Transitioning to Aperture

Hi everyone,
I've been using Adobe Bridge for years to "manage" my photos. I shoot in RAW format, then I save them to a directory in Pictures, edit the pictures as PSD in Photoshop and save the final JPGs in the folder.
Now, I want to transition everything to Aperture to manage my photos. My question is: how? What's a practical directory structure which you find useful? Have any of you encountered the same thing when trying to transition to Aperture?
I've been thinking of keeping most of my library on a small portable external which I carry around with me in most cases inside my laptop bag and just importing a few pictures to Aperture as to not clog my small 256 SSD on my MacBook Pro. But this would require tons of work to "re-manage" all my files.
So any tips/suggestions would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks.

My suggestion is to begin working with Aperture with new images, organizing as you go. The notion is that images reside in "Projects", but what constitutes a Project is different from one photographer to another (and you can change your mind). A professional would likely use a Project for each client (or each client engagement in the case of multiple jobs for clients).
The organizational aspects to Aperture are really flexible. It will import your existing photos and preserve their current organization if you want - but if you start out with new images for now you'll quickly decide for yourself what works best.
Aperture will support two different approaches to handling your images, and you can use both approaches simultaneously (for different images).
"Managed" images have their "Master" (original, in your case raw file) located within the Aperture Library.
"Referenced" images reside somewhere else (on your portable external drive, for example), and have a preview copy in the Aperture Library.
Managed images are backed up when Aperture updates a "Vault". Referenced image files are not backed up to the Vault - so you must arrange for appropriate backup by other means. The adjustments you have made to Referenced images _are_ backed up to the Vault.
Using Referenced images is a good way to keep your Aperture Library from taking up too much disk space. You can use multiple external drives (in other words, your Referenced images need not be all on the same drive - they can be in various places). In order for you to edit a particular image, that image's Referenced Master must be available at the time you want to work on it (ie., the drive where it resides must be attached). Managed images are always available to be edited.

Similar Messages

Transitioning from iPhoto 6 to Aperture on new iMac

Please redirect me if there is somewhere this has been asked, or if there would be a better resource for me. I guess I have several issues here. We have a 2006 iMac with about 12,000 photos stored in iPhoto 6. I am a serious hobbyist, and want to transition to Aperture (at least I think I do, I suppose I am also considering LR3). We have a new iMac on the way, and I want to get some advice on how to best move everything over and set everything up before it gets here. So, here are my questions:
We tried to import everything into Aperture on our current iMac, and could not do an import due to our version of iPhoto being too old. I am wondering if this is going to be a problem with our new iMac as well- in other words, will we have to import everything into a new version of iPhoto, then into Aperture?
Also, our photos have keywords, but the rest of our organizational structure I can do without. We have been importing into iPhoto and naming each import with the date- unless we have forgotten, in which case it is just "Roll whatever". And these folders are organized by year in the IPhoto Originals folder. I am open to any kind of organizational structure or workflow idea, but I would like to "clean up" our current mess of photos and get everything to be consistent. How can I do this? Should I export and then import, or is this process going to be easier than I expect it will be? How would it be best to get the photos from one computer (iPhoto) into Aperture on a new computer? Use of an external drive, export then import, etc?
Finally, I am not sure how to decide if I should use a referenced library and store all of my photos on an external drive, or to actually put everything into Aperture. Any advice?
Again, sorry if these are repetitive questions. Any advice or help would be much appreciated.

The version on your new Mac won't import the v6 iPhoto Library either.
But the new Mac will have a later version if iPhoto on it, so upgrade the v6 Library with that (just open it with the new version) and then migrate that to Aperture. As always - make sure you have a back up.
Rename the Rolls before doing anything else. Any Rolls not renamed will be split into (possibly) multiple Events on upgrading. Check out the Info Pane (wee 'i', lower left) the name and date fields are editable.
IPhoto 6 has no way to export keywords with the files, so if you go that way, or import directly from the Originals folder you will lose your keywords.
With 12k files a Managed Aperture Library is easy, and you can change later should you need to.
Regards
TD

Where are the actual Aperture files located? Only in the application? I am transitioning to Lightroom and would like to only move some of the files. Advice appreciated. Also anyone know how to transfer in with edits?

Where are the actual Aperture files located? Only in the application? I am transitioning to Lightroom and would like to only move some of the files. Advice appreciated. Also anyone know how to transfer in with edits? Using iMac, OS X, most recent Aperture and Lightroom 5.7 with plugin for Aperture.

Define "the Aperture files".
Read this concise guide.
The files you imported into an Aperture Library can be exported (at any time, and repeatedly) using the command "File ▹ Export ▹ Originals". Your Originals are never altered. What went in is what comes out.
Adjustments and changes to the metadata that you made since creating an Image in Aperture by importing a file are saved to a text file. This file is combined, on-the-fly, with the Original to create the Image that you see in Aperture. There is no file saved to disk that is the full-size Image. Thumbnails are saved, and Previews are saved. These are JPG files, almost always smaller than the Original. They are not substitutes for the Image for the use you have.
When you need a file of an Image to use in another program, you export the Image from Aperture. "Export" means "Make me a file of this Image according to these file specs I'm providing". The way to get files of your adjusted Images is simple: create them by exporting. Specify "Original size", and use a loss-less image-file format (e.g. TIFF 16-bit) if you want to retain as much visual information as possible.
Search the Web for information about transitioning from Aperture to Lightroom. Note that I say "transitioning". You cannot move a database from one format to another without significant changes, and likely some loss of information. Adobe provides a tool and some instructions. I strongly recommend working out the process step-by-step, and then proceeding with first a few Images, then a bushel-ful, and stopping to use the first few, the the bushel-ful, before committing your entire collection to the process.
As always, never use any computer file without having a back-up.
We have seen mixed reports here of the success of the LR tool that creates a LR database from your Aperture database.
If you want to carefully define the process, and test and refine it, use the excellent process-development, analysis, and execution program inShort.
Sadly, there is not and can never be a good, thorough re-positioning of the digital assets in your Aperture Library to become digital assets in a LR database. Just as a metaphor for any user contemplating transitioning to another digital asset manager: that would be like digging up a house in one country, planting it in a hole in another country, and expecting to be able to use the toilet and the sinks, turn on the lights, cook dinner, and sleep soundly.
HTH,
Kirby.

Export img's from aperture for 3rd party printing

I am trying to figure out how to export photos (RAW and jpg) from my Aperture library to be able to submit jpg files to Costco Printer Center, for example.
In iPhoto, you clearly just hit export, and tell it how good of a copy you send to whatever location you choose.
In Aperture, it appears there are more settings.
I am printing proofs and also creating a high resolution disk from the files so they may print to maximum size allowed by the resolution my camera captured. It seems in Aperture, it is really easy to "fool" a file reader into thinking there is more data in there than there really is by just saying do 350 dpi at whatever size, for example. Or 800dpi at whatever size.
I want accurate resolution and full resolution. The last time I exported since I wasn't sure, I just reopened it in iPhoto to export. But, I am trying to transition to Aperture and really do not want the added step as I know there is a setting that fits my needs, I just don't know for sure what it is as the default says 72dpi for Original size, which sounds off to me. 300dpi sounds more right, but again, I am not sure how I am suppose to have this set.
Your help is greatly appreciated. Thanks!
P.S. iPhoto has some export plug-ins (e.g. Shutterfly), but last I checked, didn't have Costco. Is Aperture the same way? This is why I export to a folder in my documents folder and then upload from there as there isn't a way to easily access via Finder the files to upload to Costco. (PSE9 has an export function to Costco if you bought your PSE at Costco, but if I use that then I am sending the pics to PSE9 to then export to Costco... not really a savings of time there either.)

One additional question:
I did try to turn the auto correct off on a few pics sent to Costco. And also sent the few pics again with the auto correct on. The ones with it off seemed worse. I remembered after the fact that I needed to do some profiles... and, I don't think I've calibrated my iMac I bought last fall.
So, even if I hadn't committed all these blunders and everything was profiled to a T, would the people receiving the disk be able to send the files on the disk, let's say to Walgreens on auto-correct or whatever they decide to do, and receive the same results I would from Costco?
Or would it be better in the long run to give them generic files that are planned to be auto-corrected by whichever print center and not go through all the hassle of profiling?
I hope my question makes sense.

Aperture Library unavailable in Desktop Background

I've been transitioning to Aperture for quite some time and have been having recurring trouble, with both 3.0 and 3.1, in using the Aperture Library in my Desktop Backgrounds preference pane.
When loading the Desktop preference pane, the stock images and an unused iPhoto library load up, but the Aperture library waits for a few moments and then it loads nothing. No tiny arrow on the left, no images in the window, nothing. The Aperture library loads into the Screen Saver preference pane, as well as other places for the iLife Media Browser. JUST NOT the Desktop Background pane.
I took the time to look in the Console for some insight and I got that System Preferences sent the message:
** DesktopPref error: DSKApertureRootSource -loaddata TIME OUT!!! There something wrong with iLife Media Browser
Yes, that would be Apple's poor grammar. If anybody has ANY insight into this, I'd welcome it, because I'd love to get this solved.
For those who might already suggest, let me note that I have rebuilt the library twice, repaired permissions, blah blah blah.

I have exactly the same problem, but I can trace it a bit further.
I use three Aperture libraries.
I open one of them in Aperture, and then select the other ones with File > Switch library.
Two of them work fine and appear in "Change desktop background"
The third one does not appear - I only have "aperture" written in grey, but no subfolders.
THIS ONE IS THE ONE CONTAINING FACEBOOK SHARED ALBUMS !!
So I'm afraid the Facebook/flicker sharing functionality could be (once more (*)) the problem here.
Can anyone confirm based on own experience ?
+(*) once more because it seems that these functionalities already break the bridge between Aperture and FrontRow. It does on my iMac, and it has been reported in many other threads also.+
Message was edited by: Claude Cauwe

Aperture 3 to Lightroom 5 WITH Adjustments?

Is there anyway to make the transition from Aperture 3 to Lightroom 5 where my adjustments to my photos also make the transition? Without having to export all my adjusted photos as TIFFs from Aperture?
I have over 20,000 photos in Aperture. I have Lightroom 5 and have read through this http://lightroomsolutions.com/articles/migrating-from-aperture-to-lightroom-wher e-do-i-begin/ but am a little freaked out about the paragraph about adjustments not making the transition. And yes, I can keep Aperture on my computer, but eventually it will no longer work with an OS or a chip or something as computers continue to progress.

Frank Caggiano wrote:
This could be done by writing the adjustments out to an XML file, for example, that LR could read in and use. Possibly not everything would map but the major adjustments could be reapplied.
Again this is only a guess on my part but it seems plausible. However we'll all have to wait and see how this plays out.
Sorry Frank, this will not work. They could write things like "set the 'Definition' slider to 0.56" into an XML file. But how would that translate into a certain setting of LR's 'Clarity' slider? Apple would have to hand over all adjustment algorithms to Adobe, and Adobe would have to implement all that into LR. There is absolutely no chance that this will happen. They could hand over a project structure, ratings, tags or whatever, but your images will never look the same.
Look at Nikon: they dropped CNX2 with Nik U-Points and turned Silkypix into their new Capture NX-D RAW editor. All Nic adjustments will be lost, and a lot of users are not exactly happy about that.

Lost Captions when Transferring from iPhoto to Aperture

I had iPhoto 6 which I used for several years to store my photos. Upon getting Aperture 3 recently, I imported the entire library of photos into Aperture so I could have them there.
Since iPhoto 6 didn't support direct transition to Aperture, I needed to import them with the method of "Folders as Projects"
This worked for the most part, however I am facing the major problem that all my captions from iPhoto are lost in Aperture.
Is there any way to do a more direct import or to have the captions retained? Is there a method that can export them first from iPhoto so that the captions are tagged with the folder?
Please help.

As TD said... and you could upgrade to iPhoto 9 for $15 from the Mac App Store . Are your captions worth $15?
One thing to note: Upgrading your library from 2005 to the latest iPhoto won't necessarily be without issues either although iPhoto 9 has been out for awhile and most of the bugs should be worked out by now.

I just switched from Aperture to Lightroom and PS CC. My images exported from LR and PS suffer color loss. Where do I begin to correct this problem?

I just switched from Aperture to LR and PS CC. My exported images suffer color loss? How do I correct the issue?
I shoot with a Canon 5d Mark III in Adobe 1998 Color Space. I've been exporting JPEGS for web with Color Space sRGB.

Does your issue have anything to do with switching from Aperture?
In other words, if you take a new photograph with your camera, and import it in Lightroom, then export it, is there still a problem?
Or is the problem somehow tied to transition from Aperture, or photos migrated from Aperture...?
I'm guessing the reason you brought up Aperture is that you did not have export "color loss" issues in Aperture, like you are having in Lightroom, but since you didn't say... (just want to be sure).
~R.

Should I make the jump from iPhoto to Aperture?

Hi - I'm getting a new iMac and need to import two separate iPhoto libraries - one from a kaput PowerMac G5 (time machine backup) and the other from a more recent Macbook - around 20k photos in total with a fair amount of duplication. Getting the transfer right is my biggest concern so my question is would Aperture be the best way to go about this? I'm generally happy with iPhoto features etc but am intrigued by Aperture's expanded features. That said, my skill set is around the hobbyist level. Appreciate any insight to help me get off the fence!

Do you shoot raw?
Do you want more control over printing?
Those are two important reasons to upgrade from iPhoto. The upgrade is neither easy nor quick, and Aperture has a long but steady learning curve. Even if you decide to give Aperture a try, I recommend getting your iPhoto Libraries (and everything else) spic-and-span on your new iMac before making the transition to Aperture.
There is a trial version of Aperture available -- and several good intro videos on Apple's site. Give it a thorough test with some sample shots -- yours and others -- prior to committing to the change.
iPhoto is a good bistro. Aperture is a 4-star restaurant. They meet different needs, at different costs (in both money and time).

How can I download Aperture so I have the installer and full software if I need it later? I already have it installed and using.

Hi I am already running OS X 10.10.3 and Aperture. I've had Aperture for quite a while now..
If I upgrade to a new iMac later on down the road and what to reinstall Aperture again, what can I do? From the App Store, my open option is to OPEN the app. I want to download the full Aperture software, burn it to disc so I have it for later use if needed.. Can't locate any instructions on how or where to download the full installer and software. Has anyone done this? Thanks in advance! Dave

Catsman wrote:
I assume Apple will not agree that Aperture will run on future OS's. Also eventually Time Machine backups are overwritten.
This isn't going to be easy. I have the exact same issue. I want to keep my thousands of photos in Aperture libraries and be able to access them in the future if need be.
This highlights the problem of trusting a company with your data.
Long Term Transition from Aperture
Even without aperture your photos are still there in the aperture library, just got to it in finder and show package contents, there are lots of folders with one call masters, then its all folders of year / month / date with all your master in there.
Luckily I decided to use referenced flies for all my photos on an external drive, just as safe but a little easier to find for me.

Backup to Vault Fails Before Switching From Copying Masters to Next Step

My backup to a Vault in Aperture 3 has failed.
I have successfully upgraded to Aperture 3 from Aperture 2. Everything works well, except backing up to a Vault. I have attempted to save the entire library to two different drives - one internal and one external, both empty and tested as OK in the Disk Utility. The backups - multiple times - simply stopped at the same place. The usual sequence is copying masters and then versions, but the full backups never went beyond copying masters. I’ve set up additional libraries of individual projects, and those libraries backed up to vaults with no problem. I had no problems with saving to a Vault with the Aperture 2 library.
I’m using a Mac Pro with Snow Leopard (10.6.2), 2x2.66 Dual-Core Intel Xeons, and 10gb of memory. There are four internal drives, and two external drives connected by a firewire connection. The computer and drives are unchanged through the transition to Aperture 3.
Any suggestions?

I Have exact the same problem.
Originally updated a 150 GB Library from 2.1.4 to Ap 3; Backing up to a NAS based Vault stops after doing the masters.
I ended in reinstalling Ap 3, and Creating a new library from scratch. Reimporting the upgraded library worked fine, but Vault freezes like before.
Creating gain a new library and Importing original masters and versions step by step. After every import Vault backup works until now (60% done).
I m curious wether it will work when I m finished.
All my keywording etc. will be gone then !

What is BIG, what is F A S T ?

Aperture is a rather complex application and image files are getting larger. All of this can lead to slow downs and other problems. And this, in turn can lead to a bit of thrashing by folks who don't fully understand how Aperture (and Lightroom) works.
Aperture is a data base application. An Aperture application starts out as two files/folders:
-- The Aperture application, normally installed in your Applications folder. This folder, of just under 900 MB, is a "Package" full of goodies that actually runs the application. It belongs on your fastest drive so that it can load into RAM when you start the application. No mysteries here.
-- The Aperture "Library." This is another Package, that is, a folder that does not normally open. Open it, by right clicking and you will see a list of folders. The most interesting, the only ones that you can really control, are labled "Previews" and "Masters." The largest single item in the Library will be your Masters, followed, normally, by your Previews and, finally, your Thumbnails.
So how can you make your Library smaller?
-- Take fewer photos.
-- Shoot lower resolution Masters, ie., JPG as opposed to RAW.
-- Reduce the size/resolution of your Previews.
When you are using Aperture, you spend most of your time looking at Previews and Thumbs, not Masters. In fact, the only time that I am sure that you are actually using the Master is when you export, print, and when you view at full resolution. (Others may be able to clarify this.)
So I find the following to be reasonable:
-- Set the size of Previews at or one size smaller than the resolution of your largest monitor.
-- Set the quality as low as you can accept, generally 6 - 8.
-- Rebuild your old Previews and Thumbs at a lower size/resolution. There was a problem with one release of Aperture 3 that caused it to create bloated Previews and Thumbs. If this happened to you, then deleting your Previews and Thumbs will get you back some space. (Be sure you backup first and have ample time and disk space.)
That is about it. You can make slight reductions by limiting your metadata, or not using Faces (Faces create tiny thumbnails) but none of these amounts to much.
So what's next? RAM,RAM, and more RAM! Why. Because during any given Aperture session it is going to read the application, scroll the Thumbs, read the Preview, read the Versions, and, finally, read the Master. And then it will rewrite various of these as you adjust. If everything is in RAM, this will be fast. If not, then you will have to page to disk and this will be slower. And if your hard disk (HD) is full, much slower.
ALL HD slow as they fill. So, for best speed, you want to keep your HD as empty as possible, the sweet spot being somwhere between 50% and 75%. (Bigger HD can get fuller.) Why? Because Mac OSX is constantly making work files and rearranging data for the best fit and speed. The more free space available for this, the better.
So, after you buy all of that RAM, spring for the multi-TB HD.

But what if you have a MacBook or a Mini and can't just add a drive? This is where Referenced Masters can be VERY powerful.
Sierra Dragon and others have provided detailed and accurate descriptions of excellent Referenced Master layouts and and workflows, so I will limit myself to some pedantic observations, which are, I hope useful.
First some overview. The term "Library" can be a bit confusing. It can mean the physical "Package" or the entireity of your Aperture installation. And you can have several Libraries.
Apple uses the terms "Managed Library" to describe a Library where the Master images are stored inside the Library Package. This is the default. A "Referenced Library" is one where some or all of the Masters are stored outside the Library Package.
What are the implications of storing Masters outside of the Library?
-- The biggest and most important is that you can unload your system HD. A Managed Master Library on a single HD that is loaded to over 75% is a disaster waiting to happen. (Imfamously, most of those disasters occurred during the transition from Aperture 2 to Aperture 3 when many users simply ran out of disk space and suffered crashes and other mishaps.)
-- Now some good news. As Aperture is a database and not a pixel editor, per se, Masters behave in some interesting ways, ways that you can turn to your advantage. The main thing is that Masters, once written to disk, do not move or change. (Technically, they are write once/read many.) This means that if you have enough RAM, the speed of the disk that holds your masters is not very important as you will typically read the Master only once per editing session.
-- For those of us who have sprung for solid state drives (SSD) looking for speed, this can be a life saver as SSD are still pricey, and most of us cannot afford a SSD large enough for our entire library. Relocating most of your Masters to another HD as "Referenced Masters" makes the use of a SSD quite practical. In my case, my numbers are as follows:
* 12,000 images
* 175 GB of Masters (Mostly RAW and scanned slides as 100 MB TIFF)
* 17 GB of Previews/Thumbs, etc.
So, allowing 50 GB for Mac OSX and all of your Applications, and 25 GB for your Aperture Library, many users can fit onto a 120 GB SSD very comfortably - if most of their Masters are relocated to a second HD. And the good news is that that disk holding your Masters could be an old USB 2.0 drive.
Notice that relocating your Masters does not make your database any smaller, it merely reduces the size of your Library package. Wherever you place them, Aperture still has to maintain the same links between the Previews, Thumbs, Versions, Metadata, Masters, etc. The good news is that UNIX is very happy to make those links across multiple HD. (And across networks, although it appears that Apple imposes some limits here.)
So, what can go wrong? Lots. With your Masters outside of the Library Package, Vaults become much less useful. I don't consider this a real obstacle as I use Time Machine, SuperDuper! and Crashplan to keep two local and one remote backups at all times. But if you were relying on Vaults for your backups, you will have to rethink.
The greatest "danger" is that if you use the Finder to physically move a Master, you risk breaking the link. This can usually be avoided by moving Masters only within Aperture with the "Relocate" and "Consolidate" commands. There are also relink tools which work as well.
Finally, YOU will have to develop some form of default layout for your Masters now that Aperture is no longer doing this for you. And do remember that that arrangement will never change, no matter what changes you make inside of Aperture. (But you can do a Consolidate/Relocate cycle if this matters to you. Rob Boyer pointed out on his website that even those who prefer a Referenced Master system might be well advised to suck everything into Aperture first, organize/rename, and then relocate. People forget that Aperture is quite capable of doing most of the tasks previously done with programs like Photo Mechanic.
Hopefully, all of this is both clear and accurate. Corrections welcomed.
DiploStrat

Optimize performance of large library and masters, and hardware?

I followed some very useful advice here during the transition from Aperture 2 to 3, about a year ago. It dealt with keeping things running efficiently, when managing 100,000+ photos in your Aperture library. Defragmentation, eSata drives, referenced files, etc.
The best information came from a "Kevin J. Doyle". I'd be delighted to hear from him how he currently has things set up, including hardware. (Like me, he is a registered user, but I don't see any way to contact him directly via e-mail, and don't see any web page for him elsewhere. So this is a message in a bottle. . . .)
I'm currently wrestling with inadequate hardware (iMac 7,1, with 6GB Ram, and multiple hard drives via fw800), and suffering long hours doing basic housekeeping just to keep things barely adequate. For example, after I've done a lot of overnight copying and repairing of things, I still have to wait more than ten seconds for an individual image to load on screen before I can edit it. And if I use brushes, the resulting "processing" can sometimes take up to a minute before I see the particular effect of my brushing. I waste a lot of time. (I spend a lot of time keeping customers updated on my slow progress with their pictures too, hoping they don't get too frustrated.)
I know it's a common observation, that computer hardware and software must be routinely maintained (usually via other sofware, eg. Cocktail, Disk Warrior, etc.). I think I'm beyond the point I can eek out better performance from this generation of iMac. I'm thinking about the Mac Pro next. I'm not too concerned for now about the rumored end of Apple development of the Mac Pro. I probably should be, but I'm sure that anything I get hold of in the Mac Pro line from the last two or three generations would be faster and easier to use (organizing multiple hard drives, in particular).
I'm also keen to know how to organize my library better. I have 250,000 and counting photos, referenced. 2TB and more of masters. I work with thumbnails, but without previews (because they made the library too large to copy in a reasonable time, i.e. overnight via fw800, and did not seem to speed up the editing in any way I could measure). Currently everything is in one library. I've tried making a small "work-in-progress" separate library, thinking that might speed things up. It made no difference. Tried the same with managed versus referenced. No difference. Anything else I could try?
My masters are located on a very fast (raid-5) and large (6TB) disc, accessed by the library via fw800, because that's all I can get from the iMac. FWIW, the location of the masters does not seem to have anything to do with the editing performance slowness. I and others here ran those tests a while ago, when I switched from a managed to a referenced library.

It is time to move to more modern Sandy Bridge hardware. New Mac Pros with the latest graphics support will almost assuredly be available soon. I suggest waiting to see the choices/prices and then moving to more adequate Thunderbolt-based hardware, very much preferably Mac Pro rather than iMac if the new MP pricing is at all civilized.
Top iMacs obviously have cpu speed (for those who can tolerate the glossy display) but for heavy images work a true tower with a top graphics card has the appropriate beef to best perform the tasks you are presenting.
Sandy Bridge Xeon cpus are available Q1 but there is however some chance that Apple might delay the MP upgrade until the Ivy Bridge Xeon cpus in the April/May time frame.
HTH
-Allen

How can I import JPEGs but not Photoshop files from a folder?

I'm wondering if there is a way to have import filtering by file type. Specifically, I want to import a large folder structure of finished images but only the JPEG files, I don't want PSD files added to the catalog.
Is there possibly a script or Plug-in that does this?
I'm using OS X 10.9 at home and Windows 7 at work, with LR 5.5 in both cases.

This is the OP on my home profile, and that ship has already sailed. Both work and home, there are thousands of images together. I could explain why but its not important at this point, and I need it that way for my on-disk organization.
I'm looking at this omission as a huge time-waster. Why import a bunch of files that you are going to immediately turn around and delete?
At home I'm working on transitioning from Aperture, and so far I am not impressed with LR. It does some things better but has a lot of holes. My Aperture catalog is over 155,000 images.
At work, I am dealing with legacy images and have been trying to use Bridge to organize things, that's been slow going as well. I'm trying to decide if the DAM features in Lightroom make it worth importing everything.

Aperture to export photos either TIFF or JPEG files, highlight and shadow transition has obvious faults, this problem solved!?

Aperture to export photos either TIFF or JPEG files, highlight and shadow transition has obvious faults, this problem solved!?

What problem?
You will have to be _a lot_ more specific if you'd like responsible feedback.
I export thousands of TIFF and JPG files a week with no obvious faults.
(Sent from my magic glass.)

Transitioning to Aperture

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for