Want to highlight a helpful answer? Upvote!

Did someone help you, or did an answer or User Tip resolve your issue? Upvote by selecting the upvote arrow. Your feedback helps others! Learn more about when to upvote >

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

Has anyone deciphered the naming convention Aperture uses when a plugin creates new files? It just doesn't seem consistent.

This is very confusing. Plugins don't seem to behave the same as far naming the newer version created in the process. Most commonly when actived, they first create a tiff that has the same name as the original version. At one time I thought that version was named ### - Version2. I'll have to look at the prefs. to see I can change that. Only after the plugin is finished does the processed image get a version name with a number. The original tiff remains but unchanged. I can actually eliminate it. I 'm wondering if this is complicated by the software company's approach , i.e. Topz, Nik, OnOne. It seems so. Stacking may prefs might be part of it too. I know some plugins actually create IPTC fields.


However what I really want is a way to track what plugin(s) were used on images. Actually it would be preferable if I could know even more detail but I know that's not likely unless the phantom version 4 has some improved way of handling plugins to act more like PS and even lest us go back and tweak changes.


In the meantime I've created a text field called Processing Notes where I put the info.


Anyone have a reliable, easy method to track the plugins and the versions they create?

iMac, OS X Mountain Lion (10.8.3), Aperture 3.4

Posted on Mar 19, 2013 6:20 PM

Reply
2 replies

Has anyone deciphered the naming convention Aperture uses when a plugin creates new files? It just doesn't seem consistent.

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