hi kirby. thanks very much. please permit me just a bit of a follow up to make sure i understand..
> 1. I recommend all users use this setting to auto-create what Aperture calls "Version Stacks". Version Stacks are very useful. The setting is at "Aperture➞Preferences➞General➞Automatically stack new Versions".
OK, i will try this over the coming weeks
> 2. Stacks travel together. You can't have one of the Images in a Stack in Album -- you must have the whole Stack, which is to say all the Images in the Stack. This is why Stack Picks are so valuable and useful. Each Album has it's own Stack Picks (i.e.: Stack Pics are _Album-specific_). If you want an Album with duplicate Versions of your existing Versions, but you want to make a change to each of these duplicate Versions (this is, iirc, what you want) then you should create the dupes with auto-stacking on, move them to a new Album (this sets them as the Stack Pick) and collapse all Stacks. You now have pairs of Versions stacked, with the Original (null) Version as the Stack Pick in the Project, and the second Version as the Stack Pick in your Album. When you want share-able, image-format files of your _altered_ Versions, export them from your Album.
OK. help me here with the terminology though please? i mean, i find this habit of aperture's to not distinguish between a version in a Project and a version in an Album to be maddeningly frustrating. to my mind it makes it almost impossible to talk intelligibly about these matters. i mean, why can't we come up with some terminilogy that allows me to know when you are talking about an image/version in a Project and when you are talking about one in an Album. (presumably this is not important because there is no practical difference in the results if you do something in an Album as opposed to a Project?).
For instance, can you help me with a step by step on recreating what you describe in the underlined above please? i mean, i think you are suggesting that i start by making a selection of images and then running the Duplicate procedure here but i cannot tell if you are talking about doing this in a Project or in an already existing Album...
hotwheels 22 wrote:
effectively i am understanding that to rename them in Aperture as i need, i have to run a DUPLICATE VERSION
> No. Your stated need was more than that. You specified that you needed _both_ the unchanged Version of the Original, _and_ the renamed Version. You can rename them without creating new Versions -- but that will not give you the result you specified, which was having the un-re-named Versions still available.
OK. i think we are running into a terminology problem here unless i am missing something. what i am saying here is that (in the simplest version) i may have an Album with versions in it and i want to export these versions to my desktop so that i can send them to someone who needs proper titles on the images. here i am simply saying that i would select all these images/versions, run a duplicate routine on them - and not understanding if stacks will work for me in this instance - i would simply MOVE the duplicated images to a new Album called "Album 1 Published" and i would rename them. then i would export as jpg. these images then would arrive on my desktop presumably with the original metadata and with the renamed titles as their file names. and the "original" versions that they were duplicated from would retain their original titles.
hotwheels 22 wrote:
and MOVE them to a new Album instead of simply dragging them to a new Album (which gives me an identical version that would also get renamed).
> This makes no sense -- sorry. You can move Images by dragging. I don't understand the distinction you make between "move" and "drag". Remember: Versions can be in infinite Albums. Whether a Version is in an Album, how many Albums it is in, or where in your Library you locate that Album has no effect whatsoever on the Version in the Project. None. Ever. If you change a Version anywhere -- in any Album or the Project it is in, that change will show everywhere. But putting a Version in one or thirty-eight thousand Albums does not change that Version.
OK. thanks. sorry.
i am not making a distinction between dragging and moving. what i am trying to say here is that in order to /rename/ a single image/version, i have to run a DUPLICATE procedure. then if i /choose/ to i can MOVE these images to a new Album (either by creating a new Album and "physically" moving/dragging them or by selecting them and running a New Album Creation pulldown operation.
All i am saying is that this DUPLICATE operation is very different than "copying" the versions to a new Album by either moving/copying them to a newly created album - because in this latter method (the one without "duplicating") - if i rename one i am going to rename the other. this /doesn/t happen when you duplicate but again this is an example in my opinion where the Aperture terminilogy as it exists is so bogus as to almost be useless to use in discussing this: 'copy', 'move', 'image', 'version', 'duplicate' etcetera. i mean, it is like trying to teach someone to throw a knuckleball by using Latin.
> NB: (really!) Albums DO NOT SHOW YOU an identical version: they show you THE VERSION ITSELF. This is the magic promise of computers that Aperture finally takes advantage of: digital object can exist in multiple locations at the same time. They don't suffer the locative limitation of flesh and bone.
OK. thanks for the clarification. i get this. i don't want to beat a dead horse but the term "identical version" seems confoundingly problematic. just a thought off the top of my head but if they did away with the term "version" we could just use "image" and i think a lot of this would be much clearer at least for the new users.
hotwheels 22 wrote:
with respect to #2, can you help me understand what exactly is the practical difference between EXPORTING these images to a folder on my desktop and RENAMING them in finder and then re-importing them into a Project and DUPLICATING them in Aperture and then RENAMING them?
> Gladly. First, lets agree that "Image" = "Version" = the pictures we see in the Browser in Aperture. And then let's do this in reverse:
thanks.
> 1. When you duplicate a Version in Aperture, you create a NEW Version based on the same Original and with all of the adjustments and metadata additions and changes you have made. These two Version will look the same, but they are unique entities inside of Aperture. You can make more adjustments and changes to the metadata to each of the Versions, independently. If you have set Aperture to automatically create "Version Stacks", the two Versions will be stacked. If the only change you make is to rename one of the Versions, you will have two Versions, identical in all respects except the name. Note that Versions exist only inside Aperture. If you need a share-able image-format file of a Version, you create it by exporting.
thanks.
> 2. When you export a Version, your create A NEW FILE according to the parameters you have set in the Image Export Preset (could also be called the "Version Export Preset"). This file does not exist within Aperture. "Export" means, "make me a file outside Aperture that I can use with other programs". You can rename these files in Finder (or any File manager). If you import these files into Aperture, they become Originals, and Aperture creates NEW VERSIONS from these Originals.
thanks. yeah, here again for me the terminilogy is confoundingly opaque to the new user. "new versions from these originals" means basically that i have a new image in aperture and this new image by definition has to sit in a Project. if i move this image around in aperture, i then create "duplicates" (that are all linked) and if i run a "Duplicate" routine in Aperture i basically create a new image file that is no longer linked to the earlier image in any way is that right?
> 3. The practical difference, then is this: in case #1, you end up with one Original and two Versions, based on that Original,in your Library. The Versions have different names (let's say "Jack" and "Jill"). In case #2, you end up with two Originals, each with it's own Version, in your Library. The Originals are named "Jack" and "Jill", and the Versions are named "Jack" and "Jill".
OK. i am not quite sure i follow this. Case #2 is after running a Duplicate operation on a version presumably but i did not quite follow Case #1. seems like this case could simply be by - well - i guess you could have two images in a project or an album (these are "jack" and "jill") and if you created a new album and copied them to the new album you would have this same set again in another location...
> 3a. This should serve as an illustration of Aperture potential efficiency. Using a File Manager to manage your Images, in order to do what you want you must duplicate the FILES. Using an Image manage such as Aperture, you can simply duplicate the Versions. Versions are tiny text files. The gain in computational and storage efficiency is huge.
OK. thanks.
hotwheels 22 wrote:
i guess if i export to the desktop i have to be careful not to use png as i will lose metadata but also if i re-import into Aperture i get images/versions in a PROJECT instead of images/versions in an ALBUM (when i rename them within finder). i mean - can you think of any /practical/ differences or any /downstream/ consequences to doing one as opposed to the other?
Yes. Exporting and re-importing is wasteful and produces intractable administrative problems. There is no scenario I can think of in which I would recommend exporting Versions, renaming in Finder, and re-importing.
OK.
THANKS VERY MUCH.
- jon
