Skip navigation

Aperture newbie worried about photo safety

1267 Views 17 Replies Latest reply: Nov 20, 2012 8:16 AM by Stargeezer RSS
1 2 Previous Next
Stargeezer Calculating status...
Currently Being Moderated
Nov 13, 2012 6:54 AM

I am trying to figure out how to structure my photos in Aperture but am getting hung up on importing. If I import a photo into the Aperture library and then delete it, is the photo completely gone?  If I keep it in its original location what happens when I delete the referenced photo in Aperture?  Can I ever lose a photo by deleting it in Aperture?


Thanks for any response


iMac (21.5-inch Mid 2011), Mac OS X (10.7.4), Brand new out of the box iMac.
  • léonie Level 8 Level 8 (46,380 points)
    Currently Being Moderated
    Nov 13, 2012 7:55 AM (in response to Stargeezer)

    Don,the  Aperture Library is, where Aperture keeps your images, the edited versions and the origals, if you decide to let Aperture manage them.


    When you delete an image from Aperture, and this is the last edited version, then Aperture will also delete the original image file from the library, see Frank Caggiano's User Tip:

                     Deleting version also deleted the master


    And you can also have Aperture delete any referenced original image files, that you store in there original location. Aperture has more than one delete command for images: delete version, delete original and version, remove from album, depending where you are deleting from.

    If you accidentally delete an image, it usually will appear in Aperture's trash, and if you empty this trash, you will find the image in the system trash in your Dock.


    But why delete images from your Aperture library, if you do not really want them deleted? Usually I only delete images that are not worth keeping: out of focus, bad lighting, boring subjects, a waste of disk space.


    It is important to plan a good backup strategy for your precious photos. Make one backup of the originals from your camera even before importing to Aperture and regulare backups of the Aperture library, together with the regular backup of your system. Also I'd keep one backup of your Aperture library, for example a vault, at a different location, for example your office.




  • JUN48 Calculating status...
    Currently Being Moderated
    Nov 13, 2012 11:13 PM (in response to Stargeezer)

    In your case, use "keywords" for individual image, one or more keywords can attach a image,

    like a subheading you want to, then querying images by making "smart albums",

    This will maximize image managing flexilbilty compared with tree like form that you seem to do.

  • JUN48 Level 1 Level 1 (100 points)
    Currently Being Moderated
    Nov 14, 2012 2:09 PM (in response to Stargeezer)

    You have already sorted images by folders?

    It can use "batch change " command by each folders /projects.

    It's no neasesory for type keywords each images.

  • Kirby Krieger Level 6 Level 6 (11,550 points)
    Currently Being Moderated
    Nov 15, 2012 6:56 AM (in response to Stargeezer)

    I suggest you start with a practice Library (software manufacturers jump though loops avoiding the word "database") and try several methods of importing and storing your collection before fully committing it to being managed by Aperture.  This will allow you to get up to speed, and become comfortable with, Aperture, as well as give you the knowledge you need to wisely structure your Library.


    Don't be put off, however:  Aperture is great, very well worth learning how to use, and far, far superior to any file-management system.


    First, make a complete copy (a back-up) of your entire collection.  Store this somewhere safe.

    Second, copy a sample of your collection, including many folders representing your current file-folder storage structure, to a new, clearly named Finder folder ("Sample Image File Tree").

    Third, learn how Aperture imports files:  what happens to the file, what Aperture calls that file after it is imported, etc.  Note that you can import files into Aperture while leaving the Originals where they are.

    Fourth (this is the tough one) make the conceptual leap to image-management from the flat-land of file management. Here is a springboard.  You don't need a parachute:  you'll know you have wings when you fully understand the freedom that "Any image can be in any Album, and can be in as many Albums as you want." represents.


    It is important to fully and carefully define "photo".  In file-management systems, "photo" = file.  In image-management systems like Aperture, this one-to-one correspondence no longer exists.


    Here is an example of setting up an Aperture Library.


    Again, it's a BIG first step, but after that it's an easy and often thrilling walk.  Post back with questions as you move forward.

  • Kirby Krieger Level 6 Level 6 (11,550 points)
    Currently Being Moderated
    Nov 16, 2012 7:39 PM (in response to Stargeezer)

    I think you'll find that, as with (afaik) all databases, there must be an actual, specified storage location for the core records.  In Aperture, this is the Project.  Understood as such, and uses as such, Projects work well.  This is one of the main reasons I advise sticking with "One Project = one out-in-the world shoot".  Work in Projects when you are deciding about the fate of your Images.  Work in Albums when you are developing and publishing Images.  (This is how Aperture is set up: you don't delete from an Album, you remove from on Album.  You delete from a Project.)


    Just to be specific, it is not that I am not a fan of Projects, it is that the name used to designate this top-level holding container is wildly misleading.  Afaik (my database development stopped with MS Access), there must be a (for lack of a better description) top-level storage container.  It should NOT be called "Project".


    Folders, imho, work well as currently implemented.  They are what you call paths.  A path itself cannot contain an object, it can only address an object.  Thus it makes sense that Folders don't hold Images, they hold only containers of Images.


    My database knowledge was never deep, and is now out-dated.  I'd love to be brought up-to-date on what structures are currently used, and how they used by Aperture.  Imho, Aperture is right on the cusp of a significant, powerful, and useful change in how people interact with digitized data.  I really want to see it pushed off the cusp and start rolling down the other side.

  • léonie Level 8 Level 8 (46,380 points)
    Currently Being Moderated
    Nov 16, 2012 11:25 PM (in response to Kirby Krieger)

    Folders, imho, work well as currently implemented.  They are what you call paths.  A path itself cannot contain an object, it can only address an object.  Thus it makes sense that Folders don't hold Images, they hold only containers of Images.

    Kirby, I like your view of folders as paths. They are really part of the retrieval structure, if you need to access the containers, rather the images.

    Also they are very convenient to structure the library - to define subdivisions with related library items.

  • léonie Level 8 Level 8 (46,380 points)
    Currently Being Moderated
    Nov 17, 2012 7:05 AM (in response to Stargeezer)
    . I entered each of the other photographers as albums within the Peru Project.  I don' t like this structure and after this discussion I think it would be better to create Peru as a subfolder of Travel, and enter all four photographers as Projects within the Peru folder.  Then create albums as need arises.


    That is what I am doing, if I have to combine photos taken by different photographers at special events, like a trip.


    Yes, you can add albums to folders outside of projects.

    For my Peru Trip I have one folder "Peru" inside "Travels2000-2010", with projects for each day and each photographer. And then quite a few albums and smart albums for different products, like slideshows, book, screensaver, web pages.



    My projects structure is quite rigorous: one trip or event = one folder with projects for each day inside; but the albums and other products change more dynamically, just as needed to accomplish a specific task.

  • léonie Level 8 Level 8 (46,380 points)
    Currently Being Moderated
    Nov 18, 2012 7:55 AM (in response to Stargeezer)

    Aperture does not delete the originals ( unless you tell it to ) when you remove a project and empty the Aperture trash. As long as you have imported the photos from a hard drive. I think that if you download a camera card directly into Aperture you will lose them if you delete a photo.


    This is a bit misleading: Whether the originals will be deleted or not does not depend on where you are importing from (card or disk), but depends on where your originals are stored - referenced (outside the library) or managed (inside the library). Managed originals will be deleted without asking, if you delete the last remaining version of an image, for referenced images you will be prompted.


    One question. Is it a good idea to make multiple librairies for different purposes?  I am finding that lumping a lot of unrelated projects into one library is not working well.



    If you have totally unrelated sets of images, you can put them in different Aperture libraries, no problem. But it is not a good idea to distribute images over different libraries, if you need to use the images together in a product, like a slideshow or a book. Remember, only the currently used Aperture library can be seen in the media browser or be connected to the photo stream.




1 2 Previous Next


More Like This

  • Retrieving data ...

Bookmarked By (0)


  • 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.