Workflow advice

Jarvo

Hey all,

I'm an amateur photographer with a background in computers. I'm trying to understand the best workflow for my images, so that I don't have to duplicate effort and disk space!

Until recently my workflow had been ... take a bunch of images. Dump them into a folder on the hard drive, and then crop/straighten/minor adjust with whichever image package was to hand.

However I've been keen to take better images, and then also ensure that I store them correctly, and try to improve my processing too.

With that in mind I've been looking at both Lightroom2 and Aperture 2. I'd quite liked the way that Lightroom stores the images on the hard disk, and just keeps a catalog file of the changes. Aperture seems to import everything into it's database. (Does this mean if the database corrupts, that you then have lost your images?).

What I've been doing recently, is importing images into Lightroom, and storing them on a folder on the hard disk called Photos and then arranging by date and then by event. This seems to work well. I then do the minor adjustments as necessary and then using the lightroom smugmug plugin, I have been uploading to smugmug.

This seems logical enough.

Now, for my sins, I also have a facebook account where I tend to upload my "snapshots" of nights out with friends etc. I notice that iPhoto 09 has the nifty feature of the facial recognition, but also the facebook uploading and name tagging.

My question is ... I know that aperture links into iphoto ... but do you still actually need to import the photos??

What I was trying to get to was one simple route for all images.

Eg Take photos -> Import into Lightroom/Aperture -> Image adjustments such as crop/straighten etc -> Upload to smugmug via lightroom OR Upload to facebook via iPhoto 09.

I guess I'm goign to have to process in Lightroom, and then export the finalised images as JPG, and then import those completed images into iPhoto 09.

I know I'm mixing serious photography with casual snapshots, and I probably shouldn't!

Anyway your advice as ever is appreciated!

T. Bombadil

Aperture can reference

Jarvo wrote:

However I've been keen to take better images, and then also ensure that I store them correctly, and try to improve my processing too.
. . . Aperture seems to import everything into it's database. (Does this mean if the database corrupts, that you then have lost your images?).

Aperture can work with both 'Managed' (imported into Aperture's database) and 'Referenced' files. Referenced files stay where ever you put them on your hard drive (or even an external hard drive - they don't have to be on the same computer as your Aperture database). You have all the same capabilities with either arrangement. The only difference is that Referenced files can't be edited if/when the image file is offline (say, on an external drive that isn't connected) and you must make your own backup arrangements for the Referenced files (Managed files are backed up with Aperture's 'Vault' feature).

When Referenced files are off line, you can still see them (previews of them), so you can still look through your photos.

You can export from Aperture to Smugmug (there is a plug-in. you can download it from Apple's download page and probably from Smugmug somewhere also.)

I really like Aperture. You can download a free trial to see if it would work for you.

Aperture doesn't have the face recognition feature that iPhoto has (though it might get that feature in the future). I've never tried it, but I think you could use Aperture to handle photos that are in your iPhoto database. The two applications will share 'Previews' with each other, which would likely be sufficient for your 'snapshot' category of photos. Your more serious photos would be handled completely by Aperture (either Managed or Referenced, doesn't matter which), right?

Jarvo

Hi Bruce,

Thank you for your reply.

I've been looking at LR2, Aperture2 and Nikon Capture NX2. From what I've read so far each application has it's strong points. But it does seem to me that for someone whom want's simplicity Aperture would be the way to go.

I've also read that my edit's in Lightroom cannot be migrated/imported into Aperture, so I would just need to archive the NEF's and just export the finished sets as TIFF.

Regarding Aperture with it's "referenced" or "managed" feature. One review I saw stated that it's best to let aperture sort all your images, in the same way iTunes sorts your music! Is this still the best way to do it?

As the Aperture images are stored in a database, I assume it's best to back up the database frequently in case of corruption etc.

Oh and my very last question (sorry for a load of them!) is ...
If I link iPhoto to Aperture is it dynamic??? What I mean by that is:

If I edit a photo in Aperture, are the edits then carried into iPhoto, or would I need to re-import every time I change an image?

I guess the best thing to do would be get all libraries into Aperture, crop straighten etc, add keywords, then when complete, import that set into iphoto.

Thanks again.

T. Bombadil

Jarvo wrote:

I've been looking at LR2, Aperture2 and Nikon Capture NX2. From what I've read so far each application has it's strong points. But it does seem to me that for someone whom want's simplicity Aperture would be the way to go.

I don't have any experience with the others, but I have found Aperture to be pretty intuitive.

I've also read that my edit's in Lightroom cannot be migrated/imported into Aperture, so I would just need to archive the NEF's and just export the finished sets as TIFF.

That sounds right to me.

Regarding Aperture with it's "referenced" or "managed" feature. One review I saw stated that it's best to let aperture sort all your images, in the same way iTunes sorts your music! Is this still the best way to do it?

As the Aperture images are stored in a database, I assume it's best to back up the database frequently in case of corruption etc.

One of the best reasons to use Aperture is the organization tools it provides. I think it makes sense to let Aperture manage (small "m") all of your images. Whether you want to use "Managed" or "Referenced" files depends on the volume of images you work with.

Any images that you decide to let Aperture 'Manage' get copied in to the 'Library' database. Within the Library those images still exist as individual files. Ordinarily you will not see those files if you are browsing the hard disk, but they are still there (hidden in a 'package' that can be opened if need be - a standard OS X facility). That means loss of images due to a corrupt database is not as great a risk as you might be thinking. Data corruption could happen, of course, but it would not necessarily affect more than one image.

Having said that, a complete backup strategy is important. Aperture will create a "Vault" for you on another drive (I have two) which will contain a backup of all Managed files and all Adjustments you have made to your images (Aperture is non-destructive. Your originals are called "Masters" and are never altered. It keeps the original image untouched and keeps track of all Adjustments you have made, so the final image is created on the fly).

Referenced images are not backed-up by Aperture (though any Adjustments you made to them are backed-up).

The Vault can be updated anytime you like - which causes an incremental backup to be performed (no need to re-copy things that haven't changed).

I'm an amateur, so I can easily include all of my images as Managed (I have about 10,000 images - under 50GB Library). The only disadvantage to using Referenced files are that you need to make your own backup arrangements for them and that you can't make adjustments to them if they reside on a drive not currently connected (you still have the Previews with you, but the Master will be unavailable). The advantage of Referenced files is there is no limit to how many images you could organize with Aperture (because the Library doesn't have to accomodate the Masters, so the local hard drive won't fill up).

If I link iPhoto to Aperture is it dynamic???

Hmmm, not sure how that would work. Aperture creates 'Previews' of your images (your Masters plus whatever Adjustments you have applied, rendered in a resolution you select in preferences). It is the 'Previews' that are available to other applications through Apple's media browser.

You could, of course, export an adjusted image from Aperture in whatever size and file format you like - but the easy way is to go into iPhoto and pull the images from the media browser. I suppose iPhoto will import the Preview, so from that point forward iPhoto would not automatically be updated if you make more changes in Aperture. (the Preview that Aperture provides will automatically be updated, so you could go to iPhoto and pull it in again and trash the first one).

I guess the best thing to do would be get all libraries into Aperture, crop straighten etc, add keywords, then when complete, import that set into iphoto.

I guess so, though I would look for a plug-in to make Aperture do what iPhoto is doing for you. The face-recognition thing will probably have to wait for Apple to do it, but an export tool to upload images to social websites shouldn't be hard to find/build (that doesn't mean I could build it :-) but someone could).