Why Duplicate A Master?
I can't seem to come up with a good reason for duplicating a Master.
Why duplicate a Master, as opposed to creating a new Version form the Master?
I can't seem to come up with a good reason for duplicating a Master.
Why duplicate a Master, as opposed to creating a new Version form the Master?
Why duplicate a Master, as opposed to creating a new Version form the Master?
You are right, usually it is wasteful, to have several master image files for different versions of the same image.
But in some situations it makes sense to me to create a second master:
And I'd really like to hear different opinions! 🙂
Regards
Léonie
My feeling about duplicating a master is if you think of a work flow that is going to duplicate masters then go back and rethink it because it is in all likelihood not the best work flow. If you can't think of another work flow then post it here and someone will most likely come up with a different work flow for you.
Allan
😉 o.k. Allan, what might be your suggestion for this problem: scientific test data for published results ?
I like to store my test images in Aperture for easy retrieval, but I have to make sure, that each time I export them to reproduce the experiment I get exactly the same image as previously - this can only be ensured by exporting a master, not a version, for the algorithms to render the versions may change between Aperture versions or OS versions.
So for all these test images versions I create new masters to ensure they can be retrieved from the database always exactly the same.
Cheers
Léonie
So just export the original master, why bother duplicating it?
So just export the original master, why bother duplicating it?
Because quite often the test images are versions, that need to be rendered - raw processing may change, sharpening may change. And I want Aperture to store my images, and not bother with a second image library parallel to my Aperture library.
So you're exporting a version and then importing that in as a new master? If so I wouldn't classify that as copying a master, you're creating a new master.
In my mind copying a master implies making an exact copy as you get when you option drag a master from one project to another.
If so I wouldn't classify that as copying a master, you're creating a new master.
Yes, a new, different master for the same image - but I really would like to be able to avoid that too, for I find it wasteful, but I see no way around it. 😟
Exporting a Version and then importing creates a new Master that basically, permanently applies all the adjustments that were in the Version.
That's not a duplicate of the Master. Is it?
If you duplicate a Master, don't you simply wind up with two identical Masters?
If you duplicate a Master, don't you simply wind up with two identical Masters?
Is's still annoying to be forced to have two master files for essentially the same same image
leonieDF wrote:
But in some situations it makes sense to me to create a second master:
If you edit using an external editor, and Aperture cannot reproduce these edits internally,
I haven't tried this yet. But I thought if you edit with an external editor Aperture automatically creates a new Master for the external editor and stacks the new Master with the original. Is that correct? If so, then you don't need to duplicate a Master, since the process does that for you. Correct?
leonieDF wrote:
If you want to create a new, smaller master from a cropped image version.
Can you do that? Or are you referring to exporting a Version that's cropped and then importing it as a new Master?
If so, then you don't need to duplicate a Master, since the process does that for you.
That's what I meant. You are forced to accept a new master, even if you do not want it.
Or are you referring to exporting a Version that's cropped and then importing it as a new Master?
yes, if you want to change the master
Allan Eckert wrote:
My feeling about duplicating a master is if you think of a work flow that is going to duplicate masters then go back and rethink it because it is in all likelihood not the best work flow.
Allan
That was my first thought when I came across the feature. With Aperture being non-destructive, I was at a loss as to why I would want more than one copy of the same image floating around. So, I figured I ask and see what others were doing with this feature.
At least for me, I think having duplicates of Masters would be a problem waiting to happen.
leonieDF wrote:
If you need the same image in two different projects and you can't achieve what you want to do by using different albums (sometimes I need to do this, if I want to export a part of the Library),
LeonieDF,
I think you've probably hit on the only reason for this feature.
Although given how things can easily get confusing, I find it a little odd that Apple created this feature. At least they should have some obvious way of identifying the fact that you are looking at a duplicate of a Master.
Kevin
Why Duplicate A Master?