Photos on NAS as referenced files - any issues and library size

You should seriously consider the warnings in this user tip: Disadvantages of a Referenced Library in Photos for Mac. As Terence mentioned there's been a number of recent posts describing permission issues with reference files on a NAS.

3 - For other family members who have a Mac, I presume they would do a similar thing of dragging in the photos from NAS. However can this cause any issues. For example, say I updated the metadata of a file, would they immediately see that change (as both people looking at the same referenced file). Also what happens if someone deletes a file, would it be deleted on the NAS?

I guess another way to phrase the question, is the library constantly watching referenced files?

NO. Metadata added in the library is kept in the databases of that library. It's only written to the file when the file is exported as a JPEG with the checkboxes selected instruction Photos to write the IPTC metadata to the exported file.

Therefore, even with reference files, each person referencing those files have their own library that is totally independent of any other library referencing the same files.

4 - No. You can't modify the makeup of the library package. It is what it is.

There is a 3rd party app, NeoFinder that will reference the files but any edit made will be made on the original, reference file unless you save each edit as a new, separate image file which might not be what you want.

With the low cost of external HDs it's not that much of a stretch for each user to have their own managed library on an external HD of their own.

No it's not to encourage anybody to do anything. Photos is what it is: a handy giveaway app designed for a single user. Apple do this with all their giveaway software: it's good-enough-for-a-lot but nothing too complicated. For that, go to third party developers and pay to use their more powerful apps. Pages is an excellent example of this: want a cute newsletter: Pages is great. Want to layout a PhD thesis? You're going to need Word, Mellel or Nisus Writer.

Having a central store of files on a NAS, and everyone reaching into it to create their own libraries is going to cause a couple of problems. One: who owns the files? Every file has to be owned by some entity, and once you give ownership to one you risk causing issues to the others. And being on a NAS complicates this. A NAS is a computer in itself, usually running some version of Linux. So you want to host the files on a Linux machine and create Mac libraries on other machines. The way most people get around this (by no means trivial) issue is to manage the files with a server application and have clients of the server on the individual Macs. These apps are not inexpensive, and perhaps the least expensive is Photo Supreme. I'm not sure it will work with a NAS but you could drop them a line and ask.

https://www.idimager.com

Check out the Server edition.

Another way round this is not to use a NAS but to use the Cloud. But in this scenario you would be sharing one Library, not everyone having their own, and if one person edits a photo, then everyone else sees the same edit and/or changes. I think the most robust version of this is Adobe's Lightroom. LR comes in two versions: Lightroom and Lightroom Classic. It's the Lightroom version you would be using in this scenario:

https://www.adobe.com/products/photoshop-lightroom.html

OT, as the user tip is now four years old, I just created a new version for Catalina, see:

Disadvantages of a Referenced Library in Photos - Updated for macOS 10.15 Catalina

This version describes also the known bugs. There are some bugs that are making it impossible use the feature at all on Catalina.

The file system format needs to be macOS Extended or APFS to prevent conflicts with the filenames and paths; otherwise you would continually run into copy errors or "file not found".

The network access is a completely different problem. The Photos Library is a database, and if you access a database over the network, you need a database software that supports the network access or the database transactions may be causing data loss. Network databases are usually very expensive. The Apple support documents state that keeping the Photos Library on a network share can result in data loss, and that is a serious warning, that the Photos.app does not support a remotely accessed database. https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT201517

"To prevent data loss, Apple doesn't recommend storing photo libraries on external storage devices like SD cards and USB flash drives, or drives that are shared on a network."

Is it true that I could just plugin an external HDD to my TimeCapsule usb port - format it as required then be able to have my photos library there?

There are two reasons why a NAS is not an appropriate setting for a Photos library:

1. The disk format.
2. It's a network location

Both these ideas fail for reason two. Libraries on a networked location are not supported and very prone to fail with a risk of significant dataloss.

Based on my experience - shared photo libraries are always problematic. i have several times used shared libraries at work. At work it is feasable, because the libraries are specific for a certain task or project, and if someone is the boss and sets up the rules for the organisation and can ensure that all partners in the project are considerate and do not dump unnecessary photos into the project library and put everything into the correct albums, it will work.

But for a shared family library you will have a lot of trouble. Family photos are very personal. And the tastes which photos to keep will differ. It will be very hard to agree which photos to keep and which photos not. Family live will be much more peaceful if everyone has a personal library and just puts the best shots that others might be interested in, into a folder on the NAS, where the others can find the photos they want to add to their own library.

In our house there is one large library of 80k images. That includes old family photos scanned, holiday and family events, children's images. My wife and I both feed into that, and our (now young adult) children can view it and download from it, if they want. They also have libraries of their own on their own devices, full of their own shots and snaps. If they think there's some that would be good in the family library they send them to on to me, but mostly, I don't want to see endless pics of their friends doing things that I'm now far too old and sensible to do.

That's how we do it.

And that one `one large library of 80k images` do you keep that on one a HDD?

No. It's actually in Adobe's Lightroom. So the masters are stored in the Cloud (and backed up by Adobe) with a local back up here also. Folks can access it on any device - Mac, iOS, AppleTV, Android and/or Windows - or just via the web interface. It's a subscription service, but the Apps for the various devices and machines, plus the storage are included in the price.

TBH, I was an avid Aperture user and after was discontinued I tried and tested just about every variation I could find and keep coming back to Lightroom as the one that balances power and ease of use best. YMMV There are two versions: Lightroom Is the version in the Cloud, Lightroom Classic is closer to Aperture. I use that as a hub for my raw shooting.

One that might work for you is Mylio. The basic idea is that you have a library containing everything an can share that to all sorts of devices and machines. It's cleverness is that it looks at an iPhone and only syncs tiny thumbnails, or at a laptop and perhaps offers the full size files. Again anyone can change and/or add to the library. It's well worth a look as an app somewhere between Photos and Lightroom.

hen do you use the Photos to view it?

Haven't found a use for Photos yet, in my circumstance.

I am not using a NAS; I mentioned the NAS as an option because you have been asking about it. I am simply using a portable drive with folders for each event to be shared. I export the photos to be shared from Photos with the export preset "Subfolder name: use Moment". This way the subfolders will be named by the location and the date.

Folders are more convenient than a library for sharing photos across devices with different system versions.. A Photos library can only be shared, if all users are using the same system version.

You may also want to take a look at Adobe Bridge, an excellent tool for organizing photos. Adobe describes it as a digital asset management tool. It is basically a very powerful "Finder" for photos that provides much more information, ability to organize, and options for sorting and searching than can be found in Photos. Much more photo information is saved and available than what you see with Photos.

Bridge is a different type of application than the others discussed here. It is at heart a file browser. The others are digital assent managers that fear - crucially - non destructive processing. They are also parametric editors as opposed to a browser. Bridge is a venerable tool and been around a long time, but it's not the same as an actual DAM.