Digital Darkroom Deep “Apple Aperture” D.A.M. Question (NOT for the casual poster)

[JamesD]

.
Greetings All,

Background:

PC for 25 years.
Compelling circumstances are moving me to a Mac.

I have been using iMatch on my PC as my “database” or “viewer” or “digital asset management” and LOVED IT.
But it’s PC only so I’m looking for what to replace it with.

I was getting awfully close to Aperture until I delved under the hood and found out that:

- Aperture ingests a given image into its Library
- creates a folder for it
- and then for any subsequent version of that image (a tif, a b&w conversion, a downrezed jpeg, etc.), Aperture simply “makes a note of the changes in the form of text-based XML files that sit alongside it and are applied every time you switch between versions.”

For me, this is a deal breaker.
In my simple minded way of looking at things, this means that without Aperture my pictures (other than the original RAW file) don’t exist.

I have not yet determined if there is an Aperture workaround to this.

Maybe this is only if the files are stored within the Aperture Library, and maybe you can make them resident somewhere else on your HD and avoid this. (But then of course I am already wondering if Aperture is going to dynamically update to changes in this folder which is elsewhere.)

Maybe this is only if the edits are done within Aperture, and won’t be an issue if I’m doing all my editing in Photoshop.

Maybe if you do an edit elsewhere (Studio, Photoshop, etc.) and do a “Save As” then it’s a “new picture” and is saved “in toto”.

But, for the present anyway, this has caused me to put on the brakes until, at the very least, I delve a little deeper.

So, does anyone...

a) know enough about Aperture to know if there’s anyway I can configure it, or configure my workflow with it, so as to avoid this nasty (to me) XML “versioning” that it does?

b) know enough about Lightroom (another alternative) to know if it also wants to ingest my pictures and track edits in a similar proprietary manner?

c) have any other D.A.M.s to recommend?
My desire would be one that
- had an elegant appearance
- was fast
- many good viewing, tagging, rating, etc. features
- but will not futz with my pictures!

Basically, one which would allow you to store your pictures somewhere else, anywhere else, and just “show” them to you, allow you to manage them, etc.

Congratulations to anyone who has made it this far.
And thanks for any information, ideas, help.

JamesD

[tomsi42]

Adobe Lightroom also does the same thing; saving the changes in an xml file, used as a recipe to recreate the end result whenever needed.

With the file sizes involved with today's cameras, I think that this is the only way to handle things. And it is actually a good idea. The problem is that the format of the XML sidecar (as its often called) is locked to the vendor. So the different program uses different formats.

A good backup strategy (the only one) is to backup the library with everything in it.

Remember, that it is always possible to export the finished results to jpegs.

Tom

[JamesD]

Thanks Tom,

I am aware of the extent to which the XML sidecar method reduces overhead.

But I'm old and simple minded and just don't like it.

Also, I don't shoot thousands and thousands of pictures like so many do.
And with the size of HDs these days (a Terabyte ain't nothin'), overhead is a non-issue for me.

I know I am a lone voice crying in the wilderness, but the way that Aperture and, if you are correct, Lightroom do it, just isn't for me.

But I REALLY appreciate your reply.

Thanks,

JamesD

[tomsi42]

You are not alone

I shoot a silly number of photos each year; so a tool like Lightroom and Aperture should be the right tool for me. But I 1) don't like Lightroom and 2) don't like Apple. So those choices aren't for me either.

These programs tries to solve two issues at the same time. Creating an efficient workflow and D.A.M.

Imatch looks like an interesting program. I suspect there are similar programs on the Mac, but I can't think of any at the moment.

[Ox Online]

I was reading today of a workaround in iPhoto to the problem of it sucking everything into the library. You can create a referenced library, apparently, which leaves your images intact and weaves it's magic somehow to track its non-destructive edits. I'd be surprised if you can't do it in Aperture, but haven't looked as I'm happy with the way it is (reasonably new Aperture user, so still finding my way).

BTW, it's a simple matter of right clicking on the iPhoto/Aperture library and choosing open pacakge contents to access your original images.

I think both LR and Aperture play nicely with Photoshop as long as you access it from within whichever DAM you're using.

But I may stand corrected.

[Spunkweed]

To my knowledge, there are NO image sorting programs that do not use the xml sidecar system for raws, and the main reason for that is because a raw file is a raw file, nothing else in there besides unrendered sensor data. Since Aperture was most likely designed to work primarily with raw files (as was lightroom), they would solely use the sidecar method and the reasoning behind this is completely non-destructive editing, no actual changes to original file so you never lose the original's quality. Now iPhoto (I'm pretty sure) on the mac DOES save a new version of the image with all your edits if you're using something other than raw, although it's SEVERELY limited in it's editing capabilities. I haven't been playing with iphoto much lately cause I'm lazy, but I think you can actually set it up so that you can edit raws with photoshop through iPhoto, which could be handy. I don't know if you could set it up so that you could edit ALL photos with PS or something, and just have iPhoto do the sorting...

[Gillymaru]

It took me a while to get my head around the way Aperture "saves" versions of the photos you import and edit. But now I have come to value the amount of space this saves on my hard drives and the speed of loading files.
If you use Aperture and must have every version of your photos saved as individual Jpegs, Tiffs or PSDs you can export each file as part of a back up plan.
At the end of the day I think it is a better way of storing a library full of photos than what I did previously and have no regrets changing over.

[Henk Peter]

Originally Posted by JamesD

.

In my simple minded way of looking at things, this means that without Aperture my pictures (other than the original RAW file) don’t exist.

Hi James,
I do not work with Aperture (yet) but if Aperture works the same with raw files and versioning as other raw converters then I think you misinterpreted the way things work.

This is how it works in Capture One (and I'm pretty sure Aperture, Lightroom, and many other converters work the same):
When a raw file is converted you write the image as a TIFF or jpg to your hard disk. You can open and view the converted image then in any program, be it a viewer or PP program or you name it.

The settings of the converter (Aperture) used for the conversion are written as a sidecar file (XML) to the hard disk as well so that when you want to process the image once more with the same settings they will be there in the XML file.

So you do not really need Aperture to view your converted images.

Hope this helps.

[sailor]

James - I have used Aperture since its beginning a few years ago, and am happily continuing to assemble a 360G+(RAW masters only) library of images from my E1, E330, E3 and soon E30 (next week ). I like how its RAW development engine processes my work (portrait, fine art, commercial, editorial).

• you may save .jpg files anywhere you like by exporting "copies" from Ap
• Ap DOES keep only masters (either RAW or JPEG or whatever) and its tools for editing are "non-destructive" - a recipe of changes - XML
• the file naming, organization and powerful search features make it very easy to maintain and work with a large library
• image comparison and sorting/culling tools are the best in the market, IMO
• editing plug-ins (including CSn, DFX Pro, Viveza, Photomatix, Pixelmator) all work well with Ap, and keep your Library structure intact (and easily searchable)
• Ap's Vault backup option is "bullet-proof" (personal experience here) and easy to use

I strongly suggest you visit Apple's web site and check out the many tutorial videos on the care and feeding of Aperture...and there are trials available for most of the apps you're considering. Try 'em decide if you want "secret sauce" or just vanilla for your library...

Good luck with your decision.

cheers, david

[jcsuperstar]

You can save all your pics in any format (raw, psd, tiff, jpeg) anywhere you want and are not just limited to using the aperture library. Go to; library/all photos (then select all)/file/export/master.
Like the previous post stated, check out the online tutorials and I think you'll be convinced to use Aperture.
By the way, the raw converter is great and the headroom for saving highlights is unequalled by ACR/Lightroom.

[Kyle Jones]

Originally Posted by JamesD

.
- Aperture ingests a given image into its Library
- creates a folder for it
- and then for any subsequent version of that image (a tif, a b&w conversion, a downrezed jpeg, etc.), Aperture simply “makes a note of the changes in the form of text-based XML files that sit alongside it and are applied every time you switch between versions.”

For me, this is a deal breaker.
In my simple minded way of looking at things, this means that without Aperture my pictures (other than the original RAW file) don’t exist.

That is correct. You are reliant on a working version of Aperture to be able to access your edited version(s) of an image if you only edited them in Aperture. If you edit an image in an external program like Photoshop, you'd type Shift-Apple-O in Aperture which creates a new master file and hands that file to Photoshop. If you edit and save in Photoshop, then Aperture will see the changes in the new master file and display them (Aperture can read PSD files up to a point). If you "save as" to some other name, then Aperture won't know about this new name and won't do anything.

An example might be helpful. The way I process most images is as follows.

1. Import RAW file into Aperture.
2. Adjust white balance with Aperture.
3. Shift-Apple-O to create a new master and open in Photoshop.
4. Apply some or all of the following in Photoshop: noise reduction, exposure correction, color correction, perspective correction, b&w conversion and sharpening.
5. Save.
6. Back in Aperture I can see the Photoshop edits and on top of them I apply tinting (if doing b&w), cropping, and vignetting.
7. Export from Aperture for various purposes. I have profiles for the print shops I use, a reduced resolution profile for Flickr, for e-mail, etc.

If Aperture suddenly stopped working I'd have the original RAW file, the PSD file with the Photoshop edits (but not the subsequent Aperture edits to that file) and whatever I exported in step 7.

I had a bit of the black box phobia when I started working regularly with video and image files, but gradually relaxed when I realized the library management worked pretty well and I could live without knowing where every single file and version was hidden. As long as export works, I can always get my goop out and move on.

[Godfrey]

Originally Posted by Henk Peter

... This is how it works in Capture One (and I'm pretty sure Aperture, Lightroom, and many other converters work the same):
When a raw file is converted you write the image as a TIFF or jpg to your hard disk. You can open and view the converted image then in any program, be it a viewer or PP program or you name it. ...

Considering Aperture or Lightroom as 'merely' raw converters is the wrong way of looking at it. For many (most? possibly) photographer, either Aperture or Lightroom can do the entire editing job, and a lot more besides.

BTW: technical detail is that Aperture might create XML sidecar files (I really don't know for sure), but Lightroom, *only when* it creates sidecar files, is creating XMP sidecar files. XMP stands for "Extensible Metadata Platform" (see http://www.adobe.com/products/xmp/ for details if you're interested). XML (the extensible markup language) is a generic mechanism for encoding information used very broadly by many many different kinds of applications, XMP is a much more specific information encoding language. Lightroom by default and normally stores all editing instructions and metadata in the SQLlite database repository file that is its catalog. It *only* creates .XMP sidecar files for native RAW captures when you've told it to save the metadata to the file.

But neither Aperture nor Lightroom work the way Capture One does in the course of normal use. Capture One is purely a light table and raw conversion image processing solution, like Adobe Bridge and Camera Raw. Lightroom only destructively creates bits in a file when you tell it, either explicitly or implicitly (ie: when saying "edit in photoshop) to export a finished product. Otherwise, all it ever does it read the original file, store information about in the database, and generate a preview (which it manages dynamically) for you to use in viewing and editing your files. Aperture works similarly if not identically.

Exported files are fully rendered entities with all image metadata embedded or baked into the pixels, readable by any other compatible application.

[palker]

Hmm

apart from getting the ingest into its library part - not wrong, but not quite complete - what you don't like is its strength. it is called non-destructive editing and by opening the sidecar file you se the same edits and can change then ...

Phil.

[JamesD]

Originally Posted by Henk Peter

Hi James,
I do not work with Aperture (yet) but if Aperture works the same with raw files and versioning as other raw converters then I think you misinterpreted the way things work.

This is how it works in Capture One (and I'm pretty sure Aperture, Lightroom, and many other converters work the same):
When a raw file is converted you write the image as a TIFF or jpg to your hard disk. You can open and view the converted image then in any program, be it a viewer or PP program or you name it.

The settings of the converter (Aperture) used for the conversion are written as a sidecar file (XML) to the hard disk as well so that when you want to process the image once more with the same settings they will be there in the XML file.

So you do not really need Aperture to view your converted images.

Hope this helps.

Henk,

First - good to hear from you.
I was fairly active (reading and learning if not posting all that much) on this forum two-three years ago, but have been totally absent from both the forum and photography for the past year or so (long story). As I have come back recently, there are many (most?) new names here. But I remember you from "the old days." Good to hear from you!


As far as aperture goes, the way you describe it (in blue above) sure isn't how I understand it. Now I will admit I am just beginning to try to understand all this, and you may be closer to right than I. But in my OP, the text in quotes is from some big high muckitymuck book on Aperture. and where he says...

Aperture simply “makes a note of the changes in the form of text-based XML files that sit alongside it and are applied every time you switch between versions."

...I am taking that to mean that there is really never a full "file" written anywhere of the new image, just a sidecar file describing the "difference" between the original and the subsequent.

One thing I DO know...
Photography, for me anyway, used to be
- taking pictures with your camera
- looking at a contact sheet and picking the shots worth printing
- getting prints made
Sure ain't like that any more ! ! !

Best regards,

JamesD

[Godfrey]

Originally Posted by JamesD

...I am taking that to mean that there is really never a full "file" written anywhere of the new image, just a sidecar file describing the "difference" between the original and the subsequent. ...

For both Aperture and Lightroom, the image while in the editing process is maintained non-destructively and losslessly ... that is, the applications only look at your original file to read its content and never change it. The edits you make are stored as parameters (instructions) which they manage for you. Until you're done.

At that point, with either application, you export the image to a finished, final product (or set of products) expressing all your image adjustments and/or metadata annotations in the pixel values and embedded into the metadata of the newly created output files. These are the 'new files' of the image written out when you tell the applications to do so, and are consumable by any application capable of reading the image file format.

A proper workflow goes like this:

shoot pictures in raw
transfer image files to computer, import into LR or A
sort and grade, edit*IPTC metadata
adjust and crop to taste on selected
export to finished image files

I then import the finished images into a separate catalog of completed work to manage being able to find them easily in the future by means of keywords, etc. The finished images also are what goes to clients, a website, into my finished image archives, etc.

[maccreate]

Hey all, David Schloss, director of the Aperture Users Network here. Thought I'd stop in this forum and say hello and try to clear up some things. For more info visit aperturenetwork.com or aperture.maccreate.com.

There's a bit of confusion in some of these posts about how Aperture works. Let me just make a few comments and then point to some resources. (It's what Godfrey is talking about, I just want to expand a bit.)

• During the import process Aperture saves files in either its own library (this is called Managed) or in ANY location that you want (this is called Referenced). This gives the photographer tremendous flexibility—you can either have Aperture take care of all of your organization or control it yourself. (This can be done on any images—it's not an either/or. Some files can be managed, some referenced.)

• We've got the start of our hour-long webinar on Referenced vs Managed here.

• The full version is available for premium members, who also get hardware discounts and other tutorials. Membership is $39.99 for the year, but here's a coupon code you can all use to join for $5.00. (We're doing a big webinar on Monday on Adjustments.)

• Aperture doesn't store file data in an XML, though it can export data with XML sidecars. Aperture stores information in its database, the Library, which includes metadata and a "recipe" of the adjustments. The advantage of this (as opposed to writing the data by destructively altering the file) is huge, it means that at any time you can change your adjustments without altering the original image. You can make multiple versions that don't take up additional space on your drive (aside from small JPEG previews of those files, if you have previews on) and those text-based recipe files.

• This also means that you don't have to make different save-as for your files for different crops or uses... every time you export a file from Aperture it renders any adjustments on the fly for the file. But you don't have to make folders full of images just so you can have a web res one AND a print res one on file.

• Remember those previews I mentioned? Those are used for Aperture to communicate with iLife and iWork, so you can instantly pull your images into a Keynote presentation or a iMovie file, etc.

Hundreds of Aperture files on our site, stop by.

[Godfrey]

I'm glad you stepped in to discuss details of Aperture implemention, David. I don't teach Aperture ... I use and teach Lightroom. While similar in concept in many ways, Aperture and Lightroom differ on many points of implementation.

(I do use Aperture also, but only for its book making facilities. Until Apple updates the core RAW processing framework to understand and process Panasonic's .RW2 native file format for the Lumix G cameras, it isn't useful for my work.)

[Henk Peter]

Originally Posted by JamesD

Henk,

First - good to hear from you.
I was fairly active (reading and learning if not posting all that much) on this forum two-three years ago, but have been totally absent from both the forum and photography for the past year or so (long story). As I have come back recently, there are many (most?) new names here. But I remember you from "the old days." Good to hear from you!

Thanks James, good to see you're still active in photography. I have been away for some time too and will be for more looking at the dark mood of many threads here. It was nice meeting you.

As for your questions, other posters here know more of Aperture than I do so I'll leave the floor for them.

Take care