Digital Asset Management or what to do with all these pics??

vlherring

I have Aperture 3.5.1 and have had the program since ver. 1 - I like it and will probably keep using it until not needed/wanted. In the meantime I need to do some cleaning up of my libraries - rather than have everything in one huge library or in referenced libraries, I create libraries according to topic or timeframe. That works for me. But I am at a point where I want to put photos in storage 'just in case' and just have my best shots available in Aperture to work with. That is also necessary because my new 6D using RAW is saving pics in 25mb size and while I want the data, I dont' need all my pics to be that large. So I am looking at how best to archive photos for storage purposes and later use purposes.

With really old Ap libraries and photos I thought I would [1] save in RAW or TIF [or is it TIFF?? and should it be 8 or 16?] the best shots, the #5 shots or keepers and probably save individually on a drive and also have an apLibrary full of all the keepers and [2] put all the other ones, the ones that I want/need to keep rather than trash [tho I iwll try to trash what I can] in RAW/TIF-TIFF or JPG format in folders and not in an ApLirary but just archive t hem for later use if needed.

Not sure ifany of this is a good or bad idea and would really like to hear from others about what they do with old [10-15 yrs] images that one doesn't want to get rid of but can't really keep and use.

T. Bombadil

vlherring wrote: »

I have Aperture 3.5.1 and have had the program since ver. 1 - I like it and will probably keep using it until not needed/wanted. In the meantime I need to do some cleaning up of my . . . .

Well, I don't know how much help I can be . . .

As another "from-the-beginning" Aperture user, I'm wondering why you have multiple Libraries. Aperture allows you to organize images any which way, so those that you don't need/want can be parked in a Folder out of the way.

I make heavy use of Smart Albums (at various levels in my library, to gather images for different purposes) and some use of Keywords. My Projects tend to be topic and time centric, but filed together in Folders on the basis of over all topic. All of my digital images (over 50,000, last time I checked. going back a dozen years or so) are in one Llibrary.

If they were in multiple Libraries, it would be harder to find images (just enough extra friction that those older images might be even less likely to be put to use). Images that I have forgotten about would not be used again since I would not know to look for them (so, why are we keeping them then?).

The only reason to use multiple Libraries (on multiple drives) that I can think of is that you may feel compelled to save drive space on your main computer drive (you didn't say that unambiguously, but maybe that is the impetus here?).

My only advice is to rethink that (if that is what is driving your thoughts). The cost of a bigger drive (external would be good) is not so bad, especially when you consider the inconvenience introduced by your multiple drives/Libraries method.

(Sorry to respond without really answering)

Bottom line, I think you want to keep the raw file (plus adjustments) of any image you think has a future use). I see no point in creating TIFF files (others may disagree).

vlherring

I'm wondering why you have multiple Libraries....I know that but found that FOR ME it made more sense to have separate libraries...esp. since I was not doing referenced images but importing all into the Library --because I kept 'losing' referenced ones= long time ago so I have been doing this since a long time ago, non referenced and collected libraries [not one per topic but at least one holding all 2007-2012 USA images for instance, overseas in their own library...libraries do end up being 150G or larger but at least I can find things [I also add in Comment area the names of the countries/states or topics of the collected library].

I too use Smart Albums and Keywords etc. and find them very helpful. I know I have more than 50K images = but whatever the number, the real Q is how to organize things so the best ones are easily accessible and the less good ones are offloaded and stored...

"If they were in multiple Libraries, it would be harder to find images (just enough extra friction that those older images might be even less likely to be put to use).
(so, why are we keeping them then?"- a good Q....

The only reason to use multiple Libraries (on multiple drives) that I can think of is that you may feel compelled to save drive space on your main computer drive (you didn't say that unambiguously, but maybe that is the impetus here?). -- that's part of it...

Bottom line, I think you want to keep the raw file (plus adjustments) of any image you think has a future use). I see no point in creating TIFF files

That helps == part of what I am thinking of doing adn the reason for my Q is that I want to put the possible keepers in one Library and RAW would be used for that. If I then want to delete others fine and if I want to save and archive and keep others, just in case, RAW takes up too much space [up to 20mb with my 6D now, each] so I thought I'd want to save them as TIFF for future use, just in case.

My sense is saving in JPG just isn't good enough. TIFF [8 channel?] might be better and I can export all those and save on external drive....thank you for spending the time to help me work thru this.

T. Bombadil

vlherring wrote: »

I too use Smart Albums and Keywords etc. and find them very helpful. I know I have more than 50K images = but whatever the number, the real Q is how to organize things so the best ones are easily accessible and the less good ones are offloaded and stored...

My sense is saving in JPG just isn't good enough. TIFF [8 channel?] might be better and I can export all those and save on external drive....thank you for spending the time to help me work thru this.

I would agree that JPG just isn't good enough. It may turn out to be sufficient, but i suspect the future will bring display and printing technology that permits greater subtlety (and wider range) of color. If that happens, it will be to your advantage to have originals, from which you can render new JPGs.

With a little luck, someone with greater knowledge of TIFF will chime in. I think 8 bit TIFF will have the same drawback as JPG, and I believe there is no storage advantage to 16 bit TIFF when compared to raw (but, as I say, I am certainly no expert - just a very limited experience with a few TIFF files).

So, as in everything to do with photography, there is a compromise to be struck. My own practice is to keep the raw file, or keep nothing (but that's just me). If I were really feeling squeezed for space I would investigate data compression software (raw files are bigger than JPG, but tend to compress well). I shoot with a Nikon D800, so raw files are pretty big - but my computer hardware exists to serve my photo needs - so when more drives are needed, I get them.

I use a star rating system, anything not deleted is rated
1=do not delete,
2=share with others (via SmugMug),
3=consider printing,
4=print and hang on a wall,
5=my best.

(Strictly amateur, as you probably guessed).

Do you use something similar? Using my scheme, you would keep your 4, and 5 star images in the main Library and offload others?

What you might consider is why you are keeping your 1s. If you keep 1s (and 2s?) because some other person might want them (ie., not for your future benefit, but to in case someone else asks for it) you might be well served to upload them to SmugMug (if you have an account with them) and delete your local copy. True, that means you are only retaining a JPG, but you aren't doing it for you anyway.

My 1s are primarily one of two types. Images of my child that are of no photographic value, but please me, or images that I plan to revisit (and either decide to process further, or delete).

For me, any system that involves off loading images to secondary Libraries is dooming those images to being forgotten and never again being seen by human eyes. In my opinion, any resources spent maintaining those images (and backups) is better devoted to providing more "live" terabytes (and backups) for the primary Library.

vlherring

Thanks Bruce, that's the discussion that I need...I do use a rating system = I like yours better tho mine is somewhat similar. And my thought was to keep 4-5s -- I do think offloading does result in consigning them to a heap essentially = after all, no one who deals with my 'stuff' after I am off this mortal coil is going to have the curiosity or patience to go thru all those old drives...

this discussion has been quite helpful. Now to take the time and get all pics rated and deal with them....of course, that means I need to be a better editor, but that's my issue!
thanks again.

vlherring

Doing more research, I found this site's discussion of pros and cons of the various formats helpful == http://humanscape.com/JPEG_TIFF_RAW_DNG.htm - sounds like I keep shooting in RAW and then depending on the projected use of the images off load them to JPG/High or TIFF if I really need to....

T. Bombadil

vlherring wrote: »

Doing more research, I found this site's discussion of pros and cons of the various formats helpful == http://humanscape.com/JPEG_TIFF_RAW_DNG.htm - sounds like I keep shooting in RAW and then depending on the projected use of the images off load them to JPG/High or TIFF if I really need to....

Looks like a good discussion of the choices.

One other thought: You can reduce the space required for your Libraries (maybe the offloaded-images Library, maybe all Libraries) by turning off Previews (and deleting existing Previews).

Alternatively, you could use a reduced size and/or reduced quality for Previews.

Whether they are automatically generated, and at what size/quality setting, is determined in Aperture Preferences.

Previews are pre-rendered JPGs that Aperture makes available to other applications, so for example, if you are composing an email message and click on the "Photo Browser" to find an image in your Aperture Library - it is the "Preview" of that image that you see and then attach to the email message.

If you don't have Previews in your Library, you give up that convenience - but you save space by not storing them.

vlherring

That's a very good idea...on older libraries just being archived it seems that a preview would not be needed [at least as much]. One last Q - I know Aperture is going away but since Aperture does work and probably will continue to and it does save RAW images without messing them, perhaps rather than offloading images to folders of TIFFs for storage, might as well keep everything in the Ap Libraries = after all, if needed, the pictures are there and can be retrieved if needed....that's my sense of it in any event. Thanks!!!

T. Bombadil

vlherring wrote: »

. . . might as well keep everything in the Ap Libraries = after all, if needed, the pictures are there and can be retrieved if needed..

That is what I would do. I think it is worth your while to read up on Referenced files. I know you said you tried them before and had problems - but maybe you can figure out why the problems happened and make Referenced files work for you (putting all your 1s and 2s on removable drives and have them referenced in your main Library).

Aperture will go away, but I suspect there will be good alternatives before Aperture is no longer functioning. Apple is going to open up access to photo libraries to other app developers. This could turn out to be a very good thing for us, because our existing Libraries will be accessible by other software tools - not stranded as we might have feared when there was no plan for Aperture.