A Good Reference for Aperture, Versions, File Names, Changing & Moving

Hi CO.

Thanks. This is good. I chunked my way through this awhile back.

I think what I am trying to point out - in part - is that there are a lot of terms that are used in the explanation and if there is a little room to discuss it everyone would be a lot better off.

In a handful of threads there are terms such as File, Version, Master, Image, Album, Project etc, etc and I still haven't figured out (exactly) when I should expect the renaming of a Version to take place "across" Versions and when it shouldn't take place like this.

Also, in terms of the OP's questions, we are saying that you cannot rename a Master (i.e. "File Name") within the Aperture UI - should he wish to do so?

Thanks.

Hi Terence.

I got cut off there and just wanted to thank you for the help here. Always a pleasure.

Assuming I have to rename things in Aperture due to the fact that I am coming from a PC box, do you know if I can do this by renaming a version in a Project or a version in an Album and expecting it to take place across companion versions?

I mean, I am gathering that if I want this info external to Aperture that I should not export a Master (since I can't change this name easily) but assuming I am renaming versions is it sufficient to do this for one in an Album or one in a Project and expect it to take place "cross platform"? Are there settings for this that you are aware of?

Do I do this exclusively in the Metadata Tab do you happen to know?

Thank you!

Jon, I'm sure I'm not the first person to point out to you that you deflect all criticism by claiming that it is personal, and then avoiding discussing the facts of the criticism. My focus on you is only because you are repeatedly the source of wrong and misleading information in this forum. You were wrong in this sub-thread. You continue to post things all over this forum that are wrong. You do not understand a subject on which you continue to speak in public. Your postings here confuse others, and significantly add to the work those of us who do know Aperture do here. In addition, your compulsion to turn our factual discussions into pee-fights is, I suspect, turning users away from what had been an excellent resource for learning how to make the most of Aperture.

Now, specifically, you are the one who habitually turns the conversation away from the facts. You have provided not one, but two illustrations of this in this thread alone.

1. I pointed out the fact that you hi-jacked this thread -- you have now destroyed it -- and your response was "please refrain from the personal business Kirby and try and keep responses to my posts factual." You added a second reply to my factual post, and in neither did you address the content of my post, which was that you hi-jacked this thread. Per usual, you still haven't addressed that.

2. Elsewhere in this thread I pointed out the fact that you posted incorrect and misleading information. Your response was again to turn away from the fact of your mis-understanding and of your mis-informing by whining about being called to task for the statements you make. You don't engage me over the facts at all -- is the statement you made correct, or is it wrong?

I will continue to correct you and call on you to support your claims as long as they are wrong and misleading. You are damaging this forum. It works very very well when you don't post any replies to other's posts. I ask you in the interest of everyone who posts here, to please refrain from posting any responses outside of Topics you start. As always, I will continue to offer direct answers in topics you start.

I guess I never understood why you would want to have what is basically two names for the same file. The File Name in Finder and the Version name in Aperture.

You even may want to have more than two names for different versions of an image. 😉

The relation between master image file and versions is a one-to-many relation.

When you import an image file you have one master and one version, but as soon as you start editing you may create man different versions, and will want to name them differently to be able to distinguish between them. I usually have the version name reflect the differences in editing (cropping, retouching etc.), so I can tell by the name which version is the experimental one.

Regards

Léonie

Hi Leonie,

Are there settings that control this behavior? I mean, is the default behavior that versions are always the same and if you change one (in any location) you are changing the others (in any location)?

I am having a bit of a time understanding what is standard and if there are options for this behavior.

> You even may want to have more than two names for different versions of an image.

- Jon

Can you explain this workflow a little more by any chance? I am purchasing CS5 and I had heard of Bridge but I'd be very interested in knowing how such a workflow works as I finalize sorting and culling about 40K worth of images over here.

My impression is that this is a workflow that I will be moving toward.

Regards,

Jon

1 Open Loop wrote:

Should I continue to use Bridge for import, renaming and storing? Then import the folder into Aperture?

No, no a thousand times no! This path leads to ruin and insanity.

Or simply use Aperture to do all of this? I'm assuming Aperture can batch rename the Finder File name in this import process?

Yes if you plan on using Aperture use Aperture. To try and mix the two will really be a bad thing, really.

One problem I see in your posts is your constant fixation on the finder and being able to name and move your image files in the finder. If you stay with Aperture you should really drop this thought process. Aperture will maintain your image files. As I wrote in the firs reply to this tread, which I guess got loss in all the follow-up noise, Aperture will be maintaining your files. If they are managed then you're done. If you decide to go referenced you will be responsible for maintaining your masters as far as backing them up goes and where on the disk they reside but Aperture will still be in control. If you move the masters or rename them then Aperture is going to be in trouble.

And as far a the folder structure you setup for the referenced masters goes that will be taken into account by Aperture when you first import the masters but after that no changes made to the file structure will be reflected in Aperture. And no images just copied into the file structure will be imported into Aperture by virtue of them being copied into the file structure. You will still need to go trough he normal Aperture import routine.

regards

Jon, the answer would be off-topic to this thread; please don't ask me to ignore the Community Etiquette.

That is just not done.

Léonie

I guess I never understood why you would want to have what is basically two names for the same file.

But the point is a: you don't and b: the Photo and the file are not the same thing.

I'm with Frank and Leonie, Aperture makes Bridge pointless and it's only cluttering your workflow.

Regards

TD

Hi Leonie,

I thought that was one of the main questions this poster has been asking. First he posted this on my thread (no problem since I still don't have a good answer I can find on this) and now he seems to be asking the same kind of questions here. "....File Names, Changing and Moving".

I'll repost this but I think I've asked a number of times external to this thread and I can't quite find an answer. Seems complementary to the posters desire to keep the Version names and the File Names the same - which I haven't quite figured out if he can do either...

I guess I'm missing these two but I'll repost it.

Thanks.