Aperture replacement

[Jack Crumbley]

Aperture pros,

I am a very amateur user of Aperture and have used complex hierarchical file structure to catalog all my pictures and edits (> 10 years worth).

I am very concerned about loss of this library with future OS changes.

Please suggest in elementary terms a replacement editor, even Photo if I can move images into the program for edits the back to storage. I have labelled *** ratings for photos and have made multiple images from the same master.

I would like to avoid hours of transfer work if possible.

Thanks for the help!

 

[lightandaprayer]

I see where you are coming from and why you would be inclined to revisit your library to fine tune its organization as your interests evolve. What advantages do you enjoy by using such a folder structure? Do you use keywords too?

 

[noirdesir]

I see where you are coming from and why you would be inclined to revisit your library to fine tune its organization as your interests evolve. What advantages do you enjoy by using such a folder structure?

It allows me to find the images I am looking for. And, vice versa, it allows me to decide easily were to place new images. Organising any kind of 'object' should follow the principle to place it where one would later be looking for it which is dependent on how one remembers things in general.

Do you use keywords too?

Keywords suffer from a number of problems for me: I have to remember what my keyword scheme is and maybe more importantly what precise word I have used (eg, did I use 'people' or 'person' as the keyword, did I capitalise the first letter or not). This includes the question whether I have chosen German or English keywords. With a folder structure, I can browse my folder naming structure easily to remind me of the structure and what words I have chosen. With keywords, I might be able to browse my hierarchical keyword structure but I cannot browse the actual keywords used in my images (which can easily differ from that hierarchical keyword structure because I keep changing things).

I've tried that with people shots where at least the name of the person is a pretty unambiguous choice. But I naturally couldn't let well-enough alone and added hierarchical keywords with a tag for the social group (eg, family) in both German and English.

What I would love is a feature where I can assign a keyword by dragging an image onto a smart folder with that keyword as the criterion. This way I could have a structure I could easily browse but still have the power of assigning keywords from multiple organisational classes.

 

[robgendreau]

I see where you are coming from and why you would be inclined to revisit your library to fine tune its organization as your interests evolve. What advantages do you enjoy by using such a folder structure?

It allows me to find the images I am looking for. And, vice versa, it allows me to decide easily were to place new images. Organising any kind of 'object' should follow the principle to place it where one would later be looking for it which is dependent on how one remembers things in general.

True! it amazes me how often people focus on the structure while ignoring the fact that the point is to FIND things.

And consider most any online store. Generally, you have three ways to find things: you can browse by categories, search using a text term, or filter. (And ignoring pushy plugs since we don't use those on ourselves.). You might have to run through all three or use them in combo to find what you want, just as with our photos.

Do you use keywords too?

Keywords suffer from a number of problems for me: I have to remember what my keyword scheme is and maybe more importantly what precise word I have used (eg, did I use 'people' or 'person' as the keyword, did I capitalise the first letter or not). This includes the question whether I have chosen German or English keywords. With a folder structure, I can browse my folder naming structure easily to remind me of the structure and what words I have chosen. With keywords, I might be able to browse my hierarchical keyword structure but I cannot browse the actual keywords used in my images (which can easily differ from that hierarchical keyword structure because I keep changing things).

I've tried that with people shots where at least the name of the person is a pretty unambiguous choice. But I naturally couldn't let well-enough alone and added hierarchical keywords with a tag for the social group (eg, family) in both German and English.

What I would love is a feature where I can assign a keyword by dragging an image onto a smart folder with that keyword as the criterion. This way I could have a structure I could easily browse but still have the power of assigning keywords from multiple organisational classes.

Sounds like a software limitation, not a keyword limitation.

Folders are very limiting because they are exclusive (the photo of the folks at the birthday can only be in one person's folder, or the birthday folder, or maybe the cake folder, etc.). At least with virtual containers the same image can be in all of those containers without duplication. Still we need at least one folder.

I can't see the problem where one could see a keyword hierarchy in general but not those in a photo. In most (all?) of the software I use the keyword hierarchy HAS to be the same with all the photos. But that's the benefit of using DAMs because they keep track of that. Some people buy and use large controlled vocabularies for keywords so they have large sets (some software let's you use different sets) of unused stuff and just pick from among them. Some only have keywords that are actually applied. With my setup I just start typing and if I have a keyword it shows up, so I don't get dupes much. Although some are unavoidable no matter what system you use.

And as for the dragging-to-smart-folder, I don't know of any software that does that per se. But Lr at least does the same thing, functionally. You drag a rose photo onto say this keyword hierarchy: plant>flower>rose and it gets tagged as such. And if you click the hierarchy, it shows all the "rose" photos, just like a smart collection would. If you wanna browse you just scroll through the list of keywords in the side panel, which is actually easier and faster than scrolling through an equivalent list of collections.

 

[pdjInColo]

When I originally installed Aperture I opted for referenced files. [...] I can easily live with the folder system and view the images using a variety of software.

Though that is viewing the images without all the adjustment work you had put into them.

Out of curiosity, how did you deal with the disconnect between external (Finder) and internal (Projects) organisation?

My basic Aperture setup is Year/Project. I create a new Project for each shoot. From within Aperture I create a new subfolder inside the year folder for each Project where the imported images reside. The result is that the Finder folder hierarchy mimics Aperture's Projects organization. My Aperture images reside on external drives while the library is on the internal drive.

That is a very flat folder structure. Including the Project level, I have up to five levels of hierarchy, plus sometimes an additional level of albums inside the Project.

Is what constitutes a project for you well-defined? Meaning, there is no danger of you at some point after import reorganising which images go into which project or you renaming projects, combining or splitting projects? Because if you were to do so, you would have to synchronise such changes manually both inside Aperture and in the Finder.

I've had to move out part of my masters from my managed Aperture library because they wouldn't fit on my boot SSD anymore. I've tried to mirror the internal structure of Aperture but because I re-organised things inside Aperture (adding another organisational level among other things), the Finder structure is already out of sync. I could try to repair that but then I'd have to re-connect all the masters affected by that. Alternatively, I could consolidate (ie, move the masters back into the managed library) and then relocated them from within Aperture (where Aperture can create the lowest two levels of hierarchy itself but only if all the masters you relocate are in the same folder hierarchy level).

Re: multiple levels of folder, project, and album hierarchy:

I have found a Folder/Project organization in Aperture to be the only way I can export media and then import them again without losing the structure.

Re: Managed or Referenced:

I used to have just managed files on an external drive. Having files stay in the same location they were initially imported to simplifies backup and reduces reduces errors when moving files.

My original plan was to use managed local storage on the laptop for recent media and then relocate them to an external drive when my organization was stable, but managed storage was far less error prone than referenced storage since moving an image to another project requires relocating the image to preserve the proper many-to-one map of images to projects.

But I switched back to my original plan when I started trying to find an Aperture replacement, so most of my library is referenced now. I just have to remember to "Relocate Originals" when I make any structural changes. Unfortunately I forget a lot these days.

Re: Keywords:

I do think a hierarchy of keywords would be the right way to organize media if there were a good interface. It's a lot easier to answer both of the questions, "what media have specified keywords?" and "what keywords does this media have?". What I'd like is a way to view a hierarchy of keywords to help narrow the context to a reasonable number of choices. This many-keywords-to-many-files map seems much more useful than a many-files-to-one-project hierarchy.

pdj

 

[robgendreau]

Re: multiple levels of folder, project, and album hierarchy:

I have found a Folder/Project organization in Aperture to be the only way I can export media and then import them again without losing the structure.

Why do you import what you exported? Isn't the whole point of Aperture to store the changes?

Re: Managed or Referenced:

I used to have just managed files on an external drive. Having files stay in the same location they were initially imported to simplifies backup and reduces reduces errors when moving files.

I sort of agree, but that's true of referenced files as well.

My original plan was to use managed local storage on the laptop for recent media and then relocate them to an external drive when my organization was stable, but managed storage was far less error prone than referenced storage since moving an image to another project requires relocating the image to preserve the proper many-to-one map of images to projects.

But I switched back to my original plan when I started trying to find an Aperture replacement, so most of my library is referenced now. I just have to remember to "Relocate Originals" when I make any structural changes. Unfortunately I forget a lot these days.

Yeah, I agree. One big reason I moved from Aperture years ago was the ease of moving files within the filesystem. In Lr and others I can just move a whole folder from within the program to external storage if space on my boot drive is low. Just drag and drop like the Finder. Aperture was made years and years ago, and didn't really have to deal as much with that problem as we now have to with smaller flash drives.

Re: Keywords:

I do think a hierarchy of keywords would be the right way to organize media if there were a good interface. It's a lot easier to answer both of the questions, "what media have specified keywords?" and "what keywords does this media have?". What I'd like is a way to view a hierarchy of keywords to help narrow the context to a reasonable number of choices. This many-keywords-to-many-files map seems much more useful than a many-files-to-one-project hierarchy.

I like keywords because there are so many varieties of interfaces available to use with them. I'm OK with the keyword list in Lr cuz it's basically a folder-like hierarchy, but searchable to limit scope. I'd love Lr to have a tag cloud, but it doesn't, so I can use Leap for that. Gives me an indication of the frequency of keywords too. And since they're so easy to manage, it's simple to add context-creating keywords to narrow scope, like "people" or "locations" or whatever. Rather meaningless (since for example you know every photo with a keyworded name like "Ansel Adams" is a person) in themselves, but helpful in a keyword list to make it easier to browse all people.

 

[Alice OLeary]

Hi John - As I recall the problem with getting Aperture onto my new MBP (which is operating El Capitan) had to do with re-installing the program on the new machine. Sorry that I can't recall the precise details but I could not find the original discs to re-install the program and when I tried to download the App there was some notice about it no longer being available. I spent some time exploring options but decided it was time to move on to a software that has some backing. It was a big decision for me because I have upwards of 40K pictures and I knew the transfer would be time-consuming and filled with its own frustrations.

The silver lining is that I discovered Mylio and, as I mentioned, this seems a very good solution for my particular situation. I'm not as active as I once was in terms of taking pictures but I want access to those I have taken and with my "snowbird" lifestyle now I needed a system that travels well and syncs easily. Mylio is not for everyone but it is a software that seems to be with the times in terms of usefulness. Scott Kelby agrees (I had seen that review) as do several others that I found on the web.

Hi Alice. Mylio has received a few good reviews. From your perspective as a bona fide user, do you find it worth $100/year?

Well, it is a little too soon for me to answer that. I am still in the "free" mode with fewer than 25K images uploaded. Once you pass that 25K mark the monthly payments begin. It could be that, like Scott Kelby, I will upload everything but then back off and keep only the Final Images. (http://scottkelby.com/today-im-loving-mylio-on-a-whole-new-level/).

Mylio has at least given me a platform to start the transition process away from Aperture. I had kept all of my images in Reference Files so I was dismayed to discover that none of my key word organizing over the years was stored with the originals. So I have been using Aperture Exporter to export files with keywords and then loading them into Mylio. This has been helpful in many regards because I have had to go through many files and realized that my biggest mistake over the years was not keeping up-to-date 4-star or "Best of (fill in the year)" files.

I will probably resort to paying the monthly fee for perhaps a year or so. Until I get better organized with my 4-star cataloging.

 

[lightandaprayer]

I don't use keywords either. Nor tags. If I was licensing stock images I would be inclined to use keywords. At one point I had a very nice stock licensing offshoot related to a particular gig I had at the time. But even then I didn't need to get fussy with my filing system (it was back when I was shooting film and storing images in hanging slide folders).

In the end it sounds like we do pretty much the same thing, you just have a deeper hierarchy than I do. My system stems from having done assignment photography, where it makes sense to file everything from a shoot in a single folder/project. (Or multiple shoots for the same assignment.) When I need to go back and pull an image it is easy to find what I am looking for. It's the same using projects in Aperture.

 

[pluton]

From much of my researching I get the impression that C1pro does a great job with many raw files. I'm not apposed to considering LR but besides shooting Nikon I also shoot Fuji and though Adobe seems to improve a bit there, it seems other developers are much more preferred as far as editing the X-trans family.

Capture One is better than Adobe for Fuji raw, but not as good as the DCRaw-based converters such as Photo Ninja and Iridient. There is no free Fuji lunch.

 

[Dutch Newchurch]

Many other answers here, and please forgive me for not looking at all of them.

I used Aperture for many years, and switched last year to Lightroom CC.

By doing that I was able to upgrade from Elements to Photoshop CC as part of the package.

I have no regrets. Apple gave up developing Aperture some time ago and Lightroom is now clearly a far better raw processor. Its cataloguing features work well too, and the conversion tool successfully transferred a huge library from Aperture.