which images are versions and which are masters?

Question

Level 1

24 points

which images are versions and which are masters?

I find it difficult to distinguish between master files and versions when I open images in Photoshop and edit, then perform something on the image in Aperture. Does anyone know how to tell which images are versions and which are masters?

Here is a real world example.

I imported a high Res TIFF, performed color and exposure adjustments in Aperture, then opened in Photoshop to remove dust and scratches (Tiff was scanned from film) and to despeckle. Then in aperture I tried a few more adjustments to the Photoshop cleaned file. I would also like to crop it in Aperture, not photoshop...
So now I have four visible versions in Aperture. I can tell which is the original I imported because it is slightly over exposed and has dust & scratches. I think I know which is the Photoshop master copy because of the (still mysteriously undefined) circle with a dot badge. But there are two more "versions" visible and if I try to delete either one I get a warning "Deleting this version will move 1 master image file to the trash..."

So I am stumped because from everything I have read etc. there should be only two master files... the original imported one and the master copy that was created when I opened the TIFF in Photoshop... So what gives? How can I actually tell which are masters and which are versions?

So, my Suggestion (for the moderators at Apple): Add a field to the metadata or a badge (as long as there is a descriptive table defining them released) or a column (in file view in the project management window) that would clearly denote whether a file is a version or a master...

dual 2gHz G5, Mac OS X (10.4.3)

Posted on Dec 30, 2005 10:44 AM

Reply

Answer 1

Dec 30, 2005 10:46 AM in response to Sol Hill

There is typically a "bullseye" badge in the upper right corner of a version. At least, that's what I see -- yours is different?

Reply

Answer 2

Dec 30, 2005 11:32 AM in response to Sol Hill

I think you can set up Aperture to create versions every time you touch an image such as adjust exposure and such. As far as Masters, i would think that a master is an original RAW file that you can only really see once you create a new version from a Master. Aperture keeps all the adjustments in a separate small file and dynamically applies them to your master image. I have auto-version feature turned off so i really think of all my imported RAW files as masters even though they have been applied the adjustments.
Hope it helps
Cheers

Reply

Answer 3

Sol Hill Author

Level 1

24 points

Dec 30, 2005 11:33 AM in response to William Lloyd

The "bullseye" means that the image has been opened with an external editor (ie Photoshop). There is no published info anywhere on the meanings of these badges, but I called an haranged with the tech support guys to get the meaning of a couple of them.

So in a way, the "bullseye" means it is a master file because Aperture creates a duplicate master of your image when it opens in an external editor.

But what about all the other copies I see in Aperture. Do you know any other way of discerning which is a version vs. a master? (regardless how the master was created)

-Sol

Reply

Answer 4

Gary2010

Level 1

55 points

Dec 30, 2005 1:36 PM in response to Paul Samoluk

Sol,

1.The only way I can see to keep track of the original tiff to change the “version name” to “original” after you import it. After that you will have no trouble knowing which is the original.

2. After you open the original in photo shop you are creating a new master. When you save it, the new thumbnail will have a “bulls eye”. What this means is that this master is in a Photoshop format with its layers etc still available for editing.

3. When you take this file and do some adjustments in Aperture - a new master file is made but now the Photoshop layers are not available for editing, so the “bulls eye” is gone.

4. You now have 3 master files you can see with aperture. If you try to delete any one of them you will get a master file delete warning.

Gary

Reply

Answer 5

Sol Hill Author

Level 1

24 points

Dec 31, 2005 10:42 AM in response to Gary2010

Thank you,

I was begining to think along the same lines... that I should rename the version upon import. I was reluctant to alter the "version name" field because I thought it had some important function in tracking each Version created by Aperture... er, in other words, that Aperture would actually give some distinguishing mark or sequential name. It turns out that it does not.
So thanks, I will start aletring the version names to help track the images.

It would be nice if Aperture added a badge or some indicator of which image is a full sized master vs. a set of instructions version, especially with images that may be versions of those worked on outside Aperture (ie Photoshop).
I thought if I cropped a Photoshop edited image in Aperture, it would only create a set of instructions (a Version) tagged to the Master created when the original was opened in Photoshop, not a full sized duplicate master (of something that is already a full sized duplicate of the original)...

-Sol

Reply

Answer 6

Gary2010

Level 1

55 points

Dec 31, 2005 12:52 PM in response to Sol Hill

Sol,

Glad I could help, but I forget to answer your question. When you make a “copy” of a file, if the “version name” says something like Version 1, then you have a true version (a set of instructions version). If the “copy” has the same “version name” as the "original" then you have a new master. The whole thing can be rather confusing.

Gary

Reply

Answer 7

Adam A

Level 1

5 points

Jan 1, 2006 3:19 AM in response to Sol Hill

I am equally confused by this...

You would have thought Apple would have given us a 'key' to all the little symbols you see on the images. I still haven't worked out what they mean - anyone got a full list that cares to share it?

I was under the impression that Aperture never altered the master image but created a version with any adjustment. But why do you have to select that option in preferences. What happens if this is not selected? I assume the master is adjusted?

Reply

Answer 8

Jan 1, 2006 9:42 AM in response to Adam A

Adam

The master is never ever altered. Period.

If you are referring to the "great new versions when making adjustments" check box in preferences?

When this is unchecked, the alterations a simply instructions that relate to the master. Hence the adjustment badge will appear on the 'master' thumbnail to show alterations have been made.

When it is checked, a new version is made before the alteration instructions are applied to the new version. Hence the badge appears on the new version. In this instance the two resulting images are stacked.

The original master image remains completely unaltered in either of these two methods.

Spike

Reply

Answer 9

Sol Hill Author

Level 1

24 points

Jan 2, 2006 6:06 AM in response to Gary2010

Gary,
Just one point of clarification...

If I take a master created by opening an image in Photoshop (so it has a bullseye badge) and then back in Aperture I crop it, does it really create a third full sized master?

Why? It is my understanding that Aperture only creates sets of instructions to be applied to masters. Maybe I am wrong, but I think even the "new from master" action only creates a new version without any edits to it. At least this is the way this program implies how it works...

-Sol

Reply

Answer 10

Gary2010

Level 1

55 points

Jan 2, 2006 2:36 PM in response to Sol Hill

Sol,

In the situation we were talking about, you do end up with three full size masters. While I have been trying to figure this out, I keep checking the project folder in the library to see what files are really being created, and in our case there are 3 full size tiffs (35meg ea.).

The first one is the one we imported, the second is the Photoshop file with the bulls-eye and the last one is the Photoshop file we adjusted with aperture.

Gary

Reply

Answer 11

Sol Hill Author

Level 1

24 points

Jan 3, 2006 1:43 PM in response to Gary2010

Gary,
Thanks,
I was afraid that would be the case...
I want to be really happy with Aperture but two things seem to be getting in my way and they both have to do with file management.

1) This issue of Aperture creating so many full sized master files. I have no problem with a second master file created of the image by opening in Photoshop, but having a third one created if you do anything to the Photoshop master in Aperture wastes a lot of HD space... from a program that touts a new way to handle images to reduce the number of full sized files!
2) That you cannot import existing Photoshop files into Aperture and access their Layers when you open them... what about all those images B.A. (Before Aperture)?

Hopefully this will be improved in the future.
-Sol

Reply

Answer 12

Jan 3, 2006 1:54 PM in response to Sol Hill

No images are masters. The master is simply a file in the library. Everything that aperture displays is a version.

You can temporarily switch to a version which displays zero changes on the underlying master file using the "m" key.

Otherwise, everything you see in aperture is a version.

Reply

Answer 13

Jan 3, 2006 3:00 PM in response to K. Richard Pixley

This is indeed very difficult to grasp. I wish someone, somewhere would write up the definitive answers to what’s going on.

Here’s my take (I could be totally wrong and would love some clarification):

1. You import a RAW file. That’s a Master and it can’t be touched. Of course, this is true in a lot of RAW converters. The RAW data is used to render an actual color image. I would then call that a Version. Sound OK?

2. You import a PSD file. That’s a Master (again, Aperture doesn’t touch it, although it could). I’m under the impression that if you try to do anything to that PSD file, a Version is made for the edit to be applied. Sound OK? Note, I think this and all versions are actual full sized, pixel based PSDs. With RAW, multiple Versions are instruction sets to be used to build a true pixel based file IF you export that data (or Open with External Editor). Is that correct?

3. The reason Layered files are not working as many would like is that while the Master PSD (with layers in this example) is inside the Library, as soon as you wish to work with it, a Version is made and the result is the Version is a flattened copy (this doesn’t have to be but it is). Sound OK?

3A. Apparently if you option drag the layered Master into a different album, it is copied with layers intact. From there, I think you can alter it and retain layers.

How we tell Masters from Versions seems a bit unclear. Apparently if you open a Master in Photoshop (the result of course is a Version), you get the bullseye.

Reply

Answer 14

Jan 3, 2006 5:12 PM in response to digitaldog

"3A. Apparently if you option drag the layered Master into a different album, it is copied with layers intact. From there, I think you can alter it and retain layers.
"

This is what I discovered. I did it option-dragging a layered file into a different Project and the layers were duplicated and available in the duplicate file. Didn't try dragging it into an album, it didn't work trying to drag it in to a different folder. See vid #5 at the site below for a demo:

http://homepage.mac.com/frankpryor/openfiles/FileSharing95.html

And I share everyone's confusion at the MAD profusion of files, all with the same name. The badges are of little help.

Best,

Frank

Reply

Answer 15

Jan 3, 2006 5:21 PM in response to Frank Pryor

This is what I discovered. I did it option-dragging a
layered file into a different Project and the layers
were duplicated and available in the duplicate file.

Well it’s your discover indeed (I should have credited you with that find). I’m still confused about all the other Master/Version issues.

Based on your find, seems a version from a rendered file has to be a fully rendered file. With RAW, it has to be an instruction set for the final rendering.

So to be clear, based on your find, IF a Version has layers, they can be edited and reinserted back into the Aperture Library intact. IF you re-edit again, that original Version still continues to keep layers or Aperture tries to “copy it” and make a new Version?

Reply