fields are editable. Edit a Event Name using the Info Pane, the Event Folder in iPhoto Library/Originals will also have the new name.
Finding files is easy: There are three ways (at least) to get files from the iPhoto Window.
1. Drag and Drop: Drag a photo from the iPhoto Window to the desktop, there iPhoto will make a full-sized copy of the pic.
2. File -> Export: Select the files in the iPhoto Window and go File -> Export. The dialogue will give you various options, including altering the format, naming the files and changing the size. Again, producing a copy.
3. Show File: Right- (or Control-) Click on a pic and in the resulting dialogue choose 'Show File'. A Finder window will pop open with the file already selected.
You can set Photoshop or any editor as an external editor in iPhoto. (Preferences -> General -> Edit Photo: Choose from the Drop Down Menu.) This way, when you double click a pic to edit in iPhoto it will open automatically in Photoshop, and when you save it it's sent back to iPhoto automatically.
If you run iPhoto outside the default setting, with referenced files, then you become responsible for all the file management. Importing and deleting are multi-stage operations and migrating to a new disk or Mac can be more complex. To be honest - and always allowing for personal preference - I've yet to see a good reason to run iPhoto in referenced mode unless you're using two photo organisers.
The problem with the third option - mixed - is that it's far too easy to forget who's managing which file - you or the app - and that way, data loss lies.
To specific questions:
And why, if I move a photo or even delete it in the Finder, are those changes not reflected whatsoever in iPhoto.
iPhoto is a database. Like any database it cannot know about changes you make outside of the application. Think of it this way. You hire a filing clerk, let the clerk loose organising your files. Then the clerk goes home for the day and you go into the filing room and re-arrange things. Next day you complain because the clerk can't find your files?
If you use iPhoto referencing your files, then deleting is a two stage process. Move the files to the iPhoto trash and empty it removes them from iPhoto. Then remove them from your own filing structure. If iPhoto manages the files, trashing them in iPhoto removes them from the HD as well. Moving files around in the Finder is hiding them from the filing clerk
So, why is the Library expanding pretty heavily?
Check out the structure of the library as described above. In the referenced library the Originals is populated with aliases, but the Modifieds does include pics that are flagged for auto rotation.
I'm very unwilling to import duplicates into the Library, thereby doubling the space taken up by my images!
Understandable. So don't waste the space. Let iPhoto manage the files and trash your own structure! A big leap, perhaps too big, so think about the referenced format. However, I have to say that a mixed library increases the risk of data loss exponentially.
I'll leave the questions on color management to those more knowledgeable than me.
Hope that helps.
Regards
TD

Aperture Advice: Managed or Referenced Files

I've looked through a lot of the threads here and done some googling. It seems the answer is - "it depends".
So I was hoping I could get some advice on how I can maxamise my use of aperture.
System specs - Mac OSX Imac 2.66 GHz dual core. 4gb ddr2 Ram.
Part of the problem I'm having is that I have a huge number of photos to manage (it's around 350gb of photos) so because of this i'm keeping my photos stored on a fast(ish) 1 terrabyte external drive. At the moment i'm using a managed system but I'm told part of the pro's of aperture is that it's easy to change your file systems.
I don't have any need to edit my image masters, if i need to access photos i just export a version.
So am i right in thinking the best system for me, will be to keep a library file on my Imac but set managed storage to keep the masters on my terrabyte external drive?
Would really appreciate some advice on how I can best use aperture i've noticed that whenever it's open it's a total system hog. I basically have to close it if I want to use anything else on the Imac. Final cut express and aperture open is a no-no for example.
Any advice is greatly appreciated
Thanks
C
(Detailed system specs)
Model Name:          iMac
Model Identifier:          iMac8,1
Processor Name:          Intel Core 2 Duo
Processor Speed:          2.66 GHz
Number Of Processors:          1
Total Number Of Cores:          2
L2 Cache:          6 MB
Memory:          4 GB
Bus Speed:          1.07 GHz
Boot ROM Version:          IM81.00C1.B00
SMC Version (system):          1.29f1

Why managed, I am lazy! One click back up using vaults, simplicity.
I have multiple RAIDs, my old "slow" RAID now has my libraries on it, the new "fast" RAIDs are used for video.
I do run multiple libraries and the only time I have had an issue with missing files was when playing with referenced. That said many people enjoy running a referenced system, for the way I work managed is easiest. Disk space is not an issue, backing up is not an issue, what is it now, $100 for a 2TB drive, on site and offsite covered for $200.
Tony

Managed or Referenced?

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for