User Tag List

Thanks useful information Thanks useful information:  0
Results 1 to 4 of 4

Thread: Aperture. Reference files or save in database??

  1. #1
    Member
    Join Date
    29 Jun 2012
    Location
    Northern Beaches
    Posts
    312
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Aperture. Reference files or save in database??

    Hi All,
    I have always referenced my images into Aperture, ie stored them on the hard drive and basically just keep the metadata in aperture.

    This method has worked well for 2 years and has kept the performance of Aperture up as the dB is small.

    However, no I've got the 5D mkiii and the files are much bigger )and more of them), I'm struggling with a quick and easy method of deleting the unwanted files off the HD from within Aperture.

    Unless someone can tell me otherwise, my options seem to be either:
    1. Live with it
    2. Import my photos into the Aperture dB rather than referencing so that when I delete an image its gone for good.

    If I first import from the camera into Aperture dB I can delete all the unwanteds and I suppose I could then export the remaining and re import those as referenced images.

    Anyone else with Aperture workflow experience? Can I delete a file of the HD from within Aperture??

    Thx
    Jon

    Sent using Forum Runner

  2. #2
    Arch-Σigmoid Ausphotography Regular ameerat42's Avatar
    Join Date
    18 Sep 2009
    Location
    Nthn Sydney
    Posts
    16,793
    Mentioned
    21 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Jon.

    I know n-0-thing of using Aperture as you describe, but there are some underlying questions that could be generally answered.
    I think that no matter what you use to "reference" your images, the sheer increase in file size that you report is going to have a similar effect.

    This has been the case when my files jumped from typically 11MB to about 40+MB for the raw images alone when I recently began using a new camera.

    In fact, the download speed has more than quadrupled, even though I am using exactly the same method. Only the camera has changed.

    My solution has been to "live with it", though I am not saying that you should too.
    Am.
    CC, Image editing OK.

  3. #3
    Member
    Threadstarter

    Join Date
    29 Jun 2012
    Location
    Northern Beaches
    Posts
    312
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Thanks.

    Aperture's definition of "reference" means 'to store the actual images on the hard drive as individual images, and then create "links" to that jpg or raw. That alternative is to 'import' them straight into it's database, thus you never actually see the RAW or JPG file.

    I prefer to keep the files referenced rather than imported into one dB, to maximize performance and keep dB size as small as possible.

    Data management and storage space is a whole other conversation!!! We always need more!!!

    R
    J

    Sent using Forum Runner

  4. #4
    Arch-Σigmoid Ausphotography Regular ameerat42's Avatar
    Join Date
    18 Sep 2009
    Location
    Nthn Sydney
    Posts
    16,793
    Mentioned
    21 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Thanks. At least I know what "reference" means in Aperture.. Sorry I can't help, though I think I'd tend to keep the files out of such a database (shades of Canon's Zoombrowser).
    Am.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •