Enrico, there is no limit to the size of an Aperture library other than the capacity of the drive it is on. Why are you asking? Are there any issues with your current library?
If your library needs more space to accomodate all your image files you could turn it into a referenced library and relocate the originals for selected projects to an external drive.
A referenced library is one in which your images are moved to a hierarchical folder structure on your hard disk (or a series of hard disks), rather than in a self-contained (managed) Aperture library. Don't switch to a referenced library unless you have a very specific reason to do so. It's simpler to let Aperture manage your images for you.
To move your library to a larger drive, just drag its icon there and double-click it.
Thks Leonie, my drive is 2 tb and my library i 1,8. I'd like to move it in a bigger drive. Is it correct? .
Yes, that makes sense.
Make sure the new drive has the correct formatting - MacOS X Extended (Journaled). Drives are frequently sold formattted for Windows. Then Aperture will not work the library on that drive. You can reformat a new drive with Disk Utility.
When you select your drive in the Finder and use the command "File > Get Info" you should see:
Run the Aperture Library First Aid Tools, before you copy your library. Repair permissions and repair the Database, see: Aperture 3 User Manual: Repairing and Rebuilding Your Aperture Library
This is just a precaution. If the database needs repairing, you might get copy errors otherwise.
Then drag the library to that drive and double-click it to open it in Aperture., like Mark Alan Thomas explained. Before you delete the original, check the copy, if you can work with it properly. Test,if you can edit and export images.
Mark explained the referenced library already. To learn more, see: Aperture 3 User Manual: Working with Referenced Images
Substitute "Originals" for "Images". Your Originals are _files_. "Image" is generally used to mean something else.
A minor point to some, but IME it is very helpful for users to understand that Originals are files that were imported, that Images are what you see in the Browsers and Viewers (either a thumbnail or the Preview or rendered on-the-fly by Aperture), and that they are not the same.
Additionally, there is no requirement for a hierarchical structure (it helps people, not the machine). Aperture functions just as well with all Originals in one container.
I'm picking nits, but hoping to fend off a rash.
While there is no technical limitation to the size of an Aperture library there does come a time when the library is big enough that basic housekeeping on it can become cumbersome. Backups and moving the library are the two that come to mind first.
You might want to take this opportunity to switch to a referenced original setup. This will slow the growth of the library and make backups and moving a lot easier.
You could get the new drive and use it for the originals going forward, that is from now on you import new images as referenced putting the file on the new drive. Eventually you could relocate all or some of the originals that are currently in the library as time and need allow.
Remember if you go to a referenced original setup you need to take into account the need to backup the originals that are referenced, vaults won;t do it anymore. But the advantage is that the originals are never modified so once you back them up they will not need to be backed up again.
My goal wasn't to pick nits -- it was to help people use Aperture. To that end, it is -- again, IME -- important to never conflate "file" and "image".
As for the mis-use of "file" in general -- yes, agree 100%. I barked about that in the 80's. At that time (I was teaching computer use to small business employees), the use of the word "file" was as difficult for users to get their heads around as "image" -- in the Aperture sense -- is today.
LOL -- files nor folders tell the half of it. Each Library is a Package of files and folders. For example, when I use Smart Update in SuperDuper to clone my "alpha" Library, which is 1.8 TB, the statistics SD provides say it contains about 830,000 files to support the 82,000 "Versions" and 82,000 Originals.
A minor point to some, but IME it is very helpful for users to understand thatOriginals are files that were imported, that Images are what you see in the Browsers and Viewers (either a thumbnail or the Preview or rendered on-the-fly by Aperture), and that they are not the same.
That distinction is tricky, Kirby, if you want to be precise in terminology, because the Aperture manual is not consistent in its use. You can view the "Master" in Aperture's browser. And when you share/export in image in Aperture you create again image files.
But I like the way you are using distinctive terms for the internal representation on the harddrive and the logical view in Aperture's user interface, when working with images.
I try to use "file" or "image file" for any persistent representation of an image on file system level and where the encoding or format is important (tiff, jpeg, raw) and image for Aperture's logical view of the more transient versions.
Mark Alan Thomas wrote:
I think Apple has it right. There are originals and there are versions. Calling versions “images” encourages confusion.
I disagree. Even Apple disagrees.
What do you see in the Browser after you import a file? An image? A photo? Your Original? A Master? A Version?
Apple calls the Images Versions. And it calls the text files Versions. And it calls the Images "photos". And sometimes "images". Once in a while "Masters".
Apple may not get it wrong, but their "version" is indeterminant and confusing. Deliberately so, imho.
From the User Manual glossary:
The file containing all the metadata and adjustment information applied to an image, a video clip, or an audio clip. In Aperture, only versions are changed. Aperture never changes masters.
From the User Manual page "A First Look at Aperture":
After you import images into projects. (Emphasis mine.)
A screen shot from that page:
QED, or should I continue?
Mark Alan Thomas wrote:
From a user perspective, you’re only ever dealing with versions of your images.
But already you've cored your argument, haven't you? What is your definition of "image" in your sentence above?
As for what Apple wants -- on what are you basing this claim?
Mark Alan Thomas wrote:
What I’m saying is that you’re using the term “images” where Apple wants you use the term “versions.”
I have only two sources from which I can deduce Apple's intent: the program, and the User Manual.
There is no "Version" top level menu item. There is no "Image" top level menu item. Apple uses "Photo".
There are 922 pages in the current User Manual PDF. "Image" occurs on 834 of them. "Version" occurs on 180 (and in many cases is this way: "As with previous versions of Aperture ... "). "Image" is the much more often used term.
Here is a screenshot of page 28 of the User Manual. "Image" is highlighted. It is used 12 times. Each time it refers to what you claim Apple means by "version".
Here is the same page with "version" highlighted. It occurs once. It does not refer to what you claim
Apple means by "version". (The citation of "version" above is taken from this page.)
I'm being forceful here (or so I imagine) because, imho, this is a significant interface blunder. IME, resolving Apple's indeterminate use of "Version", "Photo", and "Image" is one of major impediments users must overcome in order to master Aperture.
I don't know what Apple wants. I do know that it has made a mess of what they've given us regarding "Version" and "Image".