Deleted masters problem

[benspinks]

Hi there

I've been using Aperture for a few weeks now and overall think it's great, but today I ran into a surprise.  I have all my pics on an external drive and had been importing to Aperture and saving "in their current location".  I was under the assumption that when in aperture if I delete a pic (and empty aperture trash) all I was doing was deleting a reference and that the master would not be touched.  Today I found the opposite.  I deleted a project only to find that all the pics had been deleted from my external drive too!

Has anybody else found this? or is it just the case that deleting when imported "in their current location" deletes everything, master included?

Many thanks
Ben

[janster]

Has anybody else found this? or is it just the case that deleting when imported "in their current location" deletes everything, master included?
Many thanks
Ben

Ben, I don't think so. From my understanding it's part of the non-destructive-editing approach in Aperture that only the so called "versions" will be deleted when deleting a project. And I think it doesn't really matter in this context where the masters are stored. In order to delete the masters you have to explicitly choose "Delete Master Image and all Versions" from the File menu.
I keep my fingers crossed that you will find those lost images again. I know the feeling and it's not a good one.
Best,
JAN

[marilu]

You might want to try this. When you go to Aperture > Empty Aperture Trash, a pop up window appears. Make sure that you don’t check “Move referenced files to System Trash”. Otherwise, it will delete your original image files from your external drive.

If it was checked when you emptied the Aperture Trash, then your original files were moved to the Finder Trash. If you haven’t emptied the Finder Trash they should still be there and you can move them back to your external drive.

Good Luck!

Mary

[KirbyKrieger]

Mary's answer is exactly correct.

Wrapping one's head around "Masters" and "Versions" and "Previews" -- all of which show in Aperture as "Images" -- is probably the most difficult task users new to the program face.  Unfortunately, while Apple's User Manual (available on-line) is unusually thoughtful, well-organized, and consistent, it pretty much leaves the user alone to figure it out -- presumable with the plan that most users won't bother.

My suggestion -- fwiw, I am a Certified Apple Aperture Pro, and one of the top posters in Apple's Aperture Support Forum (slim stuff, but not weightless) -- is to jam your tiller hard to one side and steer out of the sea of _file management_ and into the vast ocean of _image management_.  This is a hard -- and for some, discomfiting -- change of direction to make.  Aperture (along with Lightroom) is _an image-manager_.  Once you commit a source file to management by you using Aperture (this is done by importing into the Library), you should use Aperture and Aperture alone to manage it.  Importing an image-format file into Aperture creates, in Aperture, a "Master" -- this is a file -- and a "Version" -- also a file, but curiously, a small text file -- and an Image.  These are what you manage in Aperture.  The Image is the core record in the database (the Library is a database) -- the anchor to which all the information you have about an Image is attached.

Aperture is, of course, non-destructive.  Some fear "committing" their life's work to a proprietary program (understandably).  The commitment isn't eternal -- it's for as long as you use Aperture.  At any time you can reclaim any and all files you have imported, intact, and at any time you can create image-format files (TIFF, JPG) to your own specifications from any adjusted Images you have made using Aperture's photo development tools.

The reason I mention this here is that Ben (Hi) seems to have Aperture set up to manage a sub-set of files he keeps in one data store.  This is not a good strategy -- there is no easy way to tell which files are under management by Aperture, and which are not, and one ends up with the work of file-management outside of and in addition to image-management in Aperture.  Better to separate one's digital camera files into separate sets, commit to using Aperture on one set, and not use any other programs on the files (and Images) in that set.  Even simpler, is to commit the whole set to image-management by Aperture, hoist a colorful spinnaker, and sail forward.

[benspinks]

Many thanks Mary and Kirby.

Its taking a while, but it's starting to sink in re thumbnails, previews, versions etc.  I was pulling my hair out yesterday trying to figure that out why, after disabling previews in new projects, was I still getting what look like previews in the viewer (offline).  Took me a while to figure thumbnails are actually 1024 x 1024, and that that's what I was seeing.  I can't be the only person who found it intriguing that thumbnails in aperture are anything but thumb size! . 

I think from now on I'll be importing to the external, but not 'in their current location'.  I can see a mistake with a tick box here can spell disaster, whereas if the files are copied elsewhere no harm done.  I imagine, Kirby, that's what your inferring to in your last paragraph.  I would like to have it all in aperture, but working from a Macbook Air means my 128gb hdd isn't really up to much considering the size of my photo library.  I'll have to wait for now, unless santa drops off an iMac later this month  . 

Thanks Again
ben

[S. G. Botsford]

I disagree with Kirby.

I am in the process of moving my files OUT of aperture management so that I can find them again.

1.  I often want to use other tools.  E.g. go thorugh a set with PhotoMechanic and catch up on my keywording. (I really wish that Aperture wouldn't mess with keyword order.)  No matter how good Aperture becomes, it will not be to everyone's liking.  Aperture needs to learn to play nicely with others.


2.  Aperture is not a complete image management solution.

a.  Aperture has no way to manage multiple resolutions of the same image.  At this point I have to export an image to get another version at a different resolution. 

b.  Aperture has no way to manage watermarked images.  Again, you have to export.

c.  Aperture has no way to manage publication history of images.

d.  Aperture is not graceful about using external editors.  At this point the only way to edit is export, and import as a new image. 

e.  AFAIK Aperture cannot keep a single image in multiple formats.  E.g.  At times I would like to have versions of an image in Photoshop, TIFF, PNG, and JPEG.  And ideally have the option that cropping the 'master' will crop the versions too.

f.  Aperture is not graceful about external meta-data editing.

g.  Try to use aperture managed libraries with any duplicate finder program.

[RobSaecker]

What competing program does all those things?

[S. G. Botsford]

AFAIK, none.  Cumulus may come close, but it's not something that mere mortals can afford.  Extensis may be another candidate.

Different people's workflow require different programs.  So the best notion is that we demand that programs play nicely with others. 

For example:

One program uses ITPC date created for date.  Other program uses EXIF data digitized for date.  Third program uses file modification time for date.  This can get you a world of problems.

Some, have settings you can adjust their behaviour.  Others don't.  So I end up writing little scripts the read the exif date digitized, write it as the ITPC date, call gnu-touch to change the mod time of the file to agree with the above, then tell my image management program to re-read it's data from the files.  Yuck!

Some programs only keep a database and never touch the file.  Others keep a database for speed, and write as much of the data into the file as possible in the background.  Others only write to the file, or if a format they don't understand to sidecar files.

How many people have lost meta-data due to a round trip to PS and back?


Sidecar files can be used to great advantage, especially if using xml.  Because it's extensible, you can add fields to data.  So, for example, you can put a date stamp in.  E.g.   <keywords>list, of, keywords</keywords>
<keywords-modified>
   <mod-date>2012-01-25</mod-date>
  <mod-time>13:12:21</mod-time
   <mod-by>Photo Mechanic</mod-by>
</keywords-modified>

Now if Aperture was playing nicely it would note that the sidecar file is not an image file, but it is more recent than it's own recorded modification of that file, therefore it should read that file and determine what has changed.  It sees that PM as modified some keywords.  So in imports those keywords into it's own database.  A preference has said that PM keyword order is to be respected -- do not alphabetize; keywords are to be kept in hierarchial form, and the hierarchical seperator key can be any of >,/,|

Playing nicely means that I should be able to have my aperture library searchable from outside aperture.  If I click on a file, and say "Edit in Photoshop" it should call photoshop with the filename, then monitor that file.  At some  point PS is going to save the file.  At that point, Aperture should compare images and determine if the image is derivitive.  Depending on the degree of change and the way you have set preferences you should be able to set one or more of:

* This is a derivative -- add it to the stack.
* This image is the one I want to use as the top of the version stack.
* Treat this image as a new image.
* Update this images metadata from the old image, except for last edit time.
* This is a part of a batch process.  Use these same decisions for all members of the batch.

Playing Nicely means that if I set a keyword hierarchy symbol to > (E.g. Trees > Conifers > Spruce > Colorado Spruce > Nana Globe Blue Spruce) that it won't arbitrarily decide to flatten my hierarchy on reading a file.

Playing Nicely means that if files are dropped into the file tree, it does the sensible thing, and indexes them.

[Clearair]

Unless I have missed something you can without buying a new iMac!

I presume your external storage to your laptop is a hard drive?

Move or create an Aperture library to it.

Firewire 800 will work for speed. Desktop HD's, run at 7200rpm.

I use an old Macbook while travelling and ALL my Raws are held in Aperture with the library on
a 500GIG portable HD using FW400. Typically I may shoot and edit 300GIGs in a trip.
Only the processing power 6 year old Mac slows me down, not the external HD.

At my work station I run 5 Aperture libraries. All my print files are stored in one of these for example.

Regards

[jmd56]

Ben,

setup time machine, use it religiously. Use aperture as you see fit.
If something disappears, use restore. This always works.

James