Aperture export strategy?

You export the images to a new drive by selecting the images in Aperture, going to File->Export->Versions..., deciding what export parameters you want to use and then exporting them.

You could then re-import those exported images into Aperture. If you selected the Include metadata checkbox when you exported most of your metadata should come back in.

Of course depending on the current format of the masters in your library and the format you decide to use when you export you may not see a lot of difference in the library size. To get a major change you'll need to reduce the resolution of the images when you export them so you'll be dealing with images of a lower quality once you;re done with this. And once the resolution is gone its gone, no getting it back.

reagrds

slim down each photo size by not modifying the newly imported version that will go back into Aperture

In Aperture it does not add much to the size of the database if you modify an image. Aperture does not create a new image file if you edit an image. It only stores instructions on what effects are to be added when the image will be exported. Only on export will Aperture create the imagefile of an edited version. Thus you can have several versions of an image without noticibly increasing the file size of the Aperture Library.

No, there are not several copies of each photo. As Léonie wrote the versions are actually entries in the database describing how to go from the master to the version. The size of these are measured in kilobytes (if that much).

You would probably get a bigger reduction in library size by deleting the previews and not generating previews for new images or at least dropping the quality down to around 5.

The problem with all these schemes to reduce library size and create an archive of the images outside of Aperture is what format and quality to use. Anything less then a full resolution uncompressed copy will loose detail. And while it might not seem like a problem now who knows how you might ant to use the image in the future but once the image data is gone it's gone, no getting it back.

So the only way to save space is to loose data, Given the price of disks this seems like a poor decision.

regards

Well said. 🙂.

sunblock90 wrote:

I am at 250GB for the Aperture library.

250GB is not very big for an Aperture Library and as Frank said, disks are cheap and the MBP is probably the easiest Mac to upgrade the HD on. Don't burn your bridges behind you for what seems like a good idea at the moment.

If you have a lot of users that want access to the pictures you could get a NAS drive and export all your images to that so they all have access.

You could definitely place the masters out on an external drive to free up space on the internal drive.

Go with the fastest drive you can get. FireWire is recommended. Use Aperture to relocate the master out to the external drive File->Relocate Masters.

If this doesn't free up enough space on the internal you could put your library out there also but you may run into some performance issues. You'll need to play around with the configuration until you find something you can live with.

good luck

One thing you could look at would be to change all your older photo's to referenced on an external drive but still import new photos as managed. We do this to take advantage of the SSD speed for new jobs, and when they are complete we then relocate the masters so they become referenced.

Frank Caggiano wrote:

If this doesn't free up enough space on the internal you could put your library out there also but you may run into some performance issues. You'll need to play around with the configuration until you find something you can live with.

I keep some very large Libraries (>200 GB without Masters) on 7200rpm FW800 drives and experience no performance issues. My standard set-up is to use two external drives per Library: one drive for the Library, and another for the Library's Images' Masters (I don't allow Managed Masters in Libraries on external drives). (These Libraries are almost exclusively pictures -- I can't comment on performance issues with video.)

Shuttleworth125 wrote:

One thing you could look at would be to change all your older photo's to referenced on an external drive but still import new photos as managed. We do this to take advantage of the SSD speed for new jobs, and when they are complete we then relocate the masters so they become referenced.

This is also an excellent way to set up a Library on a laptop -- which the OP has. The SSD complicates things, but that is a good complication to have 😁 . The following seems like a good starting point:

Library on SSD. Masters of Images recorded in the last XX days, and Masters of all 5-star Images, on the SSD. All other Masters on an external FW800 or faster drive. Previews set to resolution of laptop or resolution of Apple TV, whichever is higher.

Adjust as needed. Given the ratio between older pictures and those being added to the Library, "XX" could even be "365". The 5-star Masters relocation is tricky (because some are Masters of non-5-star Images as well), and shouldn't be done until everything else works well.

sunblock90 wrote:

{Stuff removed.} Does this make sense?

Just because I'm here, I'm replying until Frank can: No, it does not. Not yet, at least. Wait for a full explanation. What is being recommended is that you keep your existing Masters. Your initial impulse for making your Library smaller and easier to manage -- by baking in all changes and replacing the Images and their Masters -- is misguided (imho, and shared here).

Regarding whether to go Thunderbolt or not, I'd suggest having a look at Seagate Goflex drives. The basic drive comes with a USB2 cable, you can upgrade to FW800 simply by buying an adapter cable. Seagate have said they are planning to release a Thunderbolt adapter cable at some point. This would mean a lot less messing around transferring files when you come to upgrade.