Unexpected name change on export of masters

Question

Level 1

58 points

Unexpected name change on export of masters

When I import my photos, I keep the master file name, but give the images a version name. Upon exporting my masters (relocating them to be referenced), I export using the version name. The strange thing is that some have the version name, and some have their master file name. Also, the ones that get the version name, show the version name as the master name when I look in Aperture. Does anyone have a clue as to why this is happening?

My goal is to keep my original master names intact, but to give the images a custom version name. I then want the masters referenced with their version name. Is that even possible? It should be based on the export tools and presets.

Macbook Pro 17, Mac OS X (10.6.7), 2.93 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo, 4 GB 1067 MHz DDR3

Posted on Feb 8, 2012 8:14 AM

Reply

Answer 1

Feb 8, 2012 12:46 PM in response to macorin

macorin wrote:

When I import my photos, I keep the master file name, but give the images a version name. Upon exporting my masters (relocating them to be referenced), I export using the version name.

How are you moving the files? Are you exporting or Relocating Masters? Exporting masters is not the same as creating a referenced file or library. Using export just creates images outside of Aperture, they can have any name you like, it won't change the name inside Aperture, they are copies.

If you want to create a referenced library select the relevant images and choose File>Relocate Masters, you can then choose where you want them stored (i.e outside of the Aperture Library) and choose any naming format you want for the masters as they move.

macorin wrote:

My goal is to keep my original master names intact, but to give the images a custom version name. I then want the masters referenced with their version name. Is that even possible? It should be based on the export tools and presets.

I'm not certain what you mean here, Referenced masters will have the Original Master name, they can't have two names (original master name and Version name)

Reply

Answer 2

macorin Author

Level 1

58 points

Feb 8, 2012 2:30 PM in response to Shuttleworth125

Shuttleworth,

I am definitely relocating the Masters, not exporting. I am setting up a Referenced Library. That said, I do understand the nuances of relocating and consolidating my masters. As you mentioned, I can choose any naming format that I want. To simplify what I am running into, I am going to give you a specific example:

I have 20 masters named: IMG_0001 - IMG_0020. These Masters also have a version name: 2012-02-08_Owls. I then relocate these masters as desribed by File>Relocate Masters... and for the Name Format, I use the version name. This is where things get weird. When I look inside the referenced folder, I don't see the 20 images with their master names and I don't see 20 images with their version names. I see a mix of about 12 images with their version name and 8 with the original master name. Then, when I go back into Aperture and look at the Metadata for those images, the ones that show the version name in their relocated position, also show this version name as the file master name. The ones that got relocated with the master name, retained their master name in the metadata section.

None of this is really rocket science, as renaming, relocating and consolidating is very easy and straight forward in Aperture. It is only when I run into issues like this that seem inexplicable that I start to scratch my head and wonder what is going on here. If I can only relocate the masters using the master name, that is fine, but why does it allow me to choose a naming format? If I can alter the names and relocate them using a naming format of my choice, why doesn't it relocate all of the images with the new naming format and why does it not then keep the names consistent in Aperture?

These are the questions that I am trying to figure out. I like simple and try to construct systems that make the most sense to me. Perhaps I am misunderstanding what it seems Aperture is allowing me to do when relocating Masters.

Reply

Answer 3

Feb 8, 2012 5:39 PM in response to macorin

macorin wrote:

I have 20 masters named: IMG_0001 - IMG_0020. These Masters also have a version name: 2012-02-08_Owls.

Ok problem number one. The masters do not also have version names. The master image file has a name, the versions have a version name.

I then relocate these masters as desribed by File>Relocate Masters... and for the Name Format, I use the version name. This is where things get weird. When I look inside the referenced folder, I don't see the 20 images with their master names and I don't see 20 images with their version names. I see a mix of about 12 images with their version name and 8 with the original master name.

Something went wrong on the relocate. If everything had gone right and you ran the operation correctly then all 20 master files would have the name you assigned when you relocated them. It's impossible for me to say what happened, but (and don't take this the wrong way) my first guess would be operator error or some form.

It is also possible that the opertation did exactly what you told it to do. If the version name for those 8 had been changed to the master file name in Aperture at some point this is also what you would see.

Then, when I go back into Aperture and look at the Metadata for those images, the ones that show the version name in their relocated position, also show this version name as the file master name. The ones that got relocated with the master name, retained their master name in the metadata section.

I really think you're getting version name and master file name and versions and masters confused. If you would post a screen shot of the metadata tab of some of these images it might help to clear things up.

If I can only relocate the masters using the master name, that is fine, but why does it allow me to choose a naming format? If I can alter the names and relocate them using a naming format of my choice, why doesn't it relocate all of the images with the new naming format and why does it not then keep the names consistent in Aperture?

You can change the name of the master file when you relocate them that is why the window you get when you relocate is there. It does rename all images when you relocate using the naming format you choose. Again I suspect that the images in question had had ttheir version names changed to the master file name at some point.

The screen shots might help explain this.

regards

Reply

Answer 4

macorin Author

Level 1

58 points

Feb 19, 2012 6:45 PM in response to Frank Caggiano

Frank,

I appreciate the response. I always value your opinions and knowledge on the Aperture threads. You may be right that I have a little confusion over Masters and Versions. To my understanding, the Master is the original image, untouched and is what everything else (all versions) are based off of. If you make changes to the Master, the changes are saved as Versions of that Master.

In any case, I know there may be more to it than that, but I don't think the issue I was having had to do with any confusion over Masters and Versions. I understand that in Aperture each Master has a name. You can then name your Versions and either keep the Master image name intact, or apply the Version name to the Master image. Allow me to explain what I had done: I created new names for my Versions, but did not apply those names to the Master images. At this stage, my Masters were being managed in the Aperture Library. When I went to relocate those Master images, I chose a destination and then chose to relocate them using the Version name (which is an option). This is where things got messed up. For some reason, some Masters relocated with the Master file name and othes relocated with the Version file name. Furthermore, upon checking the Metadata pane in Aperture, the ones that relocated using the Master file name also showed that Master file name as the Version name even though I had renamed the Versions.

I hope that wasn't too confusing and makes more sense. In my opinion, I didn't do anything wrong, and simply used the tools Aperture provides within their scope of function. However, I did not end up with the result that I desired, nor one that I would have anticipated.

mac

Reply

Answer 5

Feb 20, 2012 8:17 AM in response to macorin

Macorin wrote:

I chose a destination and then chose to relocate them using the Version name (which is an option). This is where things got messed up. For some reason, some Masters relocated with the Master file name and othes relocated with the Version file name. Furthermore, upon checking the Metadata pane in Aperture, the ones that relocated using the Master file name also showed that Master file name as the Version name even though I had renamed the Versions.

The simplest explanation for this is that somewhere along the line the some of the versions were named with the master file name so that when you exported all the master files were renamed with the version name it just happened that some of the versions were named with the original master file name.

This is pointed to by you next statement that when you checked these images in Aperture the file name and version names were identical.

How were the images originally imported and named? Its possible that when you selected the versions to be renamed the selection missed some of the versions. Were there any similarities in the images that had the version and file names identical? How did you select the images when you did the version rename?

If you select the images with the identical names and rename them now does it take? If so then there is no way to find out for certain what the original cause of the problem was. If not and the situation is repeatable then it might be possible to find a cause.

regards

Reply