Currently Being ModeratedMay 9, 2012 9:10 AM (in response to DaddieMac)
Aperture is a very versatile program, but don't get your hopes up too high - Aperture can merge libraries, but Aperture cannot sync Libraries so far - there is no two-way sync between Aperture Libraries on two computers, or even on one computer.
Currently Being ModeratedMay 9, 2012 8:02 PM (in response to léonie)
Thanks for the links.
It appears that Aperture will basically do what I want, except that any changes made to files on the Mac Pro will be overwritten when I merge in the library from the laptop. I still need to do some experimenting to see if the file references are volume-specific or if they are volume-blind -- i.e. if they just use paths starting with "/[path]" instead of paths starting with "/Volumes/SpecificDriveName/[path]".
Currently Being ModeratedMay 10, 2012 7:52 AM (in response to DaddieMac)
I still need to do some experimenting to see if the file references are volume-specific or if they are volume-blind -- i.e. if they just use paths starting with "/[path]" instead of paths starting with "/Volumes/SpecificDriveName/[path]".
I am not sure I understand you fully - what kind of file referencing are you speaking of?
- If you use managed master image files, the master images are stored inside the Aperture library, and if you move the complete library to a new drive, then thereferences to files inside the package still work. So obviously Aperture uses relative pathes here.
- If you use referenced master image files - let's for example assume the Aperture library is on Volume A, the referenced master image files are on Volume B, and you move your Aperture library now from A to Volume C: If you open the Library on Volume C, it will still find the master image files on Volume B, so the library stores the absolute path for referenced masters. This even works with referenced masters on network volumes, but I really cannot recommend to store the masters on remote volumes; you will have to make sure the volume is mounted, when you launch Aperture.
Is that what you were asking about? if not, please rephrase your question.
Currently Being ModeratedMay 10, 2012 12:34 PM (in response to DaddieMac)
Like Léonie said, Aperture cannot synch. A very serious limitation of Aperture.
There are many workarounds including various possible merges. None are bombproof, do not rely on them in a pro workflow unless you carefully back up ahead of time and check every image after doing merges.
Currently Being ModeratedMay 10, 2012 10:25 PM (in response to SierraDragon)
That is ominous and reminds me why I have stayed away from such databases until now. I do of course keep a time machine going... but, how likely iare the kinds of problems you allude to? And what exactly are these problems?Mac Pro, Mac OS X (10.6.8), 2009, 8-core 2.2ghz, 12GB RAM, 10TB
Currently Being ModeratedMay 11, 2012 11:10 AM (in response to DaddieMac)
Nothing wrong with the database, works great.
My intentionally ominous commentary was not a reflection on using the database, rather it was saying be careful when building workarounds that involve batches of thousands or hundreds of thousands of image files.
Merging Libraries is relatively new but generally works fine. However no one should perform merges without backing up first and reviewing the resultant merge.
Merge is not synch. The difference is subtle but significant; degree of automation and ease of use really.
Note that in general (not Aperture-specific) any time anyone copies images from point A to point B (copies among drives, merge or whatever) backups should exist and the end resultant files should be reviewed.
Currently Being ModeratedMay 11, 2012 11:48 AM (in response to DaddieMac)
That is ominous and reminds me why I have stayed away from such databases until now. I do of course keep a time machine going... but, how likely iare the kinds of problems you allude to? And what exactly are these problems?
IMO Aperture Libraries should be manually backed up using Vaults, not just TM.
The likelihood of problems constantly using Merge as an ersatz synch is non-zero, in fact IMO well above zero.
My personal solution was to switch from (MBP + MP) workflow to a (MBP only) as desktop-replacement-workflow, which only became feasible for me with the advent of 2011 Thunderbolt Macs. No constant usage of merge to emulate true synch. Works great.
If Apple ever finally builds synch into Aperture I will probably go back to a (MBP + MP) workflow.