A couple of questions...
You know when you retouch an image? Ap actually appears to save a new jpg of that image every time. If you darken part of an image with the burn brush, Ap creates a tif image of what you painted. If you alter the brush srokes it rewrites a new tif file - every time.
I know this because I dug into the file system to find out why my HD was filling up so fast. There were dozens of tifs of the burn brush marks I had made. Crazy.
Where did you find these files? Does Aperture clean them up properly, or leave them behind?
Please don't mistake my rant for Ap hate, it's not. I want to reiterate that I prefer Ap, but it would take too long to detail every way Lr is superior. The 'no burn to disk' thing is just the tip of the iceburg and I mentioned it only to make a point. I have fifty more where that came from.
When Ap2 and Lr2 each came out I installed both on my machine and uploaded the exact same images on each.
What version of Aperture are you using, and what version of LR are you using now? Have you upgraded to LR4? If so, are you one of the lucky ones that is not experiencing major performance issues with LR4?
Just interested since I use both. Thanks.
Just click on the Aperture Library (the new icon is quite lovely) and hit View - Show Package Contents. Once in the guts of the library you can poke around and see where all the various images are kept. Look in Masks, that's where all adjustments are kept.
I just did an experiment. I lifted a brush adjustment I just made from an image and stamped that adjustment onto 10 more images. That took Aperture over one minute to process. About 6 seconds per shot.
I then removed those adjustments from the one pic, but looking in the library again, the tif image of my brush strokes is still there. So no, Aperture does not clean up after itself.!.!
When shooting a wedding my routine in Lightroom is to select all images from each of these groups - preceremony, ceremony, formal pics, reception - and apply a set of standard adjustments to each group. For Lightroom this is a non-event. Aperture however is going to gag on a task like that, at 6 seconds times 1600 (almost 3 hours). I'm on a 2.7GHz i5 iMac This is completely unacceptable.
Also, despite importing referenced files into Aperture my library is jammed with literally thousands of random files. I have ten weddings in Aperture, all of which are referenced from backup HDs, and some other projects, not a lot really. My library is 56Gb.!.!
I'm on Aperture 3.3.1 Lightroom 3. I'm not getting Lr4, I have no way of knowing if I will experience the export slowdown other users have suffered. If they issue an update I'll reconsider.
I have no doubt that you are experiencing slow processing times, but what I can't figure out is why it'sso bad. I agree that Aperture could and should be much quicker at everything, but I find applying basic adjustments to be virtually instantaneous. I've never attempted to change 1600+ photos at once largely because I deal in such changing light. (My biggest imports are in the 600-700 range from sports events with bad and wildly oscillating lighting thus I can't do import-wide adjustments.) Still I've not found RAW, brush, or any other adjustment to be slow except I've noticed since going to 3.3.2 when I crop the program hesitates for a moment whereas in the past it was executed immediately.
Part of the difference may be that I've thrown a lot of hardware at the program - dual quad MacPro w/32BG RAM - and I keep the library on its own (fast) drive. Actually I have two (plus backup) as I will routinely copy a current library from one drive to the other and switch files. This gives me most of the advantages of having a freshly formatted drive. How much RAM do you have? I've found more RAM to do wonders for AP work times. Plus keeping the library on its own "freshly" formatted drive is helpful. (There is no doubt that AP is an absolute hardware pig.)
I do everything to reduce Aperture nattering around. Not sure how many (if any) of these things can affect performance but I generate small medium quality previews, share with nothing, no face or place recognition, use in-camera preview, etc. Have you played with any of these things to see if they help?
I do agree that the Aperture database approaches incomprehensibility and that's part of what keeps me with AP and out of LR - just the sheer about of work it would take to move the files. Some times I feel like I stay with Aperture for the same reason I stay with my current camera manufacturer - to much invested in it to change.
Don't know if any of this would be useful, but something "ain't right!"
With a Mac Pro maybe Aperture is happy. But with a lowly iMac and a piffling 10gig of RAM it's just not up to it. Trouble is, Lightroom manages to run just fine and has done from day one, when I used my Core 2 Duo iMac and 2 gig of RAM.
I could blow a small fortune on giving Aperture what it wants but I simply do not understand why Apple's own app cannot run as well as a competitor's on the exact same hardware. For example, how does Lightroom manage to run without crashing (26,162 images) but Aperture has crashed twice in as many weeks with light use? It makes no sense. (Yep, I've played with the settings.)
I can see that in a situation where you're shooting a high end gig, culling the pics and having the customer pick out three of the best images to go to print, Aperture likely excels. But for what I'm doing, it's just not cutting the mustard. I have accepted this, that's why I don't use it for anything major.
Let me also expand on my previous comment about library size:
My Lightroom library has 126 projects, mostly weddings (all referenced files) and totals 6.2Gb in size.
Aperture has 10 weddings (all referenced) some personal shoots and assorted other items, and is rapidly approaching 60Gb. I really appreciate your helpful reply though Robert, maybe someday I will sell my car and max out a 'Pro.
The reason the Aperture library is substantially larger than the Lightroom library is because your Aperture previews are larger than the ones you're using in Lightroom. You can change the size and quality of the Aperture previews and the library will shrink down to the same size as the Lightroom library.
This is, of course, assuming you're counting the size of the Lightroom library *and* the Lightroom Previews directory. Because to not include the latter is sorta silly, and not at all an apples-to-apples comparison otherwise.
I'm not having any crashing issues whatsoever with Aperture, FWIW. I've also never seen it use more than about 3 GB of RAM.
I have a question to LR users. I use Ap to manage my pictures and organize it. (Time and geolocalisation).
With Ap, I have a big trouble : pictures token in my city (Nivelles-Belgium) are marked with city=Clarisse and location=Nivelles. I can change the location but not the city.
It's so with a lot of city (the well know Waterloo...)
In my case, all pictires are marked with the good city at IPTC level. So, I asked Apple how I can make a correction about the bugged Apple database (Country/City/Location). No answers.
My question : Works geolocalisation fine with LR ? Shall tis bug solved in AP V4 ?
I would wager that Nigel's Referenced Masters (and possibly library files as well) are on an external disk. If Aperture feels slow it is most likely disk bound. Actually it is more accuratly IO interface bound.
If the external disk is running over TB or USB3 this is less of an issue and you are truely bound by the performance of the disk, but with USB2 or FW800 this operation will still be slower on the external due to the interface bottleneck.
I put by wife's referenced AP library on internal SSD in her MBP with referenced masters on an "Opti-bay" spinning 500GB HDD. This has changed her workflow speed by an order of magnitude.