Converting from Managed to Referenced Library-File Structure?

Is there an option to keep the internal Aperture folder structure?

I believe you are really referring to the library structure here, the actual file structure in the Aperture liberty bears no resemblance to how the library is organized.

Anyway the answer to this os no, there is no way to exactly mimic the library structure when you relocate the originals.

When you do run the command you will be presented with a range of options as to how you want to store the original. The Relocate original window will lgive the following options for the subfolder structure

Ans if none of those work for you you can use the Edit… entry to create your own

I recommend you experiment first, create a new library (or duplicate the live library) and try out the command. It might take you a few tries to get it right. If worst comes to worst you can always consolidate the originals back into the library and try again.

As for selecting all the images, just doing a select all or command-A in the Photos tab of the Inspector is fine. Just make sure you do not have any filters set that may exclude some images.

regards

Images are not files.

Images are what you see in Aperture.

Files are data containers, represented in various ways in the OS X Finder.

Aperture is a database of Images.

Finder is a database of files.

Just as the structure of your Aperture Library ("Library" = database; to the detriment of their users, Apple insists on cuteness over accuracy) is for you to create to meet your needs, the structure of your Finder database is for you to create to meet your needs. Many OS X users' file needs are similar, and so OS X comes with Finder pre-designed and populated.

Concerning yourself about the _file_ organization of your Images' Originals is, imho, time wasted. You didn't care about it when they were managed. There is little reason to care about it when they are referenced.

I detail some of this in this reply to a similar question.

Do whatever comforts you. But note the following:

- You cannot (as Frank has already answered) duplicate in a file manager the structure you have in your Image manager. The Images in Aperture are not files, and in important ways they are not filed like files.

- Aperture provides robust tools for managing your Images' Originals. You can move them in and out of the Library at any time, and you can relocate them to another location outside your Library at any time.

- Don't ever use Finder to perform any operations on your Images' Originals. You should use Aperture and use only Aperture to perform any operation (other than back-up) on your Images' Originals.

- Speaking of backing up: you must backup Referenced Originals yourself. Neither Aperture's Vault feature, nor backing up your Library, backs up Referenced Originals.

Unless you have specific reasons for doing otherwise, I recommend sticking to "one Project for each shoot", and, if referencing your Images' Originals, filing them under a top-level Finder folder by Project, with one Finder folder for each Project.

atnbirdie wrote:

Kirby, I do understand that images are not files. However, I'm trying to set up my referenced files in a way that at least resembles my Aperture database organization so that when I occasionally want to access a file (e.g., a JPG, TIFF, etc. processed image) from outside Aperture, I have some idea of where to look.

Referenced Originals are the files you imported.

Processed Images do not exist as files. That's part of what makes Aperture efficient. The result, however, is that when you want a file to share with another program you create one by exporting an Image. "Export" means "make me a share-able image-format file from this Image according to these specifications".

Setting up Referenced Originals so that you can access any file other than Referenced Originals makes no sense. Setting up Referenced Originals in a complex Finder folder structure so that you can find them more quickly makes no sense: you can search any very large container faster than you can drill down through a complex Finder folder structure.

If you have Aperture create and store Previews, you can access those Previews (they are JPG files) through the OS X Media Browser, available to many programs.

• Images — are not files; cannot be accessed outside of Aperture (and therefore cannot be used in other programs); can be converted to files by exporting
• Originals — are files; can be easily accessed if Referenced, can be duplicated by exporting from Aperture
• Previews — are JPG files; can be accessed via the OS X Media Browser, can be used by any program that can use the Media Browser. File specs are set in Aperture Prefs.
• Files created by exporting Images — are files; put them wherever you want; can be used by any programs; specifications are set by Aperture Image Export Preset ("Aperture ▹ Presets ▹ Image Export ... ").

HTH.

—Kirby.

Hi there, sorry to jump into an old post like this.

I'm curious to hear how you ultimately were able to work out your situation.

I think you might have been in a very similar place that I am in now.

My plan is to move over to LR using the Importer Plugin, and I want to be really sure that I relocate originals using the correct "edit" sequence (i.e. folder / subfolder / project etc.), so that it will mirror my current Aperture folder structure after migrating over to LR.

I know there is no exact way to do this, but I definitely would like to hear what your solution finally was.

Thanks for any advice you can share.

Bumping an old thread because it describes my situation. Wondering what the OP wound up doing as far as structuring everything when switching to referenced. I'm not sure of the (dis)advantages to each of the options in the File > Relocate Originals menu as it relates to subfolders. Custom Name/Project Name/All the Image and Current Year options. Obviously I'm open to anyone's answer/opinion.

As mentioned by others, I'm also looking to import my files/images into Lightroom since so much of what I'd like to do has written information and tutorials by people in my field so it's a big timesaver, though I still would like to use Aperture to process certain RAW images.