Currently Being ModeratedOct 21, 2013 3:33 PM (in response to MikeT)
This may work for your purposes, but to say this process "keeps the JPEG originals" isn't really true, as least as I understand your description. The whole thing falls apart in step 3 where you "Export VERSIONS". At that point you have lost the original JPEG.
One of Aperture's key features is "non-destructive editing". Your process defeats that feature in that the reimported JPEG is modified from the original.
AFAIK, there is no way to remove only the RAW or JPEG from a RAW/JPEG pair.
Currently Being ModeratedOct 22, 2013 4:38 AM (in response to phosgraphis)
Thank you for causing me to reread my steps! Below is the correction to step 3, which I believe also addresses your issue.
Before that, let's look at the results. In one case my disk usage by 60% from 10 GB to 4 GB! I had a library (single project) of about 400 x 16 MP images. With both RAW+JPEG, the library was 10 GB in size. Of these 320 were 1 star and 80 were 2 star or higher. By following this process for only the 1 star images, I reduced the libary size to 4 GB. That's huge for me.
- In case you need to abort and return to the current state, please backup the Aperture Library first. Time Machine backups should be fine.
- Create smart album to find exactly the photos to change. (Those where you wish to delete the RAW originals and keep only the JPEG originals.) I use these rules:
- Set rules to ALL that MATCH
- Source is the PROJECT (I have not tried doing multiple projects.)
- RATING less than or equal to 2 stars (Excludes my better photos. I want both originals for those.)
- Adjustments ARE NOT APPLIED (Excludes any modified photos. I want both originals for those.)
- File Type IS RAW+JPEG
- Export ORIGINAL of smart album photos into a new/empty directory
- As a sanity check, make sure the number of files in the new directory is twice the number of photos. You should have a jpg and raw file for each.
- Use FILE > DELETE ORIGINAL IMAGE AND ALL VERSIONS to delete those images you are changing from Aperture.
- Use FILE > IMPORT > FILES… with IMPORT SETTINGS Raw+Jpeg Pairs set Import JPEG FILES ONLY
- Do some a sanity checks. Did you get the correct number of images? Do the re-imported images have only jpeg originals. Etc.
- If desired, move images back into original project.
- Some time later, after you are sure everything is fine, empty the Aperture trash.
A downside of this is that you will lose the auto-rotation on the pictures you re-import.
Notes if you Export Versions
- If in step 3, you export versions, then in step 4 you should expect only a single file per image. And, in step 6 (I expect) you will not have the RAW+JPEG option.
- Your images should retain their auto-rotation.
- phosgraphis's comments above are technically correct, you will not have exactly the same file as came out of the camera. In practice, you don't care as long as the image generated is substantially the same; which it will be if you are careful about your compression (I use "JPEG - Original Size" with the default Image Quality of 10).
- Don't export low image quality JPEGs, as you will be using them as your "new originals".
- If I use Image Quality higher than 10, then my "new originals" are bigger than my "original originals"!
Currently Being ModeratedOct 22, 2013 5:04 AM (in response to MikeT)
First, a couple of assumptions... (1) you are using a managed Aperture library, and (2) that library resides on your startup disk. And just curious ... why is a reduction in your library from 10GB to 4GB "huge" for you? Are you short on space on your startup volume? If so, you are going to run into other problems sooner than later, anyway.
The price of hard disk storage these days is so relatively inexpensive that it almost isn't worth the effort to go to all the trouble of what you are doing to recover a handful of GB.
There's a couple of other approaches to consider...
Move to a referenced library and keep your originals, or an archive of your older originals, on an external drive.
Don't import RAW+JPEG pairs. Import them separately, then later simply delete the RAW images you don't want.
Sorry, it just seems like you are going through a lot of work, with potential problems, to free up a few GB.
Currently Being ModeratedOct 22, 2013 8:09 AM (in response to phosgraphis)
" Import them separately, then later simply delete the RAW images you don't want.
Raw&Jpeg pairs are wasteful. I agree with If "Don't import RAW+JPEG pairs", d'accord, photographis, but I would not recommend to "import them separately" either.
Importing Raw&Jpeg pairs should be avoided, because Aperture has no support to get rid of one of the originals, but importing them separately leads to a clumsy workflow, because they are tied to different images, and not different versions of the same image.
But there are times, when you might consider to use raw&jpeg pairs - for example, while waiting for the raw support for a new camera to be released. Raw and jpeg pairs let you switch between the two masters, they are tied to the same image version. You will not get that by importing the raw and jpeg separately.
So, if you have imported for whatever reason two original files for the same image, exporting and reimporting is the only way to get rid of the redundant original file. Only I would strongly recomment to export the original and not export the edited version. You can always lift any adjustment and metadata from the original raw&jpeg pair and stamp them onto the reimported original, before deleting old image pair.
Then you will have removed one of the two original files losslessly. You may have to add the newly imported image to all albums where the image is now missing from, however.
Currently Being ModeratedOct 22, 2013 8:22 AM (in response to léonie)
Leonie, I certainly agree with your points. And of course my own workflow is RAW only. But it sounds like the OP may have some sort of HD space issues and I was trying to give him some alternatives to think about if that is the case. The process he outlined, and which you have commented on previously, certainly leaves a lot to be desired.
Currently Being ModeratedOct 22, 2013 10:44 AM (in response to léonie)
There are many good reasons to import the RAW and JPEG as "separate originals" in the drop-down import menu. We have had a number of polite disagreements over importing both the RAW and JPEG as separate originals in the past here on this forum. My workflow uses Nikon d800 huge RAW and JPEG "separate originals" for a number of reasons. First, I always apply different Nikon camera JPEG presets to my images so that I can compare the effects of the JPEG presets with the RAW versions as rendered by Aperture 3.4.5.
Nikon in-camera JPEG presets are proprietary and can only really be seen when comparing the JPEG optimal fine version with the RAW rendered version. If you then like a particular Nikon JPEG proprietary preset, you can compare the JPEG with the RAW and try to match the images. Secondly, it is much much easier to send my clients copies of the JPEG files immediately after a shoot rather than the far larger RAW exports. Thirdly, I can quickly show clients the JPEG image files from a shoot on a retina display iPad - or macbook pro with retina display.
And days later, after I am done Aperture post-processing the project's RAW images to the client's needs (or my needs and/or whims), and I no longer need or want a particular RAW original, I of course delete the particular project's RAW and JPEG separate originals immediately in order to save a huge amount of external drive file space. But I only delete stuff within a particular project. And I would never use an Aperture 3.4.5 smart album file search to determine images to delete. I only delete images manually, and carefully, one at a time, from within existing Aperture projects.
Currently Being ModeratedOct 22, 2013 10:59 AM (in response to torreypines)
Agreed, that are all good reasons to import both - jpeg and raw as separate images, since you want them for diffrent purposes and as separate images. For me it is very inconvenient, that the separate import makes it necessary to tag twice as many images and to keep the tags consistent.
Currently Being ModeratedOct 22, 2013 11:40 AM (in response to phosgraphis)
phosgraphis you seem to have shifted from
AFAIK, there is no way to remove only the RAW or JPEG from a RAW/JPEG pair.
to your new view that it is too much work for the benefit. ;-)
My intention was to cleanly document the process. Seems like I succeeded! Perhaps it could be the basis of a User Tip?
Since you seemed concerned with my situation, here is my background.
My MacBook Pro has a 500 GB SSD startup disk with 100 GB free. I previously used only JPEG images. I recently started experimenting with RAW. (So far i'm unimpressed, but let's not go there.) Bringing in RAW+JPEG pairs was an early attempt at creating a RAW workflow that for me. I was appalled that a one day shoot would chew up 10 GB. At that rate I'm out of start up disk space very quickly (<< 10 days). Where my approach gives me more time (<< 25 days). For me this probably is the difference between needing and not needing to carry an external disk on trips. I would probably go JPEG only before going to an extra disk.
Thank you for your alternatives. My thoughts are;
Using referenced files sounds like a "cure worse than the disease". I would need to re-think through my backup strategy very carefully.
Importing them separately sounds like an idea I will explore. Thanks to leonieDF and torrreypines for their back and forth on the pros and cons. I am bemused that my initial reaction is to paraphrase you:
Sorry, it just seems like you are proposing going through a lot more manual work, with many more potential problems, to free up a even fewer GB. ;-)Aperture 3, OS X Mountain Lion (10.8.5)