Multiple Aperture Libraries the best way to go?

Question

Many thanks in advance for your attention.
Somewhat new to Aperture and take photos for a living. Last two days took some 500 photos (will probably eventually whittle those down to 20).
I have about thirty Projects so far and am thinking I should turn each of them into their own Library.
As each project will only grow and expand and I hear Aperture has trouble once it is filled with a lot of photos in different project folders.
That way, each time I back up a Library, I will only be backing up that one Library, not that one Library and all the other Libraries each time.
That way, I am assuming, with one Project per Library (instead of 100 projects in one Library), Aperture will perform better.
I am sure there could be many, but any stumbling blocks to this idea?
Any workflow to doing this to insure each new Library has all of its key internal info?
I thought, making each Project its own Library would be better sooner than later.

Answer 1

moonlightcaravan wrote:
I thought, making each Project its own Library would be better sooner than later.
Nope. Like others have eloquently described above, multiple Libraries are a bad idea.
What you do want to do better sooner than later is use a Referenced-Masters Library workflow, which will keep your Library size civilized. Keep the Library on an internal drive and Masters on external drives.
IMO referenced Masters make far more sense than building huge managed-Masters Libraries.
• Hard disk speed. Drives slow as they fill so making the internal drive more full (which managed Masters always does) will slow down drive operation.
• Database size. Larger databases are by definition more prone to "issues" than smaller databases are.
• Vaults. Larger Library means larger Vaults, and Vaults are an incremental repetitive backup process, so again larger Vaults are by definition more prone to "issues" than smaller Vaults are. One-time backup of Referenced Masters (each file small, unlike a huge managed-Masters DB) is neither incremental nor ongoing; which is by definition a more stable process.
Managed-Masters Libraries can work, but they cannot avoid the basic database physics.
Very important is that image originals should be backed up in multiple locations prior to import into Aperture or any other images management application. Yes there are printed workflows that fail to note that critical step. Such manuals, tutorials, etc. are incompetent in that regard.
As you start out with Aperture learn what referenced Masters are, and always use a Referenced-Masters Library. If you screw up and some images get "managed" instead of "referenced" that is no big deal because from within Aperture Masters can easily be relocated.
Managed masters or mixed managed and referenced masters are fine in the beginning with few images; the reason for always using a Referenced-Masters Library even in the beginning with only a few GB of image files is for consistency. Consistency reduces the likelihood of error, and later as Library size grows having Masters referenced on external drives will be far superior.
HTH
-Allen Wicks