Managing Thousands of Images

Sorry if this question is all over the map, but I'm venturing
into new
territory, and I'm not even sure what software or language
I'm going to
be using. I suspect the solution will involve PHP and MySQL
and perhaps
Dreamweaver as well.
In the near future, I'm going to start gathering graphics for
a website
(a content management system) that focuses on animals. My
ultimate goal
is to acquire at least one graphic (photo or illustration) of
every
known vertebrate species (over 50,000 of them), but I'd like
to acquire
several pictures of a particular species wherever possible.
Of course,
this is an impossible goal, but I want to cover as many
species as possible.
So I'm trying to figure out a good strategy for managing all
these
images. I'm aware of the existence of various programs that
are designed
to help people manage images, but I have no experience with
any of them.
To better illustrate what I'm up against, let me briefly
explain my
current strategy. Let's say I find a total of seven images of
three
species - a bison (Bison bison), wolf (Canis lupus) and
chimpanzee (Pan
troglodyes) from four sources - the National Park Service
(NPS), a
company called Animals Unlimited and two independent
photographers, as
follows:
Bison_bison (Source: NPS)
Bison_bison2 (Source: NPS)
Bison_baison3 (Source: Jack Savage)
Canis_lupus (Source: NPS)
Canis_lupus2 (Source: Animals Unlimited)
Pan_troglodytes (Source: Animals Unlimited)
Pan_troglodytes2 (Source: Cheryl Kermit)
I'm currently naming my images with each species' scientific
name. I
also have a script that automatically displays an image if
its
scientific name matches my URL. (It uses a Get Image Size
script, or
something like that, and automatically includes the
appropriate
extension as well.) So I generally give my favorite images
names like
Bison_bison and Canis_lupus and just dump them in the
appropriate
folder. As I acquire additional images, I name them
Bison_bison2,
Bison_bison3, etc. However, I may begin giving them topical
names. For
example, pictures of animals running might be named
Bison_bisonRun,
Canis_lupusRun, etc. Or I might just have a separate folder
named
Running and put pictures of running animals inside it:
images > Mammals > Running > Bison_bison
I then use PHP switches to display credits and captions. For
example, a
particular switch might list every hoofed mammal for which I
have an
illustration, echoing that image's credits and captions.
The problem I'm running into is that it becomes increasingly
difficult
to correlate a particular image with information associated
with that
image, primarily the source, permission terms and caption.
It's hard to
keep track of 313 images from the National Park Service, when
they
include mammals, birds, reptiles and fishes scattered between
a dozen
folders. And if I rename Canis_lupus2 to Canis_lupus, then I
have to
find the original Canis_lupus in my notes and rename it, then
find
Canis_lupus in my notes and rename it to Canis_lupus.
It would be nice to have some sort of software that
associates images
with background notes. For example, if I view some images
through
Windows Explorer and click on a picture of an aardvark, it
would be nice
if I could see a window that cites the source, caption and
other notes.
However, I now have a MacBook Pro and am trying to get away
from
Microsoft in favor of Apple and open source programs.
So I just wondered if anyone can recommend any particular
software
programs or strategies that help people organize and
manipulate images.
Would it simplify things if I stored images in a MySQL
database? I've
never tried that before, but I know it's a common strategy.
Perhaps it would be best to just put all this info in a
database, with
columns/fields for image names, sources, etc. Then I could
somehow
display a list of all the images of mammals I've acquired
from the
National Park Service. Or perhaps I could somehow display
actual
thumbnails of these images. Or I could join my query with my
Birds table
and display all the images of raptors I've acquired.
To actually view lists such as these, I suppose I need to
learn how to
work with thumbnail images. I've run across countless
references to
scripts that generate thumbnail images - so many, in fact,
that I'm not
quite sure where to begin. Do these scripts actually create
additional
(thumbnail) images, or do they simply display the original
image in a
"zoomed out" mode? Is there a particular thumbnail script
you'd recommend?
It sounds to me like most of this can be handled by a
database, but I'd
like to hear of any other available solutions. Also, I don't
have a clue
about working with thumbnails.
Thanks.
www.geobop.org - Family Websites
www.invisible-republic.org - Adult political websites (Mature
adults only)

David,
you would be best served IMHO by putting this information in
a database and
then drawing it out as needed, you can then have a logical
structure of how
you log the animals and perhaps a keywords/description column
for the
photo's
Dave Buchholz
I-CRE8
www.i-cre8.co.uk
Skype ID: I-CRE8
"David Blomstrom" <[email protected]> wrote
in message
news:[email protected]...
> Sorry if this question is all over the map, but I'm
venturing into new
> territory, and I'm not even sure what software or
language I'm going to be
> using. I suspect the solution will involve PHP and MySQL
and perhaps
> Dreamweaver as well.
>
> In the near future, I'm going to start gathering
graphics for a website (a
> content management system) that focuses on animals. My
ultimate goal is to
> acquire at least one graphic (photo or illustration) of
every known
> vertebrate species (over 50,000 of them), but I'd like
to acquire several
> pictures of a particular species wherever possible. Of
course, this is an
> impossible goal, but I want to cover as many species as
possible.
>
> So I'm trying to figure out a good strategy for managing
all these images.
> I'm aware of the existence of various programs that are
designed to help
> people manage images, but I have no experience with any
of them.
>
> To better illustrate what I'm up against, let me briefly
explain my
> current strategy. Let's say I find a total of seven
images of three
> species - a bison (Bison bison), wolf (Canis lupus) and
chimpanzee (Pan
> troglodyes) from four sources - the National Park
Service (NPS), a company
> called Animals Unlimited and two independent
photographers, as follows:
>
> Bison_bison (Source: NPS)
> Bison_bison2 (Source: NPS)
> Bison_baison3 (Source: Jack Savage)
> Canis_lupus (Source: NPS)
> Canis_lupus2 (Source: Animals Unlimited)
> Pan_troglodytes (Source: Animals Unlimited)
> Pan_troglodytes2 (Source: Cheryl Kermit)
>
> I'm currently naming my images with each species'
scientific name. I also
> have a script that automatically displays an image if
its scientific name
> matches my URL. (It uses a Get Image Size script, or
something like that,
> and automatically includes the appropriate extension as
well.) So I
> generally give my favorite images names like Bison_bison
and Canis_lupus
> and just dump them in the appropriate folder. As I
acquire additional
> images, I name them Bison_bison2, Bison_bison3, etc.
However, I may begin
> giving them topical names. For example, pictures of
animals running might
> be named Bison_bisonRun, Canis_lupusRun, etc. Or I might
just have a
> separate folder named Running and put pictures of
running animals inside
> it:
>
> images > Mammals > Running > Bison_bison
>
> I then use PHP switches to display credits and captions.
For example, a
> particular switch might list every hoofed mammal for
which I have an
> illustration, echoing that image's credits and captions.
>
> The problem I'm running into is that it becomes
increasingly difficult to
> correlate a particular image with information associated
with that image,
> primarily the source, permission terms and caption. It's
hard to keep
> track of 313 images from the National Park Service, when
they include
> mammals, birds, reptiles and fishes scattered between a
dozen folders. And
> if I rename Canis_lupus2 to Canis_lupus, then I have to
find the original
> Canis_lupus in my notes and rename it, then find
Canis_lupus in my notes
> and rename it to Canis_lupus.
>
> It would be nice to have some sort of software that
associates images with
> background notes. For example, if I view some images
through Windows
> Explorer and click on a picture of an aardvark, it would
be nice if I
> could see a window that cites the source, caption and
other notes.
> However, I now have a MacBook Pro and am trying to get
away from Microsoft
> in favor of Apple and open source programs.
>
> So I just wondered if anyone can recommend any
particular software
> programs or strategies that help people organize and
manipulate images.
> Would it simplify things if I stored images in a MySQL
database? I've
> never tried that before, but I know it's a common
strategy.
>
> Perhaps it would be best to just put all this info in a
database, with
> columns/fields for image names, sources, etc. Then I
could somehow display
> a list of all the images of mammals I've acquired from
the National Park
> Service. Or perhaps I could somehow display actual
thumbnails of these
> images. Or I could join my query with my Birds table and
display all the
> images of raptors I've acquired.
>
> To actually view lists such as these, I suppose I need
to learn how to
> work with thumbnail images. I've run across countless
references to
> scripts that generate thumbnail images - so many, in
fact, that I'm not
> quite sure where to begin. Do these scripts actually
create additional
> (thumbnail) images, or do they simply display the
original image in a
> "zoomed out" mode? Is there a particular thumbnail
script you'd recommend?
>
> It sounds to me like most of this can be handled by a
database, but I'd
> like to hear of any other available solutions. Also, I
don't have a clue
> about working with thumbnails.
>
> Thanks.
>
> --
> www.geobop.org - Family Websites
> www.invisible-republic.org - Adult political websites
(Mature adults only)

Similar Messages

Managing Thousands of Images II

I'm still new to Aperture, though I've read through the tutorial and played with it a bit. I'm going to be working with thousands of images of plants and animals associated with a particular website and would like to figure out how to manage them.
I've read that projects should be limited to no more than 1,000 images. So if I wound up with 10,000 images, does that mean I should divide them into ten or more projects?
So let's say I divide my website images into two main categories - Plants and Animals - then divide Animals into Mammals, Birds, Reptiles, etc.
If we focus on Mammals, with about 5,000 species, that means I'll need to create five separate projects, right?
Also, for a project like this, would it be better to import images directly into a project, like this...
LIBRARY = Life
Mammals1 (project)
Mammals2 (project)
Mammals3 (project)
(etc.)
Birds1 (project)
Birds2 (project)
(etc.)
Or should I fill the project with albums and import the images into those albums? How many images can/should I put in an album?
LIBRARY = Life
Mammals (project)
> Mammals1 (album)
> Mammals2 (album)
(etc.)
Birds (project)
> Birds1 (album)
> Birds2 (album)
Or, more likely, I'd arrange them taxonomically, like this...
LIBRARY = Life
Mammals (project)
> Primates (album)
> Carnivores (album)
(etc.)
Birds (project)
> Raptors (album)
> Hummingbirds (album)
Or is there a better way of doing it?

First, Projects should be just that: individual-shoot based projects rather than some kind of organizing tool for all the architecural photos or whatever.
From another post of mine:
Folders are indeed flexible organizational tools but IMO often overused. Folders can effectively hide contents from view and therefore require users to remember how folders are nested and what is inside them. Folders were the only way to deal with single-original film, but are IMO limiting to image database thinking.
The way I look at it conceptually:
Aperture is a database, and each image file lives in one Project.
Albums are just collections of Pointers that point to individual image files living in one or more Projects. Since they just contain pointers, albums can be created or deleted at will without affecting image files. Very powerful.
Keywords can be applied to every image separately or in batches. Keywords are hugely powerful and largely obviate the need for folders. Not that we should never use folders, just that we should use folders only when useful organizationally - - after first determining that using keywords and albums is not a better approach.
As one example imagine the keyword "flowers." Every image of 100k images that has some flowers in it has the keyword flowers. Then say we want to put flowers in an ad, or as background for a show of some kind, or to print pix for a party, or even just to look for an image for some other reason. We can find every flower image in a 100k-image database in 2 seconds, and instantly create an Album called "Flowers" that points to all of those individual images.
Similarly all family pix can have a keyword "family" and all work pix can have a key word "work." Each individual pic may have any number of keywords.
So by using keywords and albums we can have instant access to every image everywhere, very cool. And keywords and albums essentially take up no space in the database.
Another approach is to use a folder "Family" for family pix, a folder "Flowers" for flowers pix and another folder "Work" for work pix. IMO such folders usage is a very poor approach to using an images database (probably stemming from old paper or film work practices). Note that one cannot put an image with family in a field of flowers at a work picnic in all three folders.
HTH
-Allen

I need your help with a decision to use iPhoto. I have been a PC user since the mid 1980's and more recently have used ACDSee to manage my photo images and Photoshop to edit them. I have used ProShow Gold to create slideshows. I am comfortable with my

I need your help with a decision to use iPhoto. I have been a PC user since the mid 1980’s and more recently have used ACDSee to manage my photo images and Photoshop to edit them. I have used ProShow Gold to create slideshows. I am comfortable with my own folder and file naming conventions. I currently have over 23,000 images of which around 60% are scans going back 75 years. Since I keep a copy of the originals, the storage requirements for over 46,000 images is huge. 180GB plus.
I now have a Macbook Pro and will add an iMac when the new models arrive. For my photos, I want to stay with Photoshop which also gives me the Bridge. The only obvious reason to use iPhoto is to take advantage of Faces and the link to iMovie to make slideshows. What am I missing and is using iPhoto worth the effort?
If I choose to use iPhoto, I am not certain whether I need to load the originals and the edited versions. I suspect that just the latter is sufficient. If I set PhotoShop as my external editor, I presume that iPhoto will keep track of all changes moving forward. However, over 23,000 images in iPhoto makes me twitchy and they are appear hidden within iPhoto. In the past, I have experienced syncing problems with, and database errors in, large databases. If I break up the images into a number of projects, I loose the value of Faces reaching back over time.
Some guidance and insight would be appreciated. I have a number of Faces questions which I will save for later.

Bridge and Photoshop is a common file-based management system. (Not sure why you'd have used ACDSEE as well as Bridge.) In any event, it's on the way out. You won't be using it in 5 years time.
Up to this the lack of processing power on your computer left no choice but to organise this way. But file based organisation is as sensible as organising a Shoe Warehouse based on the colour of the boxes. It's also ultimately data-destructive.
Modern systems are Database driven. Files are managed, Images imported, virtual versions, lossless processing and unlimited editing are the way forward.
For a Photographer Photoshop is overkill. It's an enormously powerful app, a staple of the Graphic Designers' trade. A Photographer uses maybe 15% to 20% of its capability.
Apps like iPhoto, Lightroom, Aperture are the way forward - for photographers. There's the 20% of Photoshop that shooters actually use, coupled with management and lossless processing. Pop over to the Aperture or Lightroom forums (on the Adobe site) and one comment shows up over and over again... "Since I started using Aperture/ Lightroom I hardly ever use Photoshop any more..." and if there is a job that these apps can do, then the (much) cheaper Elements will do it.
The change is not easy though, especially if you have a long-standing and well thought out filing system of your own. The first thing I would strongly advise is that you experiment before making any decisions. So I would create a Library, import 300 or 400 shots and play. You might as well do this in iPhoto to begin with - though if you’re a serious hobbyist or a Pro then you'll find yourself looking further afield pretty soon. iPhoto is good for the family snapper, taking shots at birthdays and sharing them with friends and family.
Next: If you're going to successfully use these apps you need to make a leap: Your files are not your Photos.
The illustration I use is as follows: In my iTunes Library I have a file called 'Let_it_Be_The_Beatles.mp3'. So what is that, exactly? It's not the song. The Beatles never wrote an mp3. They wrote a tune and lyrics. They recorded it and a copy of that recording is stored in the mp3 file. So the file is just a container for the recording. That container is designed in a specific way attuned to the characteristics and requirements of the data. Hence, mp3.
Similarly, that Jpeg is not your photo, it's a container designed to hold that kind of data. iPhoto is all about the data and not about the container. So, regardless of where you choose to store the file, iPhoto will manage the photo, edit the photo, add metadata to the Photo but never touch the file. If you choose to export - unless you specifically choose to export the original - iPhoto will export the Photo into a new container - a new file containing the photo.
When you process an image in iPhoto the file is never touched, instead your decisions are recorded in the database. When you view the image then the Master is presented with these decisions applied to it. That's why it's lossless. You can also have multiple versions and waste no disk space because they are all just listings in the database.
These apps replace the Finder (File Browser) for managing your Photos. They become the Go-To app for anything to do with your photos. They replace Bridge too as they become a front-end for Photoshop.
So, want to use a photo for something - Export it. Choose the format, size and quality you want and there it is. If you're emailing, uploading to websites then these apps have a "good enough for most things" version called the Preview - this will be missing some metadata.
So it's a big change from a file-based to Photo-based management, from editing files to processing Photos and it's worth thinking it through before you decide.

Can Aperture really search thousands of images fast?

I have iViewMediaPro (now Expression Media) on my machine. It is painfully slow to do anything despite it's boast. At the moment I use Photo Mechanic to import, browse and sort and RAW Developer to process, then Photoshop for fine tuning. Can Aperture do all this and still be a fast searching, quick sorting database? If so I'll buy it. At the moment I have Aperture version 1.5 but on opening it really is different to my current workflow. It looks scary! For instance can I batch process? Any unbiaised opinions from pro photogs greatly appreciated.

The short answer is yes, Aperture can search thousands of images fast on strong appropriately configured Mac hardware. Actually the search functions will often run fast even on weak hardware; it is mostly edits that choke slower boxes.
Your G5 configuration was not fully specified. Most G5s will not run Aperture well (e.g. stock G5 graphics cards provide unacceptable Aperture performance), so before moving forward you should post your complete hardware spec here.
I strongly recommend that every DSLR photog with adequate computer hardware first spend $33 and work through the tutorial CD Apple Pro Training Series: Aperture 1.5 (Apple Pro Training) by Orlando Luna and Ben Long (Paperback - Oct 18, 2006). Have the CD and a MacIntel (or G5 tower with advanced graphics card) with 2 GB or preferably more of RAM prior to ordering the Aperture trial so you don't waste time of the 30 day trial. Note that the value is in the tutorial, not in using the book as a manual.
IMO a cursory examination of Aperture usually turns out to be mostly a waste of time, or leads to bad workflow habits or folks simply do not get it. Carefully working the tutorial is by far the best way to learn this new killer app category.
Good luck!
-Allen Wicks
Edit: Aperture version 2.0.1 is now out, and a new version of the Luna/Long tutorial is available for preorder: Apple Pro Training Series: Aperture 2 (Apple Pro Training Series) by Ben Long, Richard Harrington, and Orlando Luna (Paperback - May 8, 2008). I have not reviewed the v2 tutorial.
IMO iViewMP was a good app for film workflows but did not keep up with DSLR's demands. Then MS buying it was its death knell as far as I am concerned.
Message was edited by: SierraDragon

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

Best structure for thousands of images?

I’ve just purchased Aperture (2) and I’m trying to figure out the best way to use it for my needs.
I plan to start scanning many slides (thousands) shot by my father that are well documented (who, when, where) going back to the late 1940s in chronological order.
I’ve been reading through the documentation and playing with folders, albums, and projects. I can’t figure out what scheme to use. (The options are clear, but when I start trying to manipulate the images I feel like I may not have thought it through in the best way.)
I currently have about a thousand images on my hard drive. They are in folders labeled the year they were shot. If there are specific events during that years I’ve put them in subfolders.
I’ve tried using this scheme in Aperture and have about fifteen projects (1979, 1980, 1981, etc.), each with its images in several albums.
It feels like I may be going down a road and have to redo everything when I get to a fork I’m not currently considering.
Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated.
Thank you.

Apologies in advance, my intent is not to demean any specific workflow or offend anyone. I have been building databases for decades and I may be a bit database-centric. Some observations:
• The DAM book was written before DSLR capture. It is Photoshop/film scan centric and far predated Aperture/LR workflows. Although conceptually useful IMO it can also lead folks away from best modern DSLR capture workflow practice.
• There actually is a right and wrong in date naming conventions in our digital world. The way computers work is with time identified as a string from longer to shorter yearmonthdayhourminutesecond. In our digital age folks will do well to set their shop naming conventions similarly. The other thing that happens digitally is that unique identifiers are often important.
Over time approximating the yearmonthdayhourminutesecond protocol will help in digital manipulations. Note that 20080309 is unique, and sorts after 20080307 and before 20080401 in every list on any computer (or the reverse depending on how the sort is specified). No slashes or hyphens are in the string to confuse the more simple-minded computers or take up space when field length is limited. And even we simple-minded humans can read the string once we know how and why.
• Obviously every individual is entitled to create his/her own workflow conventions, but... These are computers - take advantage of them! Any database (e.g. Aperture) can search many tens of thousands of images in seconds. Creating complex folder setups was necessary with film, and of course we all need to maintain our film archives. But all images being moved into Aperture are digital and it makes sense to plan digital workflows.
E.g. as long as each image is dated, date-based folders are redundant. Create complex folder schema if you like, but be aware that every pic taken for decades can be digitally searched in as many different ways as you have the creativity to think of. IMO too much folder-thinking can be stifling to ideal database usage.
-Allen Wicks

Iphoto just imported thousands of images from games on my computer.

Iphoto just imported thousands of images from games on my computer, how can i get rid of them without having to sit for hours deleting all of them?

Thsi has been reported a number of times - I've not seen it nor have I seen a definitive cause
The best solution is to go back to your backup prior to the errant import and go forward from then
LN

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

I can no longer save images from websites. It starts the download. It stays in my Download manager however the image doesn't save. How can I fix this?

When I attempt to to save an item with right click "save as" I select my directory and then click save. This brings up the download manager. However once the image has "downloaded" I cannot find the file. The file name remains in my Download manager but the file is physically not on my computer. Both the Open and Open Containing file are greyed out. I can still save Images with other browsers.

It is possible that your anti-virus software is corrupting or removing the downloaded files or otherwise interfering with downloading files by Firefox.
Try to disable the real-time (live) scanning of files in your anti-virus software temporarily to see if that makes downloading work.
See "Disable virus scanning in Firefox preferences - Windows"
* http://kb.mozillazine.org/Unable_to_save_or_download_files

How do you set up your Configuration Manager client when Imaging?

OK everyone we got an issue that we need to take care of sorry if this seems like a dumb question but we cant seem to make this work. How do you set your configuration manager client when you deploy your image(s)? I created package and pointed
it right to the config manager install directory just like the recommended one for USMT but it does not seem to work. I also tried to leave it blank but it appears to be mandatory.. So my question how do YOU get it to work for your areas?
Thanks

that might be the problem I dont see a "Microsoft Configuration Manager Client 5.0 All" anywhere. We threw something together that points to:
\\Server.Domain.com\SCCM_Install\SMSSETUP\CLIENT
What is happening is this.
Have a task to deploy Windows natively to the workstation
Drop applications to the workstation
do updates
capture back to server
All it does is
Drop the OS down
copy the Agent files
join to the domain
reboot
sit
sit
and sit

I am trying to organize thousands of images in aperture. The dates on the old scanned images is all 2008, when I started importing them. When I change the date in aperture some of them hold the modified date and some revert to 2008. Any ideas?

I am trying to organize thousands of old images in aperture. Aperture dates them all in 2008, when I started this project. When I change the date in aperture some of them hold the modified date and some revert to 2008. Any ideas?

I just tried a test library, re-imported fresh images from a hard drive, and the date changes still revert.
So neither your external drive nor your Aperture library are to blame.
What do you mean test in a different user acct? Would it be a good idea to uninstall and re-download aperture 3?
Appreciate all your help.
I meant the trouble shooting procedure described here: Isolating an issue by using another user account
To test, if some settings in your user account are faulty or preferences files corrupted, it helps to create a new user account from the "Users&Groups" System preferences. With a brand new user account you can see, if something in your current account is causing this.
Should you see, that Aperture is not even working from a new and clean account, I'd reinstall Aperture, and if need be the Operating system. Are you using any plug-ins?

Best way to start with Aperture, importing thousands of images at once?

I'm evaluating Aperture 2 on my MacBook for my DAM workflow going forward - right now I'm using the Bridge application paired with Photoshop and Adobe Camera RAW on my PC. I find the DAM and sorting functionality to be challenging/lacking/not intuitive for me under Bridge and I've been using it for years at work and home.
In taking a look at the trial of Aperture, I've tried the obvious thing of trying to import all images on my system under the Pictures directly, but it really doesn't like to do that. I know there are a few thousand in the JPEG directory and a few thousand in the RAW directory, but it still doesn't add up to the 10,000 limit (or was that 100,000?) that it complained about when I pulled up the program for the first time and simply tried to have it import the media on my entire hard drive.
I really don't like using Picassa, but I do like the fact that it found all the images on my hard drive for me, and allows me to do basic searches and image tweaks. There really should be a simple way for a photographer to set Aperture up with the existing (legacy? pre-Aperture?) image base which he's already collected. I have almost ten years worth of images that I want to go through and I seriously do not want to go through each and every day's worth of images (folder by folder) for ten years without some sort of automated process to go through them and pull them in.
Any ideas? Any plugins? I realize that, going forward, if I choose Aperture as my primary DAM and initial tweaker, as opposed to say Lightroom, I'll have the Automator tools to pull down images from my various cameras and place them into projects automatically.
Also, just wanted to mention that Aperture has crashed a few times on me and even, once, deleted my entire Picture library (even though it claimed in the message it would only delete the links to the images, not the images themselves). Luckily, I'm insane with my backups, and was able to restore to a point prior to the Aperture "catastrophe" in a few minutes...but still. I want to be able to trust my programs and it lost a few points there....
Any tips would be much appreciated. Thanks!

I think what you're looking for is File >> Import >> Folders into a Project. The top level folder will be imported as a project, and sub folders will create albums within that Project.
With that many images, I would choose the option to keep the images in their current location. (Unless that location is a hard drive formatted FAT32.)
If you have side car files, most of the IPTC metadata will come along, but not ratings.
I don't recommend placing the whole thing into one big project. You can keep the organizational structure you have in the finder in your Aperture Library if you do a little planning.
All that being said, do it in chunks not all at once.
DLS

Shortcut for "delete image" is now "delete thousands of images" -- Why?

So I've been using since v1 and since then [CMD] + [Delete] has been the shortcut to delete the selected image. Suddenly upon finally upgrading from v2 to v3 I hit [CMD] + [Delete] as I've done many, many times before only to have it, without prompt, delete my ENTIRE PROJECT. It's a large project... several thousand images... all seemingly wiped out.
This leaves me with a number of questions. The least of which... WHY?! Why change something so basic and of little consequence into something with potentially catastrophic results? My next question, are my files really gone? They don't seem to have been moved to the trash and I can't seem to locate them by browsing through the library.
Any thoughts or suggestions? "Vault" excluded, please.

Hmm… I just tested this (on a test project obviously!!) and CMD-Delete has the following behavour:
• If a picture is highlighted the picture moves to the trash.
• if a project is highlighted the project moves to the trash.
In both cases I can hit Undo and revert without a hitch. i can also go to the Trash and bring back the items (picture OR project).
So on my end nothing has changed from prior versions except for the - welcome - addition of the Trash which provides an extra layer of security. Something's not right…
Try relaunching Aperture while holding the command-option keys and repairing the database.

IPhoto 08 exclamation points due to referenced photos. Have reverted back to Managed, trashed problem images, and want to rebuild library or create new library. However, Originals folder contains aliases of deleted images.

1. Will broken images in Originals folder hinder making a backup copy, rebuild, or other attempts at repair? I have Time Machine, never used it, and don't know when when iPhoto became referenced library (due to bad advice) 2. Is it OK to delete broken aliases from the Originals folder (white squares with arrows, jpeg tags, and a Quicktime logo)? 3. Would it make sense to select undamaged images in the Orginals folder for copying to a new library? I am cleaning up Events and exporting healthy photos from iPhoto before trying to copy the entire iphoto library folder. Thanks for your help.

What do you mean by "broken images"?
Never delete anything from the Originals folder, ever.
Try
Download iPhoto Library Manager and use its rebuild function. (In early versions of Library Manager it's the File -> Rebuild command. In later versions it's under the Library menu.)
This will create an entirely new library. It will then copy (or try to) your photos and all the associated metadata and versions to this new Library, and arrange it as close as it can to what you had in the damaged Library. It does this based on information it finds in the iPhoto sharing mechanism - but that means that things not shared won't be there, so no slideshows, books or calendars, for instance - but it should get all your events, albums and keywords, faces and places back.
Because this process creates an entirely new library and leaves your old one untouched, it is non-destructive, and if you're not happy with the results you can simply return to your old one.

Download manager is saving images as .aspx notebook file, instead of jpeg

when i save image from internet, the download manager says it is saving it as a jpeg file but when i click on save, it saves it as as .aspx notepad file and i can't change it.

See "File handling in Firefox 3 and SeaMonkey 2" and "Reset Download Actions":
* http://kb.mozillazine.org/File_types_and_download_actions
You may also need to clear the cache:
*Tools > Options > Advanced > Network > Offline Storage (Cache): "Clear Now"

Managing Thousands of Images

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for