If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Lightroom and Aperture, shared library?
So, before I start testing, perhaps someone knows. Maybe not about
Aperture, but Lightroom at least. So I currently have some 300GB of images in my Aperture library, which is "managed", meaning it is kept inside a special Aperture library folder. Now, if I were to transform this to a referenced library, I would get a neat folder system on the hard drive. I have no need for this specifically, but I am hoping that it would enable me to use more than just Aperture to access and edit the files. The question is - can Lightroom (and Aperture) auto-add files it finds in a given path? Let's say I have Aperture export all my images to /Volumes/Photos/Library, and then I tell Lightroom to import the images from this path. The idea is that from that point on, I would use either Aperture or Lightroom to import images from the camera (or another tool) and the ideal situation is for Lightroom to auto-import new images it find in /Volumes/Photos/Library when starting up, or would i have to manually import all photos in both applications? Any ideas? -- Sandman[.net] |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Lightroom and Aperture, shared library?
On 2014-05-14 17:33:37 +0000, Sandman said:
So, before I start testing, perhaps someone knows. Maybe not about Aperture, but Lightroom at least. So I currently have some 300GB of images in my Aperture library, which is "managed", meaning it is kept inside a special Aperture library folder. Now, if I were to transform this to a referenced library, I would get a neat folder system on the hard drive. I have no need for this specifically, but I am hoping that it would enable me to use more than just Aperture to access and edit the files. The question is - can Lightroom (and Aperture) auto-add files it finds in a given path? Let's say I have Aperture export all my images to /Volumes/Photos/Library, and then I tell Lightroom to import the images from this path. See my concerns below. The idea is that from that point on, I would use either Aperture or Lightroom to import images from the camera (or another tool) and the ideal situation is for Lightroom to auto-import new images it find in /Volumes/Photos/Library when starting up, or would i have to manually import all photos in both applications? Any ideas? I don’t use Aperture, but by having a dedicated location for the primary imported is similar to the way LR works. The idea of sharing *libraries* or should I say actual file locations with both Aperture and Lightroom should be possible. However, from what I can see there is no obvious way to direct the LR Library Module to use/share the Aperture primary storage location. This can be easily done with Bridge of course by navigating with Bridge to the Aperture folder. The big caveat here is, the Apple image filing system which is a royal PIA. Navigating to my LR image folder with Bridge, if i have to, is a piece of cake. Lightroom can import from any source, a card reader, a USB connected camera, or a folder of existing image files already saved to your computer. I believe that would include those in the Aperture Library. I am sure that Aperture can perform a similar function. The first complication I see with that is, both programs maintain their own hierarchy and any file imported from one library to the other would be duplicated. Then there is the way Apple catalogs iPhoto image files, and I suspect they it is a practice they repeat with Aperture, which is with an arcane nested system of folders for each set of imports, where you have to dig through several folders of thumbnails, etc. to get to the original RAW files if you want access to those files outside of the iPhoto/Aperture environment. Importing individual files, or a handful at a time I don’t see as efficient, more as a tedious PIA. That is one of my major reasons for not using iPhoto for anything, and a major reason for my reluctance to use Aperture. So my suggestion, since you are a committed CC user, is to move to a LR5 + PS CC workflow, and use Aperture for those times the mood takes you in that direction, or there is something specific you want to do in Aperture. The other option I can think of is one which makes things a little redundant, and one which I employ. I have my RAW (NEF) archive on an external FW800 HDD. That is arranged according to year and month of shoot (and some specifically labeled folders) and even though these days I usually import directly into LR, my NEFs still get archived, and I occasionally import from there. If you do that sort of thing you should be able to use that as an import source for both, or either Aperture or LR. …and it is very simple for Bridge to navigate to the same archive. https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/Fil...enshot_697.jpg https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/Fil...enshot_696.jpg -- Regards, Savageduck |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Lightroom and Aperture, shared library?
In article 2014051412395855364-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom,
Savageduck wrote: The first complication I see with that is, both programs maintain their own hierarchy and any file imported from one library to the other would be duplicated. Then there is the way Apple catalogs iPhoto image files, and I suspect they it is a practice they repeat with Aperture, which is with an arcane nested system of folders for each set of imports, where you have to dig through several folders of thumbnails, etc. to get to the original RAW files if you want access to those files outside of the iPhoto/Aperture environment. Importing individual files, or a handful at a time I don¹t see as efficient, more as a tedious PIA. That is one of my major reasons for not using iPhoto for anything, and a major reason for my reluctance to use Aperture. you're not supposed to be poking around inside a managed library which is why it's a package and not a folder. if you want direct access, do not use a managed library. in any event, if you want the original photos, simply drag them out of the iphoto window to wherever you want. or select reveal in finder to show the photo. let the computer do the work in finding it for you. i assume aperture works the same way but i don't have aperture to test. if you want direct access to the photos, then set iphoto or aperture to not manage the library and the photos will remain wherever you want and arranged however you want, including on a server. iphoto or aperture will manage links to the photos rather than the actual photos, and most of the time, it can find the photos if they are moved. in the latter case, you could also use lightroom pointed at the same hierarchy of photos, but the edits will not transfer. there's no real advantage in using two asset managers. pick one and stick with it. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Lightroom and Aperture, shared library?
On 2014-05-14 20:21:52 +0000, nospam said:
In article 2014051412395855364-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom, Savageduck wrote: The first complication I see with that is, both programs maintain their own hierarchy and any file imported from one library to the other would be duplicated. Then there is the way Apple catalogs iPhoto image files, and I suspect they it is a practice they repeat with Aperture, which is with an arcane nested system of folders for each set of imports, where you have to dig through several folders of thumbnails, etc. to get to the original RAW files if you want access to those files outside of the iPhoto/Aperture environment. Importing individual files, or a handful at a time I don¹t see as efficient, more as a tedious PIA. That is one of my major reasons for not using iPhoto for anything, and a major reason for my reluctance to use Aperture. you're not supposed to be poking around inside a managed library which is why it's a package and not a folder. if you want direct access, do not use a managed library. in any event, if you want the original photos, simply drag them out of the iphoto window to wherever you want. or select reveal in finder to show the photo. let the computer do the work in finding it for you. i assume aperture works the same way but i don't have aperture to test. if you want direct access to the photos, then set iphoto or aperture to not manage the library and the photos will remain wherever you want and arranged however you want, including on a server. iphoto or aperture will manage links to the photos rather than the actual photos, and most of the time, it can find the photos if they are moved. in the latter case, you could also use lightroom pointed at the same hierarchy of photos, but the edits will not transfer. I guess you missed the point of what I was saying. I am not a stranger to the Apple image management system. I don’t like like, so I don’t use it. If you followed what I said, I use LR5 as my workflow import tool, and I maintain a separate RAW file archive which remains unmolested. there's no real advantage in using two asset managers. pick one and stick with it. Once again, if you had read what I had said above, my recommendation to Jonas since he is a CC subscriber, was to move to a LR5 + PS CC workflow. I have been doing this for some time and I can navigate my way around my Macs , Lightroom and Photoshop. -- Regards, Savageduck |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Lightroom and Aperture, shared library?
In article 2014051413582319508-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom,
Savageduck wrote: I guess you missed the point of what I was saying. I am not a stranger to the Apple image management system. I don¹t like like, so I don¹t use it. then turn it off. you don't have to have iphoto manage your photos if you don't want it to. If you followed what I said, I use LR5 as my workflow import tool, and I maintain a separate RAW file archive which remains unmolested. i did follow it. the part you got wrong is that you can set iphoto to not manage the library and then the photos can be wherever you want, arranged in any way you want. iphoto will still manage the content, but via links to the photos. the choice is up to the user. there's no real advantage in using two asset managers. pick one and stick with it. Once again, if you had read what I had said above, my recommendation to Jonas since he is a CC subscriber, was to move to a LR5 + PS CC workflow. and even if he's not a subscriber. lightroom is definitely the better product. aperture is not worth bothering with. it hasn't been updated in a long time and many people think it's a dead product. apple is also slower to update for new cameras. adobe's raw support is also much better than apple's and if someone wants to use photoshop with their asset manager, then lightroom is the best choice as its integration is seamless. on the other hand, iphoto and aperture integrate well with idevices, which lightroom does not do. however, that can be worked around. I have been doing this for some time and I can navigate my way around my Macs , Lightroom and Photoshop. as have i. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Lightroom and Aperture, shared library?
On 2014-05-14 21:55:38 +0000, nospam said:
In article 2014051413582319508-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom, Savageduck wrote: I guess you missed the point of what I was saying. I am not a stranger to the Apple image management system. I don¹t like like, so I don¹t use it. then turn it off. You don't read what others write do you? I don't use iPhoto (dumped), or Aperture (Never bought or installed), but I know how they work. Once upon a time I had iPhoto on one of my Macs, I believe it is still installed on my old "Goose-neck G4". you don't have to have iphoto manage your photos if you don't want it to. I don't. I fixed that little issue. If you followed what I said, I use LR5 as my workflow import tool, and I maintain a separate RAW file archive which remains unmolested. i did follow it. No you didn't! You wouldn't have revisited this whole thing with your *nospam knows best* pedantry if you did. the part you got wrong is that you can set iphoto to not manage the library and then the photos can be wherever you want, arranged in any way you want. iphoto will still manage the content, but via links to the photos. I got nothing wrong, I dumped iPhoto years ago. I have been using Lightroom since the Beta. the choice is up to the user. ....and I made mine. I use Lightroom 5 + PS CC. I have used LR since the Beta and I started with PS7. there's no real advantage in using two asset managers. pick one and stick with it. Once again, if you had read what I had said above, my recommendation to Jonas since he is a CC subscriber, was to move to a LR5 + PS CC workflow. and even if he's not a subscriber. Jonas was an Aperture + PS user before he subscribed to the CC. Now he is paying for LR5 as part of his CC package and is trying to figure out if he can us both Aperture & LR in his workflow. I don't believe it is practical. He should abandon Aperture and adopt an LR5+ PS CC workflow. lightroom is definitely the better product. aperture is not worth bothering with. it hasn't been updated in a long time and many people think it's a dead product. apple is also slower to update for new cameras. adobe's raw support is also much better than apple's and if someone wants to use photoshop with their asset manager, then lightroom is the best choice as its integration is seamless. on the other hand, iphoto and aperture integrate well with idevices, which lightroom does not do. however, that can be worked around. I have been doing this for some time and I can navigate my way around my Macs , Lightroom and Photoshop. as have i. -- Regards, Savageduck |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Lightroom and Aperture, shared library?
In article 2014051416042332867-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom,
Savageduck wrote: I guess you missed the point of what I was saying. I am not a stranger to the Apple image management system. I don1t like like, so I don1t use it. then turn it off. You don't read what others write do you? yes i do. do you? this is what you wrote: In article 2014051412395855364-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom, Savageduck wrote: I don¹t use Aperture, but by having a dedicated location for the primary imported is similar to the way LR works. The idea of sharing *libraries* or should I say actual file locations with both Aperture and Lightroom should be possible. However, from what I can see there is no obvious way to direct the LR Library Module to use/share the Aperture primary storage location. This can be easily done with Bridge of course by navigating with Bridge to the Aperture folder. The big caveat here is, the Apple image filing system which is a royal PIA. Navigating to my LR image folder with Bridge, if i have to, is a piece of cake. Lightroom can import from any source, a card reader, a USB connected camera, or a folder of existing image files already saved to your computer. I believe that would include those in the Aperture Library. I am sure that Aperture can perform a similar function. The first complication I see with that is, both programs maintain their own hierarchy and any file imported from one library to the other would be duplicated. Then there is the way Apple catalogs iPhoto image files, and I suspect they it is a practice they repeat with Aperture, which is with an arcane nested system of folders for each set of imports, where you have to dig through several folders of thumbnails, etc. to get to the original RAW files if you want access to those files outside of the iPhoto/Aperture environment. Importing individual files, or a handful at a time I don¹t see as efficient, more as a tedious PIA. That is one of my major reasons for not using iPhoto for anything, and a major reason for my reluctance to use Aperture. the reason you cite for not using iphoto can be easily changed with one checkbox. if you don't want iphoto to manage your photo library for you, then tell it not to and it won't. it will then work the way lightroom does. it is possible to use both, it just does not make much sense. I don't use iPhoto (dumped), or Aperture (Never bought or installed), but I know how they work. Once upon a time I had iPhoto on one of my Macs, I believe it is still installed on my old "Goose-neck G4". you're basing your opinion on what iphoto does based on a version from over ten years ago? i'm pretty sure that predated when apple added the ability for iphoto to leave photos where they are, it's that long ago. you don't have to have iphoto manage your photos if you don't want it to. I don't. I fixed that little issue. by not using the app at all?? that's not a fix. as i said, iphoto can be used without it moving, rearranging or renaming photos. it's just one checkbox: http://km.support.apple.com/library/...OS/TS3124/TS31 24_01----.png with that *unchecked*, the photos are tracked where they currently are, much like how lightroom does it. when iphoto is configured that way, then both iphoto (or aperture) can be used with lightroom, but the question then becomes what problem is this trying to solve?? they won't see each others edits so there really is not much point in it. Jonas was an Aperture + PS user before he subscribed to the CC. Now he is paying for LR5 as part of his CC package and is trying to figure out if he can us both Aperture & LR in his workflow. I don't believe it is practical. He should abandon Aperture and adopt an LR5+ PS CC workflow. he could, but again, there's no real reason. syncing with idevices is about the only reason, but it won't see the edits done in lightroom so there really isn't much point. what can be done is export the finished photos from lightroom and then import them in iphoto and then sync the idevice. that works well, and it also does not matter how the photo library is managed either since iphoto is tracking what gets exported. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Lightroom and Aperture, shared library?
In article 2014051412395855364-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom, Savageduck wrote:
The idea of sharing *libraries* or should I say actual file locations with both Aperture and Lightroom should be possible. However, from what I can see there is no obvious way to direct the LR Library Module to use/share the Aperture primary storage location. This can be easily done with Bridge of course by navigating with Bridge to the Aperture folder. The big caveat here is, the Apple image filing system which is a royal PIA. Navigating to my LR image folder with Bridge, if i have to, is a piece of cake. Lightroom can import from any source, a card reader, a USB connected camera, or a folder of existing image files already saved to your computer. I believe that would include those in the Aperture Library. You misunderstood. I am talking about a scenario where I transform my Aperture library *from* managed to referenced. After doing that, all photos would be kept in a file/folder hierarchy at some place, and not in the "Aperture library". That's why I said "/Volumes/Photos/Library", whcih would be the source folder for all photos. My question concerned the issue of auto-adding files in this hierarchy. So if I insert my memory card and then open Aperture to import the images, they would end up in the aforementioned directory (and not in the APerture library), but my question is - if I were then to open Lightroom, could it be set to auto-detect that new images had been added to the aforementioned path and add them to its library - also referenced? -- Sandman[.net] |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Lightroom and Aperture, shared library?
On 2014-05-15 04:51:15 +0000, nospam said:
In article 2014051416042332867-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom, Savageduck wrote: I guess you missed the point of what I was saying. I am not a stranger to the Apple image management system. I don1t like like, so I don1t use it. then turn it off. You don't read what others write do you? yes i do. do you? this is what you wrote: In article 2014051412395855364-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom, Savageduck wrote: I don¹t use Aperture, but by having a dedicated location for the primary imported is similar to the way LR works. The idea of sharing *libraries* or should I say actual file locations with both Aperture and Lightroom should be possible. However, from what I can see there is no obvious way to direct the LR Library Module to use/share the Aperture primary storage location. This can be easily done with Bridge of course by navigating with Bridge to the Aperture folder. The big caveat here is, the Apple image filing system which is a royal PIA. Navigating to my LR image folder with Bridge, if i have to, is a piece of cake. Lightroom can import from any source, a card reader, a USB connected camera, or a folder of existing image files already saved to your computer. I believe that would include those in the Aperture Library. I am sure that Aperture can perform a similar function. The first complication I see with that is, both programs maintain their own hierarchy and any file imported from one library to the other would be duplicated. Then there is the way Apple catalogs iPhoto image files, and I suspect they it is a practice they repeat with Aperture, which is with an arcane nested system of folders for each set of imports, where you have to dig through several folders of thumbnails, etc. to get to the original RAW files if you want access to those files outside of the iPhoto/Aperture environment. Importing individual files, or a handful at a time I don¹t see as efficient, more as a tedious PIA. That is one of my major reasons for not using iPhoto for anything, and a major reason for my reluctance to use Aperture. the reason you cite for not using iphoto can be easily changed with one checkbox. So? if you don't want iphoto to manage your photo library for you, then tell it not to and it won't. I did, most emphatically. it will then work the way lightroom does. On my Macs it isn't going to work at all, because I have Lightroom to work the way Lightroom does. it is possible to use both, it just does not make much sense. You do understand, that on that point we agree? I don't use iPhoto (dumped), or Aperture (Never bought or installed), but I know how they work. Once upon a time I had iPhoto on one of my Macs, I believe it is still installed on my old "Goose-neck G4". you're basing your opinion on what iphoto does based on a version from over ten years ago? Call me prejudiced and jaded. I am quite content using LR PS CC. i'm pretty sure that predated when apple added the ability for iphoto to leave photos where they are, it's that long ago. ....and I still don't use it. you don't have to have iphoto manage your photos if you don't want it to. I don't. I fixed that little issue. by not using the app at all?? that's not a fix. For my issue it is. as i said, iphoto can be used without it moving, rearranging or renaming photos. it's just one checkbox: http://km.support.apple.com/library/...OS/TS3124/TS31 24_01----.png with that *unchecked*, the photos are tracked where they currently are, much like how lightroom does it. when iphoto is configured that way, then both iphoto (or aperture) can be used with lightroom, but the question then becomes what problem is this trying to solve?? they won't see each others edits so there really is not much point in it. It is Jonas who is trying to figure out how to use the two together. I have no intention of using iPhoto, and I have no plans to buy Aperture. Jonas was an Aperture + PS user before he subscribed to the CC. Now he is paying for LR5 as part of his CC package and is trying to figure out if he can us both Aperture & LR in his workflow. I don't believe it is practical. He should abandon Aperture and adopt an LR5+ PS CC workflow. he could, but again, there's no real reason. syncing with idevices is about the only reason, but it won't see the edits done in lightroom so there really isn't much point. I have not had one issue exchanging images between Mac, MBP, and iDevices. what can be done is export the finished photos from lightroom and then import them in iphoto and then sync the idevice. that works well, and it also does not matter how the photo library is managed either since iphoto is tracking what gets exported. Why? I don't have a problem, and for the last time I don't use, or have any intention to use iPhoto or Aperture. I don't give a particular **** what iPhoto does or what it might be tracking. Please tell me you get it now. -- Regards, Savageduck |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Lightroom and Aperture, shared library?
On 2014-05-15 05:16:12 +0000, Sandman said:
In article 2014051412395855364-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom, Savageduck wrote: The idea of sharing *libraries* or should I say actual file locations with both Aperture and Lightroom should be possible. However, from what I can see there is no obvious way to direct the LR Library Module to use/share the Aperture primary storage location. This can be easily done with Bridge of course by navigating with Bridge to the Aperture folder. The big caveat here is, the Apple image filing system which is a royal PIA. Navigating to my LR image folder with Bridge, if i have to, is a piece of cake. Lightroom can import from any source, a card reader, a USB connected camera, or a folder of existing image files already saved to your computer. I believe that would include those in the Aperture Library. You misunderstood. I am talking about a scenario where I transform my Aperture library *from* managed to referenced. After doing that, all photos would be kept in a file/folder hierarchy at some place, and not in the "Aperture library". That's why I said "/Volumes/Photos/Library", whcih would be the source folder for all photos. My question concerned the issue of auto-adding files in this hierarchy. So if I insert my memory card and then open Aperture to import the images, they would end up in the aforementioned directory (and not in the APerture library), but my question is - if I were then to open Lightroom, could it be set to auto-detect that new images had been added to the aforementioned path and add them to its library - also referenced? Lightroom could certainly import either automatically when you load a card, or by activating the LR import dialog and selecting the source path. Again the whole idea sounds quite convoluted and unnecessary. That whole deal sounds very screwy. My best advice is let Lightroom do it all and move away from Aperture. If you insert your memory card into a reader you can import to your primary LR destination. In my case it is volumes/pictures/lightroom/Lightroom images, and you can import an additional copy to any other location for archive or other purposes. https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/Fil...enshot_698.jpg -- Regards, Savageduck |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
PhotoShop Elements, Aperture and Lightroom | C J Campbell | Digital Photography | 1 | May 23rd 08 10:08 PM |
Lightroom: Library vs. Folders?? | W Chan | Digital SLR Cameras | 3 | June 18th 07 05:22 PM |
Aperture, Lightroom: beyond Bridge; who needs them? | Frank ess | Digital Photography | 0 | June 4th 07 06:42 PM |
Lightzone/Lightroom/Aperture | D.M. Procida | Digital SLR Cameras | 20 | April 27th 07 07:00 AM |