Looks like no one’s replied in a while. To start the conversation again, simply ask a new question.

Defining what Aperture regards as a 'new' file.

If I import referenced file from a directory, then something changes the mtime of that file, Aperture regards it as a 'new' file and I end up with what appears to be two masters identical in appearence with the same file name.




The behaviour I expected was that a new file was just that -- a file that hadn't been there before.




I've done this by mistake twice -- and now once deliberately.




This is a problem. If metadata has already been written, then each file must be checked to see if it is the one with metadata in order to eliminate the correct duplicate.




(I'm scanning images for an alumnni school llibrary. I have 20 milk crates of albums to do. I typically will scan while watching the tube in the evening, then apply metadata later in the evening. Each binder is a 'project'




I can the following ways to work with this:




1. Don't even think about applying any metadata until a project is complete.


This way, any time I import twice, I can just chuck that whole project and re-import.




2. Carefully track the last file name entred, and make sure that I don't have any thing aready in the library checked for import. This is tedious.


3. Create new folders as needed so that no folder is ever used twice for import.




4. As I add metadata, also give pix a rating. In eliminating duplicates, I just do ones that are not rated.




Is there a better answer?




Is there a way I can tell aperture "don't import duplicates" means don't import a file if there is a file of that name?




***


If you want to reproduce this error:




Import a folder of files.


Open a terminal window, and navigate to that folder.


Run the command "touch *"




Now all the files will show up if you import from that folder AND have Don't import duplicates checked.

MacBook Pro, Mac OS X (10.6.8)

Posted on Feb 15, 2012 7:41 AM

Reply
7 replies

Feb 15, 2012 12:13 PM in response to Zorkarcmur

Sherwood,


The behavior you describe is intentional, I would believe. For instance, I have two cameras, each at a different sequence, but both Canon's so they both have the same file naming scheme. If I import IMG_3000 from camera A, and IMG_2000 from B one day, there are no problems. However, what would happen, a month later, when I imported IMG_4000 from camera A, and IMG_3000 from camera B? I definitely want Aperture to import it camera B's IMG_3000, even though there is a file of the same name in my library.


Thus, there must be a way to identify a file, other than filename, so that Aperture can detect duplicates. I never knew (until your post) what else Aperture uses to define what is a new file. It appears that timestamp is in the list of things it uses, and it may be the only thing it uses.


In general this is valid. The timestamp of the file will be the timestamp of the picture, and that will not change.


What are you doing to change the modification time after you have imported into Aperture? Perhaps the solution is to do that action before you import instead of after. Modifying files after you import them into Aperture sort of violates the general paradigm of Aperture -- once you have a photo in your library you shouldn't really be playing with it outside Aperture.


nathan

Feb 16, 2012 8:36 AM in response to Mr Endo

I'm not sure just what I'd done the accidental times. I think it was using photosweeper, a duplicate and similar pic finder. (Recommended, BTW)


However I end up with TWO images in the browser that act like separate masters that both refer to the same external referenced file. Not clear what happens if I delete a version and master. I'll try that in my test folder.


As to the other problem. I used referenced files, because I use programs other than Aperture. Which is one of the reasons it's easy to shoot myself in the foot, I'll admit.


As an example:


Import a set of files from a folder.

Chuck the duds.

Use external program to write NAD27 location data to geotag.

Reprocess masters to pull the geotag data.


Now that I'm aware of the problem, I'll just delete versions and re-import, and NOT assign metadata while a project is in flux.


(As an example of a project that is in flux -- I own a tree farm. Over the course of a year, I take several thousand pictures for inventory. With this bug, I'll make sure that each day's shoot comes in as a separate project initially, and then after I've done with it, I'll move those pictures into the long term project. Probably a better work flow anyway)


As to the two cameras issue. I don't have two Nikons, but I ran into that problem when I was teaching photography. Most cameras allow you to change the prefix. I had my students change it from IMG to their initials.


In your camera case, to me it is unlikely that you would have both cameras iimporting into the same folder with the same number. Still, this is a reasonable border case. My requirements for unique file name would be within the same folder. With internal files, Aperture renames them according to date and time I think.

For referenced files imported from a folder a pre-existing name should be reprocessed, with metadata merged. That would be my usual reaction. But there should be choices.


Consider: If I moved the file there, I've ALREADY clobbered the old master. It doesn't exist anymore. Aperture should detect this and do the right thing.


More signficantly, if Aperture wrote INTO the file something like "Aperture imported on {hostname} Aperture ID 1122334455 or whatever string Aperture uses for a key for this image in it's internal database, then:


A: Aperture recognizes that some other program as been messing about.

B: Aperture knows that this file is already in it's database, but MIGHT have been modified. (And therefore should be flagged for the owner to check adjustments.)


Aperture could do some things that are more clever: When it suspects changes in the file, I extracts a new preview. The new preview is compared to the old one. If Identical, then the image is the same. If different but close, and in the same project, the user is alerted, and asked Keep both? Keep newer Keep older Keep newer, and move metadata... Remember choices for rest of this import.


As a more extreme example: My scanner creates TIFFs. A 2000 x 3000 pixel image of a slide is about 45 MB. As a png file (exact same data, but better compression) it's about 30 MB. I'd like to import, sort, change to png. Instead I change to png before import. It's uses more cpu cycles since I'm processing files that will be discarded, but cpu cycles are cheap.




Part 2 of this answer:

Because I keep referenced files and because Aperture doesn't track derivative files, I try to give my photos meaningful names, so that from the name of a file much of it's pedigree is apparent. If Aperture tracked masters by an internal tag, then derivative files would be a LOT easier to track. Aperture could then go with the flow if I used a perl script to rename files.



So, for example, I've done many canoe trips. The first one was on the Fond du Lac river in northern Saskathewan. So they are renamed FDL-001 FDL-002. Now that I'm no longer limited by dos nameing conventions (or writing them in tiny print on the edge of a slide) I'm more likely to name them Fond_du_Lac-75-001

Feb 16, 2012 10:15 AM in response to Zorkarcmur

Sherwood,


With deepest respect, you may be better off using something other than Aperture. The various workflows and steps that you are taking will give Aperture fits as you keep changing files outside of Aperture. I fear you are going to be a very unhappy camper.


At the very least, you would be much better off using Managed Masters as it is harder for other programs to touch the masters and alter them. In any case, Referenced or Managed, once Aperture has indexed a file you must not move it or alter it in any way. (You can let other programs read it.) The whole point of using Aperture is that it is a data base and completely replaces:


-- The Finder or any other browser, like PhotoMechanic, et al.


-- A RAW converter as you no longer need to convert your files to work on them. This saves all of the traditional agony of trying to track an original RAW and then perhaps a PSD and finally a TIFF or JPEG. You simply don't have to do that anymore. (And conversely, if you try to do this outside of Aperture, then it will get lost; it has to.)


-- And, of course, it is your librarian, metadata editor, etc.


FWIW. my library contains some thirty years of scanned slides, all saved as 100 MB TIFF.


Just a thought.


Best wishes.

Feb 16, 2012 11:03 AM in response to DiploStrat

That may be.


The primary issues I have all involve metadata and derivitive work. I love aperture for what it does with images. I love smart albums. I don't like that getting metadata out of aperture is so difficult. I don't like that it doesn't deal with sidecar files.


So perhaps my solution will end up being something like this:



Aperture is used late in the workflow. No adjustments are done until late in the work flow.


Use referenced files in aperture. Record NO metadata in aperture.


Use a different program for metadata & DAM, one that writes all of it's data to it's own database, and to sidecar files.


If necessary record the mtime for each aperture master. Write a perl script that changes mtime to the value that keeps Aperture happy.


This is too bad. Aperture deserves to be part of photographers work flow -- but the emphasis is on part. And the key there is interoperability with other programs.


You use aperture entirely for everything,


Which images have you published in the local newspaper?

What photo was the master for that image you used on the Lodgepole pine page on your website?


How do you deal with the metadata issues with a round trip to photoshop?


How do you deal with having the same image in multiple formats?


All of these have various software solutions. But aperture needs to learn how to interoperate with other programs.


So once again I'm off to search for photo management.

Feb 16, 2012 12:23 PM in response to Zorkarcmur

With the HUGE caveats that I probably don't fully understand what you need to do and that I don't work with metadata, and the subcaveat that I understand even less "mtime" and perl, let me try to answer your questions. Perhaps those answers will be helpful.


-- Yes, I use Aperture for everything. CF card hits the Mac and Aperture starts. The very first thing I do is import everything into Aperture. Previously, I used a Managed Library. Now, since installing a SSD, I have gone to Referenced Masters, but I may well go back as it does not appear that HD speed is the bottle neck in my work. I have a lot of RAM and the only thing that slows down is complex processing of those monster TIFF; things like sharpening and brushing. With Referenced Masters, I will probably go through two steps - import as managed, do initial adjustments and culling. (If there is any speed advantage to the SSD, might as well enjoy it.) After the images are less active, Relocate Masters out to the Referenced Library. (Which sits on a dedicated disk.)


-- During this first process I add the odd key word (don't use these enough) and do my primary arrangement, which is usually Continent>Country>Project (Being old school, most are named "20120216 - Rainy Day") I have replicated this structure in the Referenced Library for use in the event of an Aperture Zombie Apocalypse.


-- From here on, I adjust, delete, print, as needed.


-- I am not a pro, so I don't publish in the local paper. I don't know what you mean by a Lodgepole pine page on my website, I don't remember ever photographing trees. My website is www.pbase.com/diplostrat Nothing very artistic there.


-- I don't use Photoshop, only Elements, and that not much. only for postcards, calendars, and similar projects that require text. I did play with using Elements for massive clean ups of damaged slides, but have found it less and less necessary. But in any case, the images go off to Photoshop Elements as .PSD and come back as the same, stacked with the originals. I have never looked at the metadata in this process. If for some reason, I had a RAW that I wanted to open with ACR (or Bibble, Capture NX, etc. then I would run the image through the other program, create a TIFF, and then import the TIFF into Aperture. Again, other than the odd twinge of shouldn't-I-use-Capture NX-for-my-NEF-to-be-sure-I-am-getting-all-the-Nikon-goodness tests, I simply use Aperture. Rob Boyer has much information on matching Capture NX on his website.


-- For friends who want copies, posting on the web, etc. I export and forget. That is, I export in the format/quality required for the purpose (webpost or print, etc.) and include or exclude metadata as required. This creates new files, outside of Aperture. I keep them in conventional folders, burn folders, or whatever, and delete them as soon as possible. Think old school photography: Aperture holds your negatives and can produce all the prints you need, but the prints are not archival so you get rid of them once they have served their purpose; you can always produce more.


-- From this, it flows that I specifically do NOT keep multiple files of the same image. Indeed, the ability to stop worrying about files, and concentrate on images, is, for me, the greatest joy of Aperture.


If you can find a copy of Ben Long's old book, "Real World Aperture" you might enjoy his first chapters on the zen of Aperture. I found them most helpful. (Sadly, Long dumped Aperture during the long wait for Aperture 3, so he has not written on it since.)


Again, with the caveat that I am not trying to second guess you, I hope this is useful. 😉

Feb 16, 2012 3:18 PM in response to Zorkarcmur

I few general replies (which may be of some use). I have not carefully read the entire thread 😊 .

Sherwood Botsford wrote:

  1. Which images have you published in the local newspaper?
  2. What photo was the master for that image you used on the Lodgepole pine page on your website?
  3. How do you deal with the metadata issues with a round trip to photoshop?
  4. How do you deal with having the same image in multiple formats?
  1. This sounds like a perfect use of a Keyword. Keyword Group: "PublishedTo". Sub-item keywords for all newspapers, etc. Alternatively (or additionally) you could create _output_ Projects or Folders with Albums containing, in your case, published Images. Something like a top-level Folder "Published" with a sub-Album called "Neighborhood Gazette" into which your drag each Image you publish. (This can be greatly and deftly customized.)
  2. (I assume you mean "file". "Photo" has no specific meaning in Aperture.) Every Image in Aperture has a Master. Find the Image. Press "m" to see the Master. For Referenced Masters, use "File→Locate Referenced Files" to see where the file is stored, or simply use "{right-click}→Show in Finder". Managed Masters, by design, are shielded from the user.
  3. Hasn't been an issue for me. I understand that it is for you.
  4. I (sort of) never keep the same image in multiple formats. I shoot RAW and store RAW Masters plus Aperture's Versions. I optimize each Image for a particular use. If I need a second (or third, etc.) optimization, I create new Versions. These are all adjustment versions. I never keep multiple image-format files around (JPEG, TIFF, etc.). I use Aperture's ability to re-create those files on demand.

Feb 16, 2012 3:40 PM in response to DiploStrat

DiploStrat wrote:



-- I am not a pro, so I don't publish in the local paper. I don't know what you mean by a Lodgepole pine page on my website, I don't remember ever photographing trees. My website is www.pbase.com/diplostrat Nothing very artistic there.




Dooh! Sorry, I misunderstood the question! I thought you were asking my credentials! (Thanks Kirby for making it clearer.)


I would agree strongly on the use of keywords and perhaps Smart Albums to track such things. In fact, Aperture makes this sort stuff easy.


Another way to do this, even more easily, is a dumb Album. Imagine that you have a demand for a group of photos to be used in the local rag or on a website.


-- Create an Album that has a meaningful name: "Do Drop Inn Pool Model Shoot."


-- Then, drag the images that you use to the Album. This creates links, not new images.


-- Export in the appropriate format FROM the Album.


But let's suppose that the motel owner wants all of the images to be B&W or super vivid or whatever.


-- Create the Album as before.


-- Select your images, but this time, create new Versions. The overhead is trivial; a 30k image file plus a thumb and a Preview.


-- Drag the new Versions to the Album and adjust to B&W or whatever. Now you have two Versions from the same Master. The advantage is that you have not duplicated the Master and you can slice and dice the new Version to your (or your client's) content - without ever damaging the original. Try doing that in Photoshop. Well, actually you can, but it will cost you the disk space of a TIFF or PSD.


I may have missed a detail step here or there, but the concept is correct.


Again, as always, Aperture keeps your Master image unchanged. Ironically, while Aperture is aimed at RAW users, this feature is actually most useful in those cases where your Master is a JPEG. Using a destructive workflow, as, for example, Bridge and Photoshop, you must be extremely careful to always "Save As" because if you don't, a JPEG, unlike a RAW, can be edited and recompressed.


Again, you don't have to use Aperture, but it begins to sound like it is just want you need, but only if you let it do its thing. 😉

Defining what Aperture regards as a 'new' file.

Welcome to Apple Support Community
A forum where Apple customers help each other with their products. Get started with your Apple ID.