The master is not affected by anything you do in Aperture. All your adjustments are text files in the Aperture library. If you want to archive a project, export it as a library. There are several strategies you could use. For example, you could import archived projects into one library or you could have a separate library for each archived project. You could consolidate your masters into your archived library(s) or keep them referenced. If you keep them referenced, don't do anything to sever the links between the library and the master. This is just a couple of possible scenarios. Do your homework, and make a plan first. And, of course, backup first.
So, by exporting my project as a "new library", that is essentially archiving the "text file" that is my adjustments? Its not saving a whole set of images right? that would take up lots of space. And if I wanted to work with these images again I can re-import that library? Will I have to import the RAWs again too?
How about the option of exporting masters into a new folder on my HD? Are those newly exported masters embedded with the adjustments? Or would it be the same as now where those RAWs would be in their original form and Aperture would be holding the "info" of the adjustments?
I hope this all makes sense.
I think you're missing one of the big possibilities of Aperture.
I have my master RAW files on my external HD, I import them into Aperture 3, I make adjustments, then I export jpegs to easily use for many things.
Why export the jpegs until you need them? You're just wasting disk space, and for a great many things, Previews will do?
Now, I want to clean up my aperture library. I dont want projects just hanging out in there that I am done with.
And this is the piece you're missing. Why? The point of Aperture is to manage your photos, not just process them, and it's a much better manager than the Finder is.
Why not leave all your photos in Aperture, where they can be processed, managed and easily categorised, searched and so on and make your whole life more simple?
I usually dont make jpegs until I'm ready to use them for things like albums, for clients, sharing socially online, etc.
I find that having hundreds of projects listed in my Aperture is distracting. It doesnt matter how organized I have them. Also, when I finish editing a client's shoot, I rarely use them again and would like to archive them. I like to "put things away" if that's the right phrase. For me, a HD is where currently unused things belong.
So, by exporting my project as a "new library", that is essentially archiving the "text file" that is my adjustments?
Its not saving a whole set of images right? that would take up lots of space.
If you consolidate masters, yes it saves the images in the library. If you don't consolidate masters, it leaves them in their current location. They don't take up any more space either way. Also, either way, you can save space by not exporting previews.
And if I wanted to workwith these images again I can re-import that library?
Yes or just open it as a stand alone library
Will I have to import the RAWs again too?
If you maintain the link to the referenced by leaving those files and that library in the same place you put it at the the time of export, everything will be as you left it. If you don't maintain that link, re-importing won't help. OR you could consolidate the masters into that library so you don't have to worry about it
How about the option of exporting masters into a new folder on my HD? Are those newly exported masters embedded with the adjustments?
Or would it be the same as now where those RAWs would be in their original form and Aperture would be holding the "info" of the adjustments?
This may be a naive question ( I am an Apeture novice and a digital camera novice). When I make adjustments to an image on the screen, am I therefore not adjusting the master, but a version of the master? ie even if only 1 version of the RAW image is visible in my Apeture library ( and it's been adjusted/cropped or changed to B&W etc, etc ) does that mean that the master still exists in it's original format elsewhere? make sense?
Jon, that is exactly what the non-destructive workflow of Aperture is all about - you are creating adjusted versions and always can undo indiividual adjustments or revert to the original master image file.
Aperture will store which adjustments you want applied, and when you export the image the adjusted image will be rendered.
ie even if only 1 version of the RAW image is visible in my Apeture library .....
You can toggle between the original master image and the edited version by pressing the "m" key. So you always can view the origial by hitting "m". You can tell by the label "Master image" in the Viewer if you are seeing the master or the edited version.