Aperature vs iPhoto. Which to use in light of "Photos"?

Question

Aperature vs iPhoto. Which to use in light of "Photos"?

I'm a little "stuck" and not sure which direction to take.

I had iPhoto a couple of years ago. I was completely happy. However, the number of photos I had was becoming to much for the version of iPhoto that came with my computer (mid 2010 MB Pro). I had 20,000 photos from 2005 to 2011. I was told to upgrade to Aperture. I did. For 2012, I have photos in Aperture. I have NOT learned to use Aperture to take advantage of its capabilities. I've enjoyed a few of the features (more flexible photobooks, photo structures, etc). I just haven't had time to do much else. Since 2013 I have been downloading photos every now and then and simply storing them in folders on my MB.

I missed the simplicity of iPhoto. Then I heard that the newer versions of iPhoto don't have problems with large libraries. But in order to get the new version of iPhoto, I would have to upgrade to Mavericks.

I did it. Then paid $15 for the newest version of iPhoto.

Now I hear Photos is coming.

I'm paralyzed and don't know what to do.

Do I keep the libraries separate and move forward with before 2011 in iPhoto and post 2011 in Aperature. Do I move the year of Aperature photos I have into iPhoto so they are all in one library? Do I merge the libraries?

I just need to get back to a workflow that will allow me to import my photos from folders into a photo program so I can SEE them and manage them well.

Looking for thoughts on where to go from here.

Posted on Jul 10, 2014 12:34 AM

Reply

Answer 1

Jul 10, 2014 2:29 AM in response to chrystalschronicles

I don't think you'll get a definitive answer until more details of Photo emerge (sorry!)

I've seen posts that state that you will be able to migrate libraries from Aperture (and presumably iPhoto) to Photo when it rolls out. I would also assume that this would be easier if you only had one library (iPhoto or Aperture) but this is pure conjecture at this time.

You can either sit and wait - or migrate one library to the other. I find this Google+ community quite useful. You may want to seek an answer there. https://plus.google.com/communities/104311468271223981400

Reply

Answer 2

Yer_Man

Level 10

162,314 points

Jul 10, 2014 4:00 AM in response to chrystalschronicles

From your description of how you preferred iPhoto I would merge both Libraries with iPhoto.

Open them in iPhoto and forget about Aperture.

Then migrate to Photos when it comes, if it meets your needs.

Reply

Answer 3

léonie

Level 10

194,761 points

Jul 10, 2014 4:06 AM in response to chrystalschronicles

Do I understand you correctly? You have upgraded to Mavericks and have both the latest versions of Aperture and iPhoto - Aperture 3.5.1 and iPhoto 9.5.1? Then use Aperture to merge your photo libraries into one library. You can use this library with both iPhoto and Aperture, since both applications are using the same format for the libraries. Continue to work with iPhoto, if the workflow suits you. You can freely switch between Aperture and iPhoto. You are no longer forced to make a decision with application to use. if you are happy with iPhoto, use iPhoto.

See: Aperture 3.3: How to use Aperture to merge iPhoto libraries

and Using the Unified Photo Library

Reply

Answer 4

Jul 11, 2014 7:21 AM in response to Pete Cripps

Thanks! I'll check out the Google community.

Reply

Answer 5

Jul 11, 2014 7:28 AM in response to Yer_Man

Thanks for your thoughts.

I love Aperture for what I've been able to do so far! But the reality is that with my Aperture library only being half of the size of the iPhoto library, it won't take as long for me to go from Aperture to iPhoto as it will to go from iPhoto to Aperture.

Reply

Answer 6

Jul 11, 2014 7:32 AM in response to léonie

If I merge the libraries, I will have the convenience of working with two libraries but a definitely largely overall library size. It will go from 66gb in iPhoto and 34 gb in Aperture to one file usable by both programs but that is 100gb.

Should that concern me at all?

And one more question based on your suggestion.

If appears from the responses to my question that I can merge via iPhoto OR via Aperture. Does it matter which one I use to do the merge if I choose to do that?

I understand that I can import iPhoto into Aperture. What's the difference between that and merging libraries.

Thanks again for your help!

Reply

Answer 7

léonie

Level 10

194,761 points

Jul 11, 2014 7:51 AM in response to chrystalschronicles

It will go from 66gb in iPhoto and 34 gb in Aperture to one file usable by both programs but that is 100gb.

All photos in one library will make it easier to search for photos, since you do not need to switch between libraries.

100 GB is still moderately sized. iPhoto or Aperture can handle 1000000 photos in one library.

If appears from the responses to my question that I can merge via iPhoto OR via Aperture. Does it matter which one I use to do the merge if I choose to do that?

No, iPhoto cannot merge libraries, but Aperture can. If you use Aperture to merge the libraries, the resulting library will still be a unified library that can be used with iPhoto or Aperture. There is no difference between the libraries.

I understand that I can import iPhoto into Aperture. What's the difference between that and merging libraries.

You can use Aperture to import an iPhoto Library or on Aperture library into any library, that is currently open in Aperture. Use the command "File > Import > Library". This will merge the library items from the imported library into open library. It will preserve all events/projects, albums, books, keywords, faces, places. Importing a library as lib ray is the way o merge libraries.

Reply

Answer 8

Jul 11, 2014 9:10 AM in response to léonie

Thanks so much for the detailed response. I'm getting things all clear now I think. A couple of questions for clarification.

I understand that I can merge the iPhoto library with Aperture by importing iPhoto into Aperture. I will have one library that Aperture and iPhoto can equally access. I also understand that both iPhoto and Aperture can handle 100gb just fine. Is there any wisdom to splitting up the library for the benefit of system resources? Is 100gb large in the sense that I will have issues with a super slow computer when it is keeping that much open and available to search?

If a merged library makes sense, at what point should I consider separate libraries for any other reason?

I currently have 8gb of RAM on my MB Pro and 500gb.

I'm thinking that with 100gb I might consider letting the files live all on an ehd to preserve laptop HD space. Any issue that will bring that I should consider?

Reply

Answer 9

léonie

Level 10

194,761 points

Jul 11, 2014 10:19 AM in response to chrystalschronicles

I'm thinking that with 100gb I might consider letting the files live all on an ehd to preserve laptop HD space. Any issue that will bring that I should consider?

I would do that, if your library is so large, that you are running out of disk space. Is your disk space critically low? I usually try, to keep at least 100 GB free, so that the applications have working space, for example, if I need to repair an iPhoto library or something.

If you are willing to plug in an external drive, when you are working with iPhoto, that will have many benefits. Your library can grow over the years, without any need to move the library. Just don't forget, that you will need to have a second drive, to be able to back the external drive. And I would pick one with a fast connection - USB3 or thunderbolt, for example.

before you move the library to an external drive, check how the drive is formatted, see: Format external drives to Mac OS Extended before using with Aperture

Reply

Answer 10

Jul 11, 2014 1:20 PM in response to chrystalschronicles

Your merged library might be smaller than both libraries added together; not sure by how much, but it consolidates some redundant info.

You might also consider referencing images instead of importing them into the library itself. You could start with new images, and have Aperture reference them (and it's easier to manage this in Aperture than iPhoto). They could be stored on external drives. Lots of folks do this to conserve space on their internal drives.

In Aperture you can also select say a project or albums you don't use much, and use File>Relocate originals.... to move those photos to say another hard drive. But Aperture would still know where they are, so you could search for them, display them, etc just as before.

Reply

Answer 11

Jul 11, 2014 2:32 PM in response to léonie

I have 500 gb of which I have about 100 left. So if I add Aperture back to the drive then I will cut what I have left in half.

If I'm moving the iPhoto library off right now and they are still separate, what is the best order in which to tackle this? Open Aperture and my library on the EHD, merge with iPhoto on the EHD, then after checking that all works, delete iPhoto off computer? OR, move Aperture back on to the internal hard drive first?

And is a second backup for my photos... is Time Machine good enough? I have been using this in the past to back up on EHD (without picture) by making sure it was NOT excluded from the Time Machine backup. Or do I need another solution like a second drive that is a Clone of the original EHD with photos.

I know there is Vault but I don't think that is what you are talking about. (Not sure I completely understand Vault anyway)

Thanks SO MUCH for your help!

Reply

Answer 12

Jul 11, 2014 2:33 PM in response to Rob Gendreau

This is an interesting setup. Not one that I"m sure I completely understand. But it sounds like I should because my library is so large. I'll look into it. Thanks!

Reply

Answer 13

léonie

Level 10

194,761 points

Jul 12, 2014 11:31 AM in response to chrystalschronicles

Open Aperture and my library on the EHD, merge with iPhoto on the EHD, then after checking that all works, delete iPhoto off computer? OR, move Aperture back on to the internal hard drive first?

I would do the merging on the external drive, because merging may temporarily need extra space, that later will be released again. It is safer to do it on a drive with plenty of free space.

Reply