Short answer to (1): Yes.
I have taken a couple of "photo safaris" (not necessarily African) and netted thousands of photos from each. I've no reason to keep those photos 'online' whether as managed or referenced Libraries when I'm manipulating day-to-day projects. They are standalone Aperture Libraries, a larger one is Referenced but smaller ones are Managed.
Another Library is 20+ gigs of 18,000 photos migrated from a WinXP environment, taken from 1999 thru 2007. Imported from a homegrown hierarchy of directories/folders. Rainy day project is to go thru them and discard chaff and assign keywords.
Short answer to (2) No.
That said, if both Libraries use Referenced Masters, the photos don't really 'know' they are being pointed at by Aperture. Which means that two Libraries can Reference the same Masters, but a Referenced Library can't reference (small 'r') the images in a second Managed Library. (I'm being picky about your use of "_in_ the other Library".)
The caution is that you shouldn't delete a photo from one Referenced Library and include 'delete Master image' because the another Referenced Library will be surprised that an image it references has disappeared.
David Dwight wrote:
Here are a few questions to which brief answers are welcome:
1) do you ever use multiple Libraries - do you find a case where it can be helpful?
No. Multiple Libraries defeat much of the value of an images database, which is the ability to keyword, search, etc. on one database. Not that there are not possible uses for multiple Libraries (there are, but they are specialized), but rather that 99% of the time folks build multiple Libraries it is a bad-workflow mistake; e.g done just because a single Library is getting too large because of lame usage of Aperture's (unfortunately default) Managed Masters.
Example: say your "safaris" are weddings - or real African safaris for that matter. Shoot them as two separate Libraries and you cannot search on "bride" and get all your best bride pix; or search on "lion" and get all your best lion pix. Multiple Libraries are - generally - a very bad idea. The exception might be a super-confidential client that you cannot even use the pix as portfolio examples.
Set up a righteous single-Library Managed-Masters workflow and reduce Library and Vault sizes to civilized, increase speed, and have instant search access to ALL your images.
Temporary Libraries, however, can be very useful. E.g. a working Library on laptop SSD that then gets merged into a single main Library.
Yes. Please see my answer here.
~Yes~ (in a wavering voice). This can be done, but is not advisable. Each Library keeps track of the Masters of all its images, but has no way of knowing about the other Library. If you share Masters, you are likely to move, delete, or rename some Masters in one Library at some point. This will break the link between any images in the other Library that have any of the same Masters, and those Masters.
Every image has a Master. Every image knows where that Master is located. Some Masters are located in the Library (these are Managed Masters). Some Masters are not located in the Library (these are Referenced Masters). The Library doesn't really care one way or another where the images' Masters are (it only cares that it can find them when needed).
The point is that images have Masters. Libraries contain images. Any Master can be Managed or Referenced. Libraries can contain both images with Managed Masters and images with Referenced Masters.
I use a laptop as my primary machine. Even though it has a large drive (500 GB) this is not enough for the Libraries I manage. So what I do is put recently imported images' Masters in the Library (and thus on my laptop drive) and move the Masters for images older than 45 days (which I am likely done adjusting) to an external drive (at which point they become Referenced Masters).
Aperture makes it easy to switch any image's or group of images' Masters from Managed to Referenced and vice versa. The whole issue is difficult to understand at first, but really is made too much of (imho). The one thing to always remember, though, is that if you back-up using the Vault feature, you must separately back-up your Referenced Masters. Aperture quite rightly reminds you of this every time you update a Vault that contains images with Referenced Masters.
Read the User Manual page on using Libraries (click heading for link):
You will end up exporting and importing Libraries and parts of Libraries, and either adding or (more often) merging them when you import. Note that even when your Referenced Masters are off-line, you can add and manipulate metadata, and view, use, and export Previews. A "one laptop" solution may meet your needs and be easier to administer than a "desktop & laptop" set-up. Properly set up and cared for, each works well.
See 4. Do all file administration (except back-up) of Masters from within Aperture.
Message was edited by: Kirby Krieger (Thanks to Allen for a correction).
Allen -- Thanks for the quick correction! I was able to correct it in the original.
Left/right, up/dn -- I'm always confounded by binary pairs. Hence my silence even though I think the guy printing the t-shirt wants to flip his image vertically, not horizontally.
Cheers -- and thanks again. Let me know what else I inverted or got wrong.
(Btw, agree 100% with what you wrote about using the biggest Library you can.)
Some clarification on my usage:
I was responding to the question, "do you ever use multiple Libraries?"
I travel, so having a Library that I can easily move between my MacBook Pro and my iMac is fairly important. Yes, I understand exporting and importing Projects and Libraries but if I want to move my African Safari (with a few real lions) Library to the laptop, it's more convenient to move a whole (referenced) Library than to disengage it from a Mothership Library. The matching JPEG Referenced Masters can fit on the laptop. Vault and Masters are backed up onto other external drives. RAW Masters are on another drive.
The WinXP Library I mentioned is a Managed Library right now and its cleanup may involve some reorganization before I Relocate its masters and merge it into my regular workflow.
I may have sounded like I have a dozen small(er) Managed Libraries. I don't. And I agree with SierraDragon for the reasons he listed.
I am still sitting at the feet of the Aperture Masters. (pun intended)