Skip navigation

Need help moving masters to external drive

2649 Views 10 Replies Latest reply: Nov 22, 2012 5:05 AM by Kirby Krieger RSS
jbshanks Calculating status...
Currently Being Moderated
Jun 17, 2012 10:07 PM

Drag images from internal drive to external...

Relocate Masters...

Locate Referenced Files......

 

I realize these options are available, but I'm wondering which way to do this. Out of 160 GB of images about 1/2 of them are imported into Aperture while the remaining 1/2 are on the Mac but not in Aperture. All images are on my internal drive and I use Aperture as referenced masters, not managed. I need to make space on my internal drive and need to move all images (those already imported and those not yet imported) to an external. Given my current set up (1/2 imported 1/2 not), which option is best for a clean move to the external w/o messing up Aperture?

 

Thank you,

Jerry

iMac, Mac OS X (10.6.7)
  • Kirby Krieger Level 6 Level 6 (11,550 points)
    Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 18, 2012 2:24 AM (in response to jbshanks)

    Hi Jerry.  Aperture makes what you want to do simple.  In Photos view, you can filter all of the Images in your Library by whether their Originals (used to be called Masters) are being stored inside the Aperture Library package, or outside the Aperture Library package.  Use the Filter Rule "File Status" to filter for Managed or Referenced Originals.  (Remember that the Original is the file you imported; "File Status" should be better called "Status of Original".)  Once grouped by the Filter, you can safely execute any of the operations Aperture provides for administering your Originals.

     

    Truth be told, Aperture is even cleverer than that.  If you select a set of Images some of which have Managed Originals and some of which have Referenced Originals, and use "File➞Relocate Originals" to move the Originals, and set the destination to the same destination already used for the Referenced Originals in the selected set, Aperture will relocate the Managed Originals and leave the Referenced Originals where they are.

     

    Likewise, if you select a set of Images that have a mix of Referenced and Managed Originals and execute "File➞Consolidate Originals", Aperture will move the Referenced Originals and leave the Managed Originals where they already are.

     

    HTH.

     

    One note.  You say, "All images are on my internal drive and I use Aperture as referenced masters, not managed."  That does not correspond to what your description of having 50% "imported into Aperture" and 50% "on the Mac but not in Aperture".  This makes me worry that I have mis-understood your question.  If so, please let me know.

     

    Cheers.

  • bjurasz Level 1 Level 1 (45 points)
    Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 18, 2012 7:18 AM (in response to jbshanks)

    Aha, so any given folder might have some images that are in Aperture (as a referenced image), and some files that are not in Aperture.  You've mixed and matched whether images are or are not in Aperture within the same folder.  Might not want to make that mistake again... 

     

    What I would try is to first have Aperture move the referenced images for you.  Now go into Finder and move everything to the new folder.  Finder will ask what you should do with duplicate files, in which case you should tell it to skip them.

  • bjurasz Level 1 Level 1 (45 points)
    Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 18, 2012 12:48 PM (in response to jbshanks)

    What I told you to do does not modify your folder structure or which files live in which folder whatsoever.  Nadda.  Zip.  Zero.

     

    Besides, that point is moot.  There is this thing called progress.  What worked before might not be ideal any longer, and its quite possible your current scheme is no longer ideal.

     

    Lastly, for what purpose is your organization?  Is your folder organization your means of finding images?  Or is there some other resaon for it?  This is an old book, pre-dates Lightroom and Aperture, but its still very good.  And he goes into great length about the role of a directory structure, and what roles it does NOT play.  Hint, Aperture and Lightroom basically kill any of the reasons for a particular directory structure:

     

    http://www.amazon.com/The-DAM-Book-Management-Photographers/dp/0596523572/ref=sr _1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1340048812&sr=8-1&keywords=the+dam+book+digital+asset+managemen t+for+photographers

  • GodefroyB Calculating status...
    Currently Being Moderated
    Nov 22, 2012 4:26 AM (in response to jbshanks)

    Hi!  One question for you!  When you relocate your "managed files", does the Aperture Metadata and adjustments made on each picture follow each picture?  Will I loose the metadata and modifications made in Aperture and or NikSoftwares add ins?

     

    The reason I wish to do this is that my librairies are getting very big, 80GB and some trending in the 100GB.  I would think that working in a referenced process tends to make Aperture less heavy to work with versus managed, right??  Although I can split a librairy into two, this involves a lot of work and risk, so I wish to pull away from that. Is there something I am not seeing in the "referenced" process, is there a down side to that?  For sure I find there is a big negative in working within a managed environment.

     

    Thanks

  • Kirby Krieger Level 6 Level 6 (11,550 points)
    Currently Being Moderated
    Nov 22, 2012 4:41 AM (in response to GodefroyB)

    While your questions apply to this thread, it's almost always best to start a new one with new questions.  This keeps the threads neat.  Neat threads allow for efficient finding of stored knowledge.  But I will attempt answers here.

    GodefroyB wrote:

     

    Hi!  One question for you!  When you relocate your "managed files", does the Aperture Metadata and adjustments made on each picture follow each picture?  Will I loose the metadata and modifications made in Aperture and or NikSoftwares add ins?

    No, you will not.  The Original is an image file that has some metadata.  Aperture creates a record of this file, and stores with it (in the Library) all adjustments you make and any changes or additions you make to the metadata.  When you use Aperture to relocate your Originals, all you are doing is having it move the image files to another storage location and record that location in its database.  The Original retains whatever metadata it had, and the Image in Aperture retains whatever adjustments you've made and any changes or additions to the metadata.

    GodefroyB wrote:

     

    The reason I wish to do this is that my libraries are getting very big, 80GB and some trending in the 100GB.  I would think that working in a referenced process tends to make Aperture less heavy to work with versus managed, right??

    Relocating Originals to external drives is the standard and in fact the official method of dealing with burgeoning Libraries.  Aperture, however, seems to be rigorously engineered to handle very very large libraries with currently standard hardware.  Relocating your Originals will allow you to continue to store your Library on your system drive and well as free up space on that drive (as a general rule, leave more than 10% free space), but other than that you won't be doing anything that improves Aperture performance.

     

    IME, the number one bottleneck in Aperture performance (assuming a healthy Library and installation) is CPU/GPU speed and RAM.  For top performance, make sure you have 4 GB of RAM available to Aperture at all times (iow, 6 or more on your system), and buy the fastest processors you can.

  • Kirby Krieger Level 6 Level 6 (11,550 points)
    Currently Being Moderated
    Nov 22, 2012 5:05 AM (in response to jbshanks)

    Jerry -- sorry, this thread slipped by.  I haven't had the time recently to be attentive.

    jbshanks wrote:

     

    So, I still need a little help with this. If I have this folder structure on my internal drive and 1/2 of those images are imported into Aperture (but referenced), and I use the "Relocate" feature, how will they be moved? Will it take the folders to the external or just the images, leaving the folders on the internal drive?

     

    I'm afraid to experiment in case it messes things up. Any help is greatly appreciated.

    1.  Don't be afraid to experiment -- set up a practice Library and use it to experiment.  That's how all of us learned what we know.

     

    2.  Your situation is a little peculiar, and I'm going to recommend something I wouldn't otherwise.  First, backup your system and confirm your backup.  Then go ahead and use Finder to copy all the Finder folders and files in question, intact, to a new drive.  Then delete the ones on your system drive.  Then open Aperture and run "File➞Locate Referenced Files" to re-attach your Aperture Images to your moved files.  You may have to run "File➞Locate Referenced Files" more than once (but most likely not) in order to end up with no Images that have missing Originals.  (If you need to, search for posts on the board about using this command.)

     

    At that point, you have done what you set out to do: move all of your photo files to an external drive while retaining the connection between those that are Aperture Originals and their corresponding Images in Aperture.

     

    But you haven't addressed the very good point brought up by bjurasz, which is that you are going out of your way to maintain competing databases.  Aperture is a database of your Images.  It has _outstanding_ storage and retrieval capabilities.  Finder is a database of your files.  It doesn't do a tenth the job Aperture does.  Finder is a file manager.  Aperture is an image manager (that does good file management).  Aperture has _terrific_ tools for helping you instantly retrieve _any_ subset of your Images (e.g.: family, spouse, dog, students from 2010, science students from 2010, vacation photos, vacation photos w. spouse, etc.).  The key to this is simply tagging your Images (e.g.: grayscale 2010 vacation photos w. spouse and dog) so that you can retrieve them as needed.  Importantly, you are not confined to a flat folder structure and whatever information you can stuff into the file name, as you are with Finder.  (Yes, more or less -- Finder is actually much more sophisticated than many realize or use.)

     

    I suggest moving more fully into Aperture, learning what tags are available and deciding how to use them, designing an Aperture Library structure that meets your needs, and transitioning your Finder collection of photo files to an Aperture database of Images.

     

    Ask more questions -- might be best to start new threads as they come up.

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.