How do you use Aperture?

[buzzski]

OK, I've been using Aperture for about 18 months and have just upgraded to 3. Here's my current workflow: Import job into monthly project, process it, export to PS , done. ;Images stay live for three months then archived on to DVD - I rarely have to retrieve anything once it's gone. I know I'm not using Aperture to it's full capacity and was wondering how you do things? I got to thinking I should maybe retain referenced files in the library and archive the RAW's? Any guidance gladly received! Ta, Craig

[pete_truman]

Create new project for shoot. Projects are organised into folders depending on subject or theme.
Import RAWs into Aperture but saving RAWs to folder on attached large capacity disks as referenced files.
Quick review of all images, quickly and fairly ruthlessly deleting those that are obviously just garbage.
Keyword.
Process in Aperture, might occasionally export to PS but getting increasingly rare (maybe 1% of images)
Print from Aperture.
Export to library, DVD or publish as required.

I find Aperture an excellent tool for most post-processing needs and do not (yet) use any plug-ins. I also find this workflow much faster than in and out of PS - for the work that I do. All my RAWs are stored centrally on disk and backed up incrementally (to disk) and to an off-site store. I do not archive off this environment.

[KirbyKrieger]

Similar to Pete.

.Shoot
.Import as Project to Aperture folder "1. Fresh (raw) Imports".  One Project per shoot at import (because I rename files at import).  Rigorously stick to Project and File naming convention*.  Copy files to ext. drive on import.  I use a referenced Library.  All of my original files are stored in "Pictures/Referenced Pictures/yyyy/mm/dd" (Aperture names and creates folders automatically).
.Add description and "Places" information to Project ("Places" info is automatically applied to all photos in Project).
.Stack images.  I stack only (i) images with minor variations in camera settings, and (ii) bracketed sets.  Mark all images in bracketed sets with color flag.
.Very fast review.  Reject all OoF and otherwise obviously useless images.  Apply rating to images which catch my eye.
.Move Project to folder "2. Stacked, not yet Keyed".
.Keyword images in Projects in folder "2. Stacked, not yet Keyed"
.Move Project to folder "3. Pick! (Already D.S.K'ed)"
.Make picks.  First I evaluate the Stacks and promote the best image.  (I haven't yet decided whether the Stacks view is helpful.)  Then I run through the entire Project and up-rate worthy images.  I use the seven-level star ratings for this (rejected, un-marked, 1-star to 5-star).  Often I will jump straight to developing my photos (making adjustments).  I use the color flags to indicate level of development (develop, in process, done, redo, abandon).
.Move Project to its storage location.  I deal with a lot of different kinds of images.  My Library reflects this.  All Projects are stored in sub-folders under a top-level folder "Store & Cure".
.Develop picks.  Up-rate or down-rate as appropriate.
.Create output Albums (or other containers).  All of these are filed under a top-level folder "To Serve".  (One reason for the slightly odd folder names is that when sorted alpha-numerically, my Library is set up in a progression from input to output.)  I have folders for Clients, my own work, teaching, etc.  When an output Album is published and done, I move it to a folder "Archive".
.Every week I do some standard clean-up.  Search for managed files and convert to referenced.  Gather up all rejected images, review and delete.  Empty Aperture's trash.
.Every week I back up my Library to an ext. drive using Aperture's Vault.  I also let Time Machine make regular backups of my Library and my "Referenced Pictures" folders as part of it's hourly/daily routine (and I feel free to turn this off while I am working).  Time Machine backups and Vaults are on different ext. drives. At least once a week I copy my Library and "Referenced Pictures" folders to a third, off-site, ext. drive.
.I shut Aperture down several times a day.  Aperture 3 is still rough around the edges (in other words, buggy).


*Naming conventions:
.Project: "Name. Location. dd mmmm yyyy".  I type this in manually.
.File:  "yyyy-mm-dd_ProjectName_Location_# of ###_OriginalFileName.Ext".  This is an Aperture pre-set in which I supply ProjectName and Location.

This is a lot of administration.  It is worth it to me on four related counts.  I can always find what I'm looking for, and I can find it in a number of ways.  I can get work done at any time.  I know at a glance the status of my Projects and my images.  I can leave Aperture with ten minutes notice and return after days or months and know exactly what's done and what's not.

[peterpix]

[quote name='KirbyKrieger' date='Apr 28 2010, 11:16 AM' post='362660']
Similar to Pete.

.Shoot
.Import as Project to Aperture folder "1. Fresh (raw) Imports".  One Project per shoot at import (because I rename files at import).  Rigorously stick to Project and File naming convention*.  Copy files to ext. drive on import.  I use a referenced Library.  

Good info, Kirby. especially for me an Aperture newbie. Scott Bourne (http://creativelive.com/courses/ ) recommends against using referenced files/library saying there is more control of where your images are if in the Aperture library (wish I could remember all of his suggestion!). He's got 72 hard drives of images! I'm just beginning this whole thing and will create a new Library that is not referenced.

[pete_truman]

I use referenced files (i.e. stored outside the Aperture library) as the main disc on my MacBook Pro is not large enough to hold all my images and the Aperture library - so if you store all the files INSIDE the library you will probably run out of disc space rather quickly unless you have access to virtual storage on a network which expands on demand.

So what I do is to store the current year's worth of RAW files on the local hard disc and as referenced files, the Aperture library thus stays of a manageable size. I have a 1Tb external drive onto which previous years' worth of image RAW files are stored, but all managed from one Aperture library. I can still work remotely on the current projects without the attached drive and still see and search all images (thumbnails of all images are stored in the library).

This does of course mean I have to move files off the local hard disk every year or so to make space, but Aperture does allow you to do that easily, albeit a time consuming process. Larger drives on recent MacBooks mean I wouldn't need to do this so often, but then again I prefer not to upgrade every time a slightly faster or larger model becomes available!

I have only one Aperture library (about 30Gb in size), about 20000 RAW files of keepers (I delete lots of images that just don't make it) spread across 2 drives. Of course, I don't take as many pictures as Scott Bourne or indeed many others, and I am ruthless about deleting images that aren't up to scratch although some will argue I don't go far enough! Works for me and disk useage is manageable.

And just in case you wondered, the whole lot is also backed up to another external drive and to an offsite network drive.

[KirbyKrieger]

Good info, Kirby. especially for me an Aperture newbie. Scott Bourne (http://creativelive.com/courses/ ) recommends against using referenced files/library saying there is more control of where your images are if in the Aperture library (wish I could remember all of his suggestion!).

I haven't come across anything that can't be done with referenced Masters which can be done with managed Masters.  This is something that seems to be thoroughly thought-out and implemented in Aperture 3.  It is very easy to go from referenced Masters to managed Masters.  The disadvantage of going the other way is that you are doing one bulk operation, whereas if you make file storage decisions on each import you can take advantage of a custom file storage scheme.

Keep aware that with Aperture you are creating two separate storage structures: a file storage structure (for files on your HD), and an image storage structure (for images in the Aperture Library).  For the file storage, you use file naming and Finder folders; for image storage you use all the internal database tools of Aperture: Projects, Albums, Smart Albums, Folders, Labels, Ratings, Version Names, etc. etc.

If you use managed Masters, you don't need to worry about the file storage structure (and can concentrate on using the database).

[StuartOnline]

I currently have about 17,000+ images in my library that are mostly Raw.
Now my libraries are on external (portable) LaCie hard drive (320 GB) firewire 800 and the Iomega (portable) eGo FireWire 800.
I am running on a MacBook Pro 15" in 64 Bit mode 2.66 8GB DDR3 (June 2009) LED Cinema Display (24" flat panel) Mac OS X (10.6.2).

When uploading images from the compact flashcard I use a SanDisk Extreme FireWire CompactFlash Card Reader 800/400. I piggy pack this using the Firewire 400 port on the LaCie or eGo depending on which drive I am using. Up loading images is very fast.
Also have another external hard drive I use via USB for backing up images during up loading of images to the Aperture Libraries.
Have folders setup as years 2010, 2009, 2008 and so on with projects under each folder by year_month_date_subject.
I have a preset (Version Name) for importing setup: yymmdd_customname_counter. All I have to do is enter the custom name text before importing.

Should also mention I am still using Lightroom 2.6 and testing Lightroom Beta 3.0.
However I like the new brush features with Aperture 3. It helps to do less round tripping to Photoshop.
Being able to paint on any adjustment on top of other is a cool feature.
Also like the fact I can do some editing to videos via Aperture 3 now that I have a Canon 7D.
I use managed files, but do not use reference files as I use the Vault for backing up. The Vault will not backup reference files.
Currently I use two different external hard drives for the vault.

[gregoryallan]

This is in response to Kirby Krieger's post.  

I know this is an old topic and may not get a response, but I found this post and it seems to meet my workflow needs.  I'm curious about what I interpret the naming conventions to be.  As I have mapped them out, they seem long and redundant to me, and it's probably the case that I am misunderstanding.  If you wouldn't mind elaborating, or providing an example, I would greatly appreciate it.

Another thing is I'm not sure I understand what you do as far as naming of the "Masters" or "Originals"...do you leave them named as they are coming out of the camera or do you rename them consistent with the versions.

thanks,
Greg Wood
Grapevine, Texas

[KirbyKrieger]

This is in response to Kirby Krieger's post.  

I know this is an old topic and may not get a response, but I found this post and it seems to meet my workflow needs.  I'm curious about what I interpret the naming conventions to be.  As I have mapped them out, they seem long and redundant to me, and it's probably the case that I am misunderstanding.  If you wouldn't mind elaborating, or providing an example, I would greatly appreciate it.

Another thing is I'm not sure I understand what you do as far as naming of the "Masters" or "Originals"...do you leave them named as they are coming out of the camera or do you rename them consistent with the versions.

thanks,
Greg Wood
Grapevine, Texas

Hi Greg.  The two are related.  My naming convention is both long and redundant.  The redundancy is deliberate; the length follows.  The redundancy is because I do rename the files I import.  I do this so that I can tell at a glance, outside of Aperture, the things I need to know about the file, and keep my filenames unique.  This level of redundacy is not required, and may not be useful — but I'm comfortable with having a just-in-case-Aperture-fails file identification system, it costs me next to nothing to implement, and it gives me good base information when I create new files by exporting my Aperture Images.

There is worthwhile discussion of this in this Aperture Support Community thread.

I use the convention "yyyy-mm-dd_ProjectName_Location_# of ###_OriginalFileName.Ext".  The date and the sequence are filled in by Aperture as part of my File Naming Preset (found at "Aperture➞Presets➞File Naming").  "ProjectName" and "Location" are place-holders for information I put in.

My actual File Naming Preset:
"(Image Date)_(Custom Name)_(Sequence #)_(Original File Name)"
where the parenthesis indicate an Aperture variable (see the File Naming dialog).

"Custom Name" shows in the import dialog.  I fill it out.

Example:
I recorded 84 exposures at a string quartet recital earlier today.  I mount the card and open the Aperture import dialog.  I select my File Naming Preset in the "Rename Files" section among the other import settings.  "Name Text" is Aperture asking me for the text to use in the (Custom Name) slot in my selected File Naming Preset.  I type in "StringQuartet_CMU".  I check the box "Rename Original File".  I import.  (Before I do so, I _always_ confirm the naming by selecting a file and hovering my mouse cursor over the "Version Name" field in the File Info section.)

My first Image is named, and its Original is renamed:
2013-11-19_StringQuartet_CMU_1 of 84_DSC08499

The last Image imported is named, and its Original is renamed:
2013-11-19_StringQuartet_CMU_84 of 84_DSC08582

I have, at various times, found each part of the name — date, Project, location, sequence and total number in the import batch, and camera-file-name — important.

HTH,

Kirby.