Skip navigation

Restore single photo from time machine

5688 Views 24 Replies Latest reply: Jun 30, 2012 2:57 AM by léonie RSS
1 2 Previous Next
peter_watt Level 2 Level 2 (400 points)
Currently Being Moderated
Jun 29, 2012 10:44 AM

Quote from apple help

"To restore, select the file/folder and click the "Restore" button. The file will automatically be copied to the desktop or appropriate folder.  If the file you are restoring has another file in the same location with the same name, you will be prompted to choose which file to keep or keep both...."

 

So to restore one lost photo from a month ago, and presuming the entire Aperture library must be restored, do I have to "keep both" restored and current libraries and short term find another 150GB space in Pictures, export the missing photo, then delete the old library? Because if I keep only the restored library I lose all recent photos surely, but it seems a long process.

 

Or is there a clever workaround?  (apart from Vault which I don't intend using at this stage. )

 

 

Still considering using Aperture, not yet purchased. Cant find this fully explained in search. Thanks.

MacBook Pro, Mac OS X (10.7.4)
  • léonie Level 8 Level 8 (46,510 points)
    Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 29, 2012 10:56 AM (in response to peter_watt)

    Restoring single image files is easy, if you have a referenced Aperture library (all your original images are stored outside the package). It can also can be done for managed masters, if you are familiar with the way how Aperture stores the images in the Library package (organized by import session).

     

    The way to do it, is to open the folder that contains the image you want to restore in the Finder and then dive into Time Machine, with the Finder window open, that should contain the image you want to restore. If you can locate it somewhere along the Time Line, restore it to the Desktop and reimport it.

     

     

    Regards

    Léonie

  • Frank Caggiano Level 7 Level 7 (22,830 points)
    Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 29, 2012 11:17 AM (in response to peter_watt)

    Just bear in mind if you do this you will only be recovering the master (original) image. Any processing you have done to the image including adjustments or the additon of any metadata, faces, keywords, etc. WILL NOT be recovered.

  • léonie Level 8 Level 8 (46,510 points)
    Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 29, 2012 11:28 AM (in response to Frank Caggiano)

    Thank you for adding that, Frank. It is being on the horns of a dilemma: restoring the older library will cause all edits since then to be lost; restoring only one master/original will restore it without the edits.

  • Frank Caggiano Level 7 Level 7 (22,830 points)
    Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 29, 2012 11:34 AM (in response to léonie)

    restoring the older library will cause all edits since then to be lost;

    Why is that?  You have the option to keep both, once you have the TM copy you can export as library the images you want which will give you all the adjustments and metadata and then impor that into the current library. Once you're done delete the resotred library.

  • léonie Level 8 Level 8 (46,510 points)
    Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 29, 2012 11:45 AM (in response to Frank Caggiano)

    You have the option to keep both,

    The way I read peter_watt's question was that he asked for a solution that did not need the disk space to store two copies of the library.

     

    But even if you go to the trouble to restore the complete library, you can export the master/original and the version, but you still will have to do the edits again, to recreate a version bound to the master.

     

    In the few cases where I needed to restore an image from the backup, because it got corrupted, it sufficed to restore the master - I was lucky and could lift and stamp the metadata and adjustments from the corrupted image.

  • Frank Caggiano Level 7 Level 7 (22,830 points)
    Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 29, 2012 11:52 AM (in response to peter_watt)

    You can restore to any drive you can access from the OS, so yes you can do it to an external drive.

     

    TBH losing edits would not usually be a problem so single restore would usually be fine.

    The major problem here is that Aperture stores the masters (originals) by import date and while I can usually remember to within a day or so when I took a picture I have a much harder time remembering when I imported it. Also unless you give your imported masters a distinctive name finding the master is going to be a problem in any library of any size.

     

    Here is the finder view of a part of the master folder for a small test library I  have:

     

    Screen Shot 2012-06-29 at 14.45.38.png

    I could find a specific master if I had to in this but it's going to take some time. You can see what you'll be up against by looking into one of your Aperture libraries, select the library in the Finder and do a show package contents.

     

    I'm not saying it can;t be done and I'm not saying it never has to be done but it's not something I'd look forward to and it certainly isn't something I'd stake my images on.  If this is somthing you thing you might need to do often I'd suggest you come up with a good naming scheme for your masters so that searching in the folders will be reasonable.

     

    regards

  • Frank Caggiano Level 7 Level 7 (22,830 points)
    Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 29, 2012 11:55 AM (in response to léonie)

    But even if you go to the trouble to restore the complete library, you can export the master/original and the version, but you still will have to do the edits again, to recreate a version bound to the master.

     

    Not true, if you select the image or images you want and export those as a library everything will come out, the master, all the versions for this master and all the metadata.

  • léonie Level 8 Level 8 (46,510 points)
    Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 29, 2012 12:04 PM (in response to Frank Caggiano)

    export those as a library everything will come out

    you got me there! That's it.

  • Frank Caggiano Level 7 Level 7 (22,830 points)
    Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 29, 2012 12:08 PM (in response to peter_watt)

    No there is no reason for images in the same project to have been imported at the same time. Now for most of us this probably holds true but its not a requirement. I know I have projects with images imported at different times.

  • Kirby Krieger Level 6 Level 6 (11,570 points)
    Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 29, 2012 12:16 PM (in response to peter_watt)

    Peter -- adding (I hope) the excellent responses already given:

     

    One of the downsides of using Aperture is that "Photo" is no longer easily defined.  When you ask, "So to restore one lost photo from a month ago ... ", you must define, in terms relevant to Aperture, what you mean by "Photo".

     

    In Aperture you import image-format files.  On import, Aperture makes a note of where your file is located (and by default stores your file where it wants).  Thereafter your imported file is known by Aperture as an Original (prior to v. 3.3: a "Master").  Aperture also creates a text file to hold instructions on what metadata changes you make and what adjustments you make.  This text file is called a Version.  Aperture creates an image you can see, and displays this image to you as a thumbnail in the Browser, as a Preview in the Viewer (when Quick Preview is turned on) or as a fully-rendered image in the Viewer.  Aperture refers to this (somewhat fitfully) as an "Image".

     

    Here's what you need to know:

    Original * the instructions in the Version = the Image you see.

     

    When discussing Aperture it is helpful to differentiate between

    - the image-format file you imported:  the Original

    - the text file of instructions that Aperture keeps in order to modify your Original to show you what you've done to it:  the Version

    - the picture showing you all you adjustments, with all your metadata applied:  the Image

     

    There is a one-to-one correspondence between Image and Version:  one and only one Version is used to create each Image.  Throughout Aperture, "Version" and "Image" are used synonymously to mean "the thing you see".  Only "Version" is used to specify the text file of instructions.

     

    (There are excellent reasons for this set-up -- primarily among them Aperture's non-destructive workflow and excellent performance doing the tasks we ask of it -- but they are beyond the scope of this thread.)

     

    Some of the responses you've gotten here are about restoring your Original.  Some are about restoring your Image.  Those are, in Aperture, different tasks, dealing with different (or in one case, more) files.

1 2 Previous Next

Actions

More Like This

  • Retrieving data ...

Bookmarked By (0)

Legend

  • This solved my question - 10 points
  • This helped me - 5 points
This site contains user submitted content, comments and opinions and is for informational purposes only. Apple disclaims any and all liability for the acts, omissions and conduct of any third parties in connection with or related to your use of the site. All postings and use of the content on this site are subject to the Apple Support Communities Terms of Use.