I am trying to figure out how to structure my photos in Aperture but am getting hung up on importing. If I import a photo into the Aperture library and then delete it, is the photo completely gone? If I keep it in its original location what happens when I delete the referenced photo in Aperture? Can I ever lose a photo by deleting it in Aperture?
Thanks for any response
DonM
iMac (21.5-inch Mid 2011), Mac OS X (10.7.4), Brand new out of the box iMac.
Don,the Aperture Library is, where Aperture keeps your images, the edited versions and the origals, if you decide to let Aperture manage them.
When you delete an image from Aperture, and this is the last edited version, then Aperture will also delete the original image file from the library, see Frank Caggiano's User Tip:
Deleting version also deleted the master
And you can also have Aperture delete any referenced original image files, that you store in there original location. Aperture has more than one delete command for images: delete version, delete original and version, remove from album, depending where you are deleting from.
If you accidentally delete an image, it usually will appear in Aperture's trash, and if you empty this trash, you will find the image in the system trash in your Dock.
But why delete images from your Aperture library, if you do not really want them deleted? Usually I only delete images that are not worth keeping: out of focus, bad lighting, boring subjects, a waste of disk space.
It is important to plan a good backup strategy for your precious photos. Make one backup of the originals from your camera even before importing to Aperture and regulare backups of the Aperture library, together with the regular backup of your system. Also I'd keep one backup of your Aperture library, for example a vault, at a different location, for example your office.
Regards
Léonie
My problem is the struggle to set up a structure in Aperture that I want for my many thousands of images. Folders in Aperture don't hold any images. Projects do hold images, and Albums can be made up for various purposes from the photos in a project. But I like to create many subheadings of any particular subject, Travel, Peru, Highlands, Cusco, Temples and so on. I am used to the standard file structure with folders and subfolders. Aperture does not seem to have anything below projects in terms of a subheading. I don't know how to structure my library in the way I prefer, with many subheadings. So I have tried different structures, deleted them out, then tried other structures, deleted them and so on. I suddenly panicked with the thought that I was actually deleting the photos. They are all on an external hard drive and seem to still be there. You mention that there are different delete functions in Aperture, and that some can indeed delete the originals. That scares me. Where do I access these different delete functions?
DonM
In your case, use "keywords" for individual image, one or more keywords can attach a image,
like a subheading you want to, then querying images by making "smart albums",
This will maximize image managing flexilbilty compared with tree like form that you seem to do.
Interesting. But how to add a keyword to 10,000 images on my external hard drive? Take awhile. Maybe just start doing this with new photos? Old photos are already organized on the hard drive. Just use Aperture for small projects with new photos? Stay with the old system for storage? What do other people do?
Thanks for comments.
You have already sorted images by folders?
It can use "batch change " command by each folders /projects.
It's no neasesory for type keywords each images.
I suggest you start with a practice Library (software manufacturers jump though loops avoiding the word "database") and try several methods of importing and storing your collection before fully committing it to being managed by Aperture. This will allow you to get up to speed, and become comfortable with, Aperture, as well as give you the knowledge you need to wisely structure your Library.
Don't be put off, however: Aperture is great, very well worth learning how to use, and far, far superior to any file-management system.
First, make a complete copy (a back-up) of your entire collection. Store this somewhere safe.
Second, copy a sample of your collection, including many folders representing your current file-folder storage structure, to a new, clearly named Finder folder ("Sample Image File Tree").
Third, learn how Aperture imports files: what happens to the file, what Aperture calls that file after it is imported, etc. Note that you can import files into Aperture while leaving the Originals where they are.
Fourth (this is the tough one) make the conceptual leap to image-management from the flat-land of file management. Here is a springboard. You don't need a parachute: you'll know you have wings when you fully understand the freedom that "Any image can be in any Album, and can be in as many Albums as you want." represents.
It is important to fully and carefully define "photo". In file-management systems, "photo" = file. In image-management systems like Aperture, this one-to-one correspondence no longer exists.
Here is an example of setting up an Aperture Library.
Again, it's a BIG first step, but after that it's an easy and often thrilling walk. Post back with questions as you move forward.
Thanks for the comments. I am in the process of creating a test folder to work with as you suggest. The examples you gave are interesting. The person posting this info, Kirby Kreiger, has a complex structure in Aperture that suits his working environment. I was interested in his admonition to never use projects as the main organizing structure. He uses folder trees and organizes projects and albums within them. I am a database person, I think in terms of pathnames. Multiple copies of an image in different albums in Aperture would have multiple pathnames. All computers work this way. The idea of focusing on folders and using projects as image holders within them helps me think in terms of structures that I am used to. Kirby is not a big fan of the project as currently defined in Aperture. It would be great if folders could hold images and projects were unnecessary. Albums and their search variants smart albums make sense, they are just database subsets and search vehicles. I think I will ignore projects completely and just concentrate on a folder tree that makes sense to me. Projects are just a storage device for folders, an extra step that is not really necessary if folders could hold images directly. I will have to make up a test situation and then search and organize it with Apertures tools to see if it works for me. Thanks again for the help.
I think you'll find that, as with (afaik) all databases, there must be an actual, specified storage location for the core records. In Aperture, this is the Project. Understood as such, and uses as such, Projects work well. This is one of the main reasons I advise sticking with "One Project = one out-in-the world shoot". Work in Projects when you are deciding about the fate of your Images. Work in Albums when you are developing and publishing Images. (This is how Aperture is set up: you don't delete from an Album, you remove from on Album. You delete from a Project.)
Just to be specific, it is not that I am not a fan of Projects, it is that the name used to designate this top-level holding container is wildly misleading. Afaik (my database development stopped with MS Access), there must be a (for lack of a better description) top-level storage container. It should NOT be called "Project".
Folders, imho, work well as currently implemented. They are what you call paths. A path itself cannot contain an object, it can only address an object. Thus it makes sense that Folders don't hold Images, they hold only containers of Images.
My database knowledge was never deep, and is now out-dated. I'd love to be brought up-to-date on what structures are currently used, and how they used by Aperture. Imho, Aperture is right on the cusp of a significant, powerful, and useful change in how people interact with digitized data. I really want to see it pushed off the cusp and start rolling down the other side.
Folders, imho, work well as currently implemented. They are what you call paths. A path itself cannot contain an object, it can only address an object. Thus it makes sense that Folders don't hold Images, they hold only containers of Images.
Kirby, I like your view of folders as paths. They are really part of the retrieval structure, if you need to access the containers, rather the images.
Also they are very convenient to structure the library - to define subdivisions with related library items.
Apple has its reasons for creating the Projects level, but thinking about the main organizational tool as folders with projects within them as image containers and albums created for specific purposes from the image store in the projects helps me immensely in trying to create a structure I can live with before importing thousands of images and ending up needing to change everything. This discussion has really helped me grapple with Aperture. If I can get some confidence in the program I would really like to get busy and use it as my main photo program.
Let me throw this example out and see what you think of my proposed structure. I created a Travel folder and then entered one trip, Peru, as a project below it. There were 4 photographers on the trip and we all share our photos. I entered each of the other photographers as albums within the Peru Project. I don' t like this structure and after this discussion I think it would be better to create Peru as a subfolder of Travel, and enter all four photographers as Projects within the Peru folder. Then create albums as need arises. For instance I have been asked to give a presentation on the trip at a local lecture series. Should I create an album for this purpose, and structure the show by drawing images from all four projects? Can an album exist within a folder, or does it have to be in a project? Is there a better way to do this?
Thanks for all the info. This has been really helpful.
. I entered each of the other photographers as albums within the Peru Project. I don' t like this structure and after this discussion I think it would be better to create Peru as a subfolder of Travel, and enter all four photographers as Projects within the Peru folder. Then create albums as need arises.
That is what I am doing, if I have to combine photos taken by different photographers at special events, like a trip.
Yes, you can add albums to folders outside of projects.
For my Peru Trip I have one folder "Peru" inside "Travels2000-2010", with projects for each day and each photographer. And then quite a few albums and smart albums for different products, like slideshows, book, screensaver, web pages.
My projects structure is quite rigorous: one trip or event = one folder with projects for each day inside; but the albums and other products change more dynamically, just as needed to accomplish a specific task.
I have discovered that my original fears about aperture deleting my photos when I delete a project have been satisfied. Aperture does not delete the originals ( unless you tell it to ) when you remove a project and empty the Aperture trash. As long as you have imported the photos from a hard drive. I think that if you download a camera card directly into Aperture you will lose them if you delete a photo. Good idea not to do this.
One question. Is it a good idea to make multiple librairies for different purposes? I am finding that lumping a lot of unrelated projects into one library is not working well. I have a second library on an external hard drive to save space on my computer drive. I am thinking about making a bunch more libraries on the computer hard drive, but using them only with referenced images from my external hard drive. I will download all my camera raw files to the external, and pull them in to the various Aperture libraries as referenced files. Is this a good idea? So far as my reading to date reveals, it seems the only downside to this is that Aperture cannot backup referenced photos, so I would have to do manual backups of my camera downloads.
Aperture does not delete the originals ( unless you tell it to ) when you remove a project and empty the Aperture trash. As long as you have imported the photos from a hard drive. I think that if you download a camera card directly into Aperture you will lose them if you delete a photo.
This is a bit misleading: Whether the originals will be deleted or not does not depend on where you are importing from (card or disk), but depends on where your originals are stored - referenced (outside the library) or managed (inside the library). Managed originals will be deleted without asking, if you delete the last remaining version of an image, for referenced images you will be prompted.
One question. Is it a good idea to make multiple librairies for different purposes? I am finding that lumping a lot of unrelated projects into one library is not working well.
If you have totally unrelated sets of images, you can put them in different Aperture libraries, no problem. But it is not a good idea to distribute images over different libraries, if you need to use the images together in a product, like a slideshow or a book. Remember, only the currently used Aperture library can be seen in the media browser or be connected to the photo stream.
Regards
Léonie
In trying to come up with a structure for Aperture that I like, I have deleted a lot of projects and images in order to make a new structure. When you delete a project all the images go in to the Aperture trash. When I first tried importing images into Aperture they were all stored in the Aperture Library ( managed ). These images all came from a folder on the computer. I also had images from my external hard drive, raw files from the Canon DSLR, and I originally brought those in as managed files. If you delete these images, then go in and empty the Aperture trash, you get a scary warning that all will be lost and cannot be recovered. If you agree the images are gone out of Aperture.
So, I experimented a lot with this, using a test folder that was copied from my main photo stores. The images are not physically removed from the original folders when you delete them in Aperture, even if they are stored in the Aperture library. They are all still there on both the computer and external hard drive. I have imported and deleted some image sets many times. What happens, I think, is that these images, and all the versions you have made, and all the adjustments to the images, are deleted from the Aperture database. You still have the original photo in whatever location it came from.
However, I see in the Files menu a selection that says " delete original and all versions" I haven't tried this yet, but I think that this is still only deleting the image from the database, not the original image file wherever you got it from.
If you did download your camera card directly into Aperture and it was not backed up somewhere else on a hard drive, I think that you would lose the images altogether if you deleted them. In my reading, I think that someone ( Kirby?) said that you should never download your camera card only into Aperture for this reason.
One more question. How do you move or copy images from one library to another one? I understand that images cannot be held in more than one project in a libary ( you can have as many copies as you want in albums ) but I assume you could have multiple copies as long as they were in different libraries. I have tried to copy a photo in one library, close that, open another library and paste it there, but this does not work. Import and Export don't seem to recognize other Aperture libraries. Would you just have to copy the photos to a folder in the Finder and import them from there into multiple libraries?
Aperture newbie worried about photo safety
