Bangui, CF
|
> I have downloaded the
>Aperture 30 day trail and like the fact the the browser works
>seamlessly with the editor. However, my biggest problem is
>dealing with file management. Coming from a PC background, I
>am just not accustomed to not having readily accessible files
>in a folder rather than having Aperture manage file
>allocation.
If you will permit some comments from an old ADP hack, your problem is less a PC background and more a lack of understanding of what a DBMS is. Beyond that, you need to understand the Zen of Aperture and and RAW based/non-destructive workflow. (All of this is true of Lightroom as well.)
-- Aperture is not a "browser" of existing files as such, but rather a full blown data base management system. As such, its entire purpose is to manage your files so you can manage your images. They are NOT the same. The only reason you want to browse files is that was the only way you could do things. (View NX and Bridge are more about showing you things are they are, not as you want them to be.)
>I have read that can set Aperture to
>"referenced" mode where it will reference files in a
>folder. However, it seems like still have to
>"import" them into Aperture library can't simply
>reference them directly. Is this correct?
-- Yes, and no. The Aperture Library is a database of image and file information. The files can be physically inside the "Package" (which is really just a folder) or outside the package, anywhere you want, or both, in any combination your want. "Importing" is nothing mysterious, it is merely the process of indexing the files so that Aperture can display the images in any combination of views you can dream up - totally independently of their physical position on your disk(s). When you "import" files you can: 1) Leave them where they are ("referenced"), or, 2) have them physically moved inside the Library ("managed") If they are managed, they are inside the package, neatly arranged by date, pretty much the way you might do it. In fact, it has been pointed out that even if you want to run "referenced" masters, it may still be worth bringing them in "managed" organizing them, and then "relocating" them out. Might be easier than doing it by hand.
>Also, m workflow
>is to shot both Raw + Jpeg and edit Raw files. I then save
>edits as a new jpeg with an _v2 _v3 etc. In Aperture I can do
>this by setting the Raw as master, but when I "Save
>As" e.g. export and export to my folder, it does not show
>up in my Aperture browser. Do I need to import these
>Aperture-created jpegs back into Aperture each time I create a
>new version? Seems like a real admin pain.
Why ARE you doing all of that work? In fact, why are you bothering with JPEG at all, except as something to send to Aunt Mary? Once Aperture has your master file, it creates what is called a "version." This is a tiny, 30k file that contains all of your edits, if any. Want a B&W conversion? Make a new version, another 30k. Want to keep a special crop or color cast? Make another version. The beauty is that you are doing all of your work at 16 bit against the RAW file without actually ever having to duplicate, save as, etc., etc. You simply don't have to do any of that. In fact, with the new global presets, which you can set up to imitate any form of in camera processing you want, there is very little reason to even bother with shooting RAW/JPEG.
You invest in your RAW files and keep them in the Library. You expense JPEGS as needed, by exporting. And once e-mailed, burned on a CD, or whatever, you simply delete them; they serve no further purpose.
I hope this is useful. After making that daisy chain of Nikon software work, you will find the Aperture is a dream. You just have to understand that you don't need to do all of that work. Ride your bike, take more pictures, do less post processing!
--
DiploStrat  Visit my gallery.
|
