Places in Aperture 3

The new Places feature doesn't seem to allow you to custom label locations. It seems entirely dependent on what Google decides to call your "place." For example, I ate at a certain restaurant, and my search for the location brings it up. However, when I assign the location to the images, a different name appears for the location place. This kind of defeats the whole purpose of places to begin with, no?
I even tried to do it so that it wouldn't be so site specific, meaning instead of the restaurant name, I just looked up the city and tried to geotag the photos with the city name, but that didn't work either. It still only lets me tag the images with the wrong restaurant name.
Isn't there a way to override the given name of a location? Can we custom name the places where we were? If not, is there a way to get the proper names to show up and attach to the selected photos?

TD,
I've tried that, but it still doesn't apply the custom names of my choosing to the location on the map associated with the selected images. If I want to call something ABC Restaurant, I create that, pinpoint the exact location, name it that, but when I drop the pin there, it names it something else.

Similar Messages

Is there place in Aperture where a photo can be given a different look, like a painted canvas, cartoon look, or other effects?

Is there place in Aperture where a photo can be given a different look, like a painted canvas, cartoon look, or other effects?

Only by sending the photo to an external editor or using a plug-in, like Toonit (see ToonIt! For Aperture (Digital Anarchy)).
The effects in Aperture (see the are very basic. Some simple effects Quartz Filter effects can be added by using Automator services, see my user tip here:
Using Quartz Filters with Aperture
For example, using the ColorPencil effect:

Finding a place for Aperture in our workflow

Hi All.
I've used it since Sunday. I've attended the demo in San Francisco and I've had discussions with other photographers who would like nothing better than to incorporate Aperture into their lives. I share that desire. This is where I am personally in my relationship with the application:
There are two distinct targets for which my images may be purposed, depending upon the kind of project and the stage of that project. Those processes are of course Proofing and Publication.
For Proofing, wether for a commercial client, corporate PR or a wedding, Apertures RAW engine is perfectly adequate. It's editing tools are brilliant. It's correction tools are crude, but convenient, and again, for the purpose of presenting proofs for selection (but not final publication) adequate.
But in terms of preparing images for publication Apertures RAW engine is not as refined as ACR's and it's color and tonality correction tools are crude by comparison with Adobe Camera RAW.
So the work flows might look like this:
Product Photography:
-Shoot.
-Review in Bridge as versions are created
-Process with color correction in ACR
-Refine for publication in Photoshop
-Deliver
In my opinion, putting these images through Aperture is bad policy because:
1) The RAW engine is going to create artifacts, sharpening, color and contrast problems resulting in an inferior file.
2) Color/tonality, noise reduction, sharpening tools available in Aperture are too crude for reproduction-quality images. Those available in ACR by comparison are more precise, consistent and trustworthy.
3) Layered files are treated and flattened on the fly in a cavalier fashion within Aperture.
4) File management in Aperture is confusing when trying to deal with a number of versions of the same image. I can't tell at a glance which version is which, either by name or other obvious tag.
Event, Wedding, Portrait, Editorial, Journalism:
-Shoot
-Review entire take in Aperture
-Edit and make preliminary selections in Aperture
-Make proof-quality color and tonality corrections in Aperture
-Process out to proofs for print, disk or web delivery to client
-Client makes selections
-Export uncorrected masters of selections to hard drive
APERTURE ENDS
Remainder of processing takes place in Bridge/ACR/Photoshop for preparation and delivery of final images.
Because Aperture should not, in my opinion, be used to produce Reproduction-Quality RAW conversions and because it is confusing, inconvenient and dangerous to use to manage layered PSD versions of files, it is currently not suitable as a one-stop Digital Asset Management application for all of my images.
I Soooo don't want to sound like I'm knocking Apple here. This is an application with amazing potential and when it's risen to the needs, standards and expectations of the professional community it may become indispensable.
Regards,
Frank
G5 2.3 Mac OS X (10.4.3)

In either process, you could do the sorting and
picking in aperture. You could possible produce web
or paper contact sheets for clients. Export the
master files (these are the original RAWS) to
Photoshop and deliver. You can always reimport the
finished files to Aperture in the same project, where
they would remain as Masters, and therefore unedited.
Richard,
I could use Aperture to sort product work, but there is no reason to.
My clients don't want proofs of product shots. I sort between only a handful of brackets to choose the frames I'm going to work on for each image at each stage. Bridge is more than adequate for this task, ports right to the superior RAW converter of ACR, maintains the file names I choose when I save versions of the file back to the working folder, behaves predictably, allows me to view multiple windows and their previews easily and (are you listening Apple?) respects the way I work.
At this point Aperture is only useful for editing and sorting large projects and creating proof-quality output. At this it is brilliant. BUT It's organizational fascism, inferior output, marginal control and capricious behavior with layered files makes it far, far more trouble than it is worth to incorporate into any part of a product photography workflow at present.
And in any case I would not want to keep finished files in Aperture anyway. If I need recourse to a file it is usually to a Layered version of that file because my client has asked me to make some change to it. If I import a layered PSD into Aperture I have to export it back out of Aperture before I can open it up again in Photoshop. Aperture will only send a flattened version of a file to Photoshop if that file was not originally saved in Aperture in the first place. Aperture only allows me access to layered files that have been savedinto Aperture, not files that were imported into Aperture.
-Import RAW into Aperture
-From Aperture, open that RAW into Photoshop, create layers and do a straight save, NOT a save as,
-Under these circumstances Aperture will allow you to then open that file into Photoshop again with it's layers.
(NOTE that it must be a straight Save. Save As will not let you save into the Aperture Library. You cannot create distinct and useful version names as you save the file.)
But if you
-Import a Layered PSD into Aperture, Aperture will ONLY send a flattened version of that file back out to Photoshop.
So I can see no advantage and very many pitfalls in allowing Aperture to touch any of my product photography at any stage. Its severe limitations mean that it can function only as a sorting table for my event, editorial and portrait work. Import Project, sort, export selects, proof, delete Project.
Like you, I desperately hope that Apple will take these concerns seriously.
Cheers,
Frank

Changing the background map in Places in Aperture

Hi,
Is it possible to use a plan as custom background or as an additional layer in Places in Aperture ?
Thank you.
Khan

No you cannot;
The map is downloaded from Google, so you need to be connected to the Internet, and can only switch between three basic views:
Regards
Léonie

Problem with Places in Aperture

Using OS X 10.9.2 and Aperture 3.5.1. When choosing a project in Aperture and click on places a map appears but no photos in the bottom browser. Just a blank strip of nothing. I deleted and reinstalled Aperture, but no luck.

Is the search field in the Browser cleared? If not, clear it. You should be seeing "Show All"

Trying to open Places freezes Aperture

I am not able to open Places. Each time I click the icon I get the color wheel of death, after a while I have to Force Quit the program. There are about 6000 photos contained in Aperture, but almost 90% of that number is stored on a separate HDD and accessed by the program from there. Places has not opened any time I've tired it over a 3-day period, always freezing the program and always requiring Force Quit.
Is there a fix for this? Or is Places not functioning if one has a large number of places?

I was able to get 'places' working on my Mac Pro by opening a library I created on my Macbook Pro (no crashing experienced in that install from the start) that contained a single geotagged image. The function works fine even after deleting the image, it just seemed to need the location data to get it kicking. I was creating a new library (since started as a trial) and was not upgrading an version 2 library.
There is obviously a bug here that needs addressing though.

How do I merge places in Aperture

I'm going through my places list in Aperture and I've noticed a lot of dupes, don't know how that happened, must be when I imported from iPhoto.
Anyway, how can I merge several places into one? I don't want to lose all that location information.

I have never understood the relationships between:
. Area
. Location, and
. Place
None of these are listed in the User Manual's Glossary.
Additionally, what is the relationship between the names I assign and the names Aperture assigns?
Hello Kirby,
that relationship is a book with seven seals to me too - these sections of the User manual really could be improved.
OT: Some observations on places and locations:
Here is what I found from experimenting with my places, and I am sure most of it you already found out yourself, but I'd like to compare notes:
The location tags (IPTC Image: Location, Country, State/Province, City), seem to be completely ignored by places. If you assign a place, these metatags will not be set, and if you set the location tags, that does not assign a place. Searching with "Place contains" ignores these tags.
The places name I assign (and Aperture assigns) does not show anywhere in the metadata displays - at least I could not find any way to display the place, it is only visible in Places View, and there the displayed name seems to be generic, depending on the zoom level, you have to zoom in to see your custom places name.
Searching for places uses the place names you have assigned, and/or the names Aperture assigned, if you only provided the gps and did not assign place names. What I really like is the hierarchical assignment of increasingly specific place names by Aperture. In the example below I searched for all places containing "Hamburg" and the search returned all images taken in locations belonging to the state of Hamburg, not only the City of Hamburg, even the island of Neuwerk, way out in the North Sea.
Assigning places will add gps-EXIF tags, changing the place will change the gps tags. The gps tags assigned by Aperture to the versions cannot be written to the master files and are not exported with the masters, only with the versions.
- Area ??? I'd like to hear about that ...
Regards
Léonie

Use My Places in Aperture in more Library

Hi.
Is it possible to use the same My Places in different Librarys in Aperture 3?
I did try to find where Aperture save this data but don't find. And also no possible to export this.
Can anybody help?
Thanks

The places are located inside the Aperture Library Package. There you find a file
~/Pictures/ApertureLibraryName.aplibrary/Database/Places/4DnDGA9WQnaUBa%Tx%eu2w .applace
with a cryptic name for each place.
I tried to copy these files from one Library to another, but that does not suffice to make the places available - there must be some additional index file in the library.

Turning off Faces and Places in Aperture

I have the trial version of Aperture 3.0. I've looked everywhere in the program but cannot find how to turn off the faces and places feature.

You can turn off faces in Aperture preferences' General pane. If you don't click on the Places button (upper right of the main window), then I don't believe the application does anything with Places.

Places Question - Aperture 3

Just upgraded and like what I see so far, but am a bit confused about Places.
I go into one of my projects, select images and drag them to where they were taken on the map.
I click done and come back to the viewer and can only see what I moved to a place.
That is after leaving Places and going back to the Projects tab.
Must be doing something wrong. Would appreciate suggestions.
Thanks,

TD,
Good suggestion!
Removed the pin and now everyone is happy.
Appreciate the help.

Using Places in Aperture 3.01

I do not have a GPS enabled camera but would like to add places data to my photos. When I click the Places icon it takes me to a world map that says "Places is Currently Disabled. To re-enable open the Advanced panel in Preferences and set Look Up Places to automatically. I did that an could find no such "Look Up Places" area in either the Advanced panel or any of the other panels. What am I missing? How do I enable the places feature to operate?

When does the RAW conversion take place in Aperture?

Hi, could anyone tell me when Aperture makes the RAW conversion of files?
is it upon import to Aperture or upon export to an external editor for retouching? i'm just wondering when to import my files into Aperture from Bridge.before i start using Aperture full time.is it ok to do it now or will i get better results when 1.1 arrives?
thanks, Aidan

You can do it now and then pick the new RAW engine after upgrading to 1.1. If your RAW images are the originals from Bridge, you will have nothing to loose by converting all of them using the new 1.1 engine. Of course, I would play with a test project to better understand the new engine's capabilities, presets, and features.
Sam

If I install a trial version of Aperture and don't like it, will I be able to still use my photo library in iPhoto?

I'm evaluating both Aperture and Adobe's Lightroom to decide which one meets my needs for the best price (got a deal on Lightroom 3 for $120 and I know Aperture 3 is $79 in the Mac App Store).
I have a few questions:
I currently use iPhoto '11 (9.1.3) and have Photoshop CS4, so I have tools for importing DSLR shots and making pro-type changes in Camera Raw, while also having iPhoto to organize my photo library and syncing Events and Albums with my iPhone and iPad.
I like that I would be able to maintain my iPhoto library data for Faces and Places in Aperture, but am concerned that when the iPhoto library is "upgraded" for Aperture, and I decide I don't really need that program, the upgraded library won't work with iPhoto anymore.
Will I still be able to use iPhoto to access and organize my library, or will it be forever converted for use with Aperture?
I'm considering Lightroom because I have been disappointed with the number of bugs showing up in recent iPhoto releases. I'm a bit weary of buying another photo management software product from Apple. iPhoto '11 crashed my old iMac very frequently (I wound up upgrading to a new iMac due to this and I was expecting to run out of hard drive space in a year or two anyway).
Recently, iPhoto bugs make Events show up multiple times in iTunes when syncing for iPhone and iPad.
If iPhoto management is this unstable, I would like to consider choosing a new method of organizing and syncing to iOS devices and abandoning the iPhoto library method.
Will I find a better user experience with Aperture, or does it also use the single file library and suffer the same struggles iPhoto users have been seeing lately?

I like that I would be able to maintain my iPhoto library data for Faces and Places in Aperture, but am concerned that when the iPhoto library is "upgraded" for Aperture, and I decide I don't really need that program, the upgraded library won't work with iPhoto anymore.
The iPhoto library isn't changed in any way by Aperture. Aperture will import the Library and you can choose to copy the files to the Aperture Library or reference them within iPhoto. As long as you don't delete files from the iPhoto Library via Aperture (which you could do if you choose to Reference) there is no impact on iPhoto
Will I still be able to use iPhoto to access and organize my library, or will it be forever converted for use with Aperture?
They are completely different libraries.
Recently, iPhoto bugs make Events show up multiple times in iTunes when syncing for iPhone and iPad.
Fixed in the 9.1.3 update.
Will I find a better user experience with Aperture, or does it also use the single file library and suffer the same struggles iPhoto users have been seeing lately?
Like iphoto, Aperture can use the "single file library" or it can use a Referenced Library (just like iphoto can). Note that using a Referenced Library offers not a whit more in terms of features or capabilities. It's file storage plain and simple. Nothing more.
No you won't see the "same struggles iPhoto users have been seeing..." because Aperture is an entirely different allication.
But you my see Aperture or Lightroom struggles
Regards
TD

Does anyone have any experience of using an Aperture library on a Drobo or Promise Pegasus? If so any problems or tips?

My intention is to place my Aperture library a Thunderbolt Raid device and access via my Macbook Pro SSD Retina. The thinking is that I would have the capability of having a large library and wouldn't run out of space for some time - I understand that the library would also need to be backed up.
If anyone could share their experience positive or negative I'd be very grateful.

I have Aperture installed on a three month old Drobo 5D ( containing five WD 3 TB RED NAS hard drives) attached via Thunderbolt to my Macbook Pro with Retina Display, and Aperture is beautifully responsive with this setup. I do have a 60 GB mSATA card installed in the Drobo 5D, but I find it makes a real difference only when you are trying to acess a lot of small files, e.g. Aperture thumbnails. The Drobo 5D and Aperture make a good combination.
With a folder containning a mix of large and small size files, I find that it often looks like it is going to take a long time to copy the files with the Drobo 5D, and then after a short period of time the Drobo 5D really takes off and copies files at a very high rate of speed. In other words, don't form too hasty an opinion of how fast a group of files is going to be copied. Also, measured speeds with the Drobo 5D are not as impressive as you might expect, but the real-world performance is quite remarkable and fully in line with my expectations.
Tom

Aperture will no longer sync with itunes! Iphone 4, Itunes 10, iOS 4.1

This is very odd and bothersome.
I have some 13K photos in Aperture 3, and have been successfully syncing a small subset of those with my iphone 4 via itunes 10. No problems mostly so far.
Today I added a few photos to aperture, and then synced my iphone so the new pictures would be on it. However, now I have NO photos on my iphone - none at all! And itunes is telling me that there are no photos in aperture - I can't even select the "selected projects, albums, faces...." button. Aperture seems fine - no discernable problems.
I've tried resetting the sync history in isync - no change. I've tried deleting the ipod photo cache inside the aperture photo library, no change. I CAN successfully sync with iphoto, but the pictures in there are all fairly old, and I don't want to do that. I understand there are work arounds for this, but don't want that approach - I want it to work the way it's supposed to!
Any ideas?

You are correct sir - as the isync fix didn't work. The fact that it used to work and stopped helped lead to the correct answer - somehow my aperture database got corrupted. I found this answer on the MacRumors forum, posted by MacBimmer -
1 - Open iTunes and turn off the synch for pictures with iPhone attached. This should remove photos from iPhone.
2 - Unmount iPhone and quit iTunes
3 - Open Aperture while holding down the Option and Command Keys. This will offer you the opportunity to rebuild the photo library database. Do so.
4 - After database is rebuilt and Aperture opens, close it down.
5 - Open Finder and locate Aperture Library.
6 - Right click on Aperture Library and click on Show Package Contents
7 - Drag the iPod Photo Cache out of Aperture to Desktop
8 - Resynch iPhone with iTunes. When complete, click on Photos tab and reinstall photos
That's it. The iPod Photo Cache on desktop can be deleted as it's now rebuilt and back in it's correct place inside Aperture.
note - I actually chose the repair database option in aperture - it was the default choice. It worked.

Places in Aperture 3

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for