Lightroom Question

[147798]

Aperture has the "vault" concept, which is interesting and helpful.

Is there some sort of equivalent back-up solution in LR 2.0? Also, is there any archive solution, where you can move the pictures AND the database data into an off-line file?

 

[Cliff3]

LR doesn't ingest images into a proprietary file bundle the way Aperture does so it doesn't need an analogue to a vault. The export as catalog command creates a copy of a catalog or the selected portion of it including images.

LR help file: http://help.adobe.com/en_US/Lightroom/2.0/lightroom_2_help.pdf

 

[Kebabselector]

With lightroom you can import images into a new location, I personally prefer to leave them where they are. The database can be backed up - just done mine.

I have around 20k of images and the database is around 300mb

 

[OreoCookie]

LR doesn't ingest images into a proprietary file bundle the way Aperture does so it doesn't need an analogue to a vault. The export as catalog command creates a copy of a catalog or the selected portion of it including images.

The two are unrelated. You can use referenced files and vaults, but then you will only backup the database that contains the Aperture library structure, including versions, edits and albums. You then have to backup image files manually.

Vaults are a simple way to back up your Aperture library database. If you use managed files, the images will be included in the backup as are deleted files (very handy feature).

Lightroom can also back up its catalog file but to only one location. You have to manually delete older backups, though. This would be the rough analog of vaults if you use Aperture and referenced pictures.

Lightroom allows you to backup pictures as they are imported, they are written to a second location.

 

[Cliff3]

The two are unrelated. You can use referenced files and vaults, but then you will only backup the database that contains the Aperture library structure, including versions, edits and albums. You then have to backup image files manually.

Vaults are a simple way to back up your Aperture library database. If you use managed files, the images will be included in the backup as are deleted files (very handy feature).

Lightroom can also back up its catalog file but to only one location. You have to manually delete older backups, though. This would be the rough analog of vaults if you use Aperture and referenced pictures.

Lightroom allows you to backup pictures as they are imported, they are written to a second location.

To be honest with you, I am rapidly losing interest with the laziness inherent in the OP's repeated questions. He needs to learn to RTFM and to search.

My copy of Lightroom appears to be self-managing a 3 month history of weekly catalog backups, so I'm unclear on the point you're trying to make about LR backups.

I also don't see what the concept of a vault does for me when my original and unmodified images can be managed by my usual backup routines. The question was what does LR have analogous to a vault. The answer is that it has exactly what it needs: nothing.

 

[OreoCookie]

My copy of Lightroom appears to be self-managing a 3 month history of weekly catalog backups, so I'm unclear on the point you're trying to make about LR backups.

You said that Aperture's vaults were somehow necessitated by its library bundle structure. That's not true, Time Machine and Synk back them up just fine.

The rest of my post was directed at the OP and I should have made that clearer: part of the features of vaults can be replicated by Lightroom's automated library backups.

I also don't see what the concept of a vault does for me when my original and unmodified images can be managed by my usual backup routines.

In the referenced file case, it's just a backup of your library database and I wanted to show the OP how this is done in Lightroom.

The question was what does LR have analogous to a vault. The answer is that it has exactly what it needs: nothing.

Vaults are very useful. Besides being able to restore deleted photos (which is not possible when you rely on simple syncing tools), offsite backups are really easy.

 

[147798]

To be honest with you, I am rapidly losing interest with the laziness inherent in the OP's repeated questions. He needs to learn to RTFM and to search.

My copy of Lightroom appears to be self-managing a 3 month history of weekly catalog backups, so I'm unclear on the point you're trying to make about LR backups.

I also don't see what the concept of a vault does for me when my original and unmodified images can be managed by my usual backup routines. The question was what does LR have analogous to a vault. The answer is that it has exactly what it needs: nothing.

Apologies Cliff for offending you. I have been RTFMing to the best of my ability and have also gotten two other computers to load two new trials, which has helped. I suppose to some extent I should fish or cut bait, but given that you can't migrate between the two I'm a little concerned with getting down the road with one only to want to change later. Also, I like elements of both. I was leaning to Ap, but having restarted the trial, and gotten "I'm not going to use THAT - I want my iPhoto" from my spouse, I feel Ap and iPhoto might have a bit too much overlap. So now considering LR as just a RAW processor, but storing my final jpg output in iPhoto. But that vault back-up sure is nice in Ap.

Cliff, you are welcome to ignore my questions. I don't think anyone is forcing you to respond. However, it's also a fair comment on search. I probably could have searched on the vault question. That was a bit lazy on my part. I don't think many of my earlier posts, however, were easily deciphered through a manual.

Thanks for everyone's response on the vaulting/backup. I tried last night for some time to figure out a simple backup solution through LR. Found the "export to catalog" and tried a few things, but I was wondering if I was missing anything.

 

[Cliff3]

The rest of my post was directed at the OP and I should have made that clearer

Indeed.

In the referenced file case, it's just a backup of your library database and I wanted to show the OP how this is done in Lightroom.

Refer to my first post and search the help file I provided a link to with the 'export as catalog' command I mentioned. It exports copies of the original images as well.

 

[OreoCookie]

Refer to my first post and search the help file I provided a link to with the 'export as catalog' command I mentioned. It exports copies of the original images as well.

I've read that. But exports aren't backups. This is particularly evident as Lightroom has a backup function for its catalog.

 

[Cliff3]

I've read that. But exports aren't backups. This is particularly evident as Lightroom has a backup function for its catalog.

Either I am confused or one of us isn't getting their point across.

In the case of Lightroom the image files are out there individually on disk, they theoretically don't change (that theoretical part is why we're backing them up, right?), and they are backed up by Super Duper, Time Machine, or whatever backup scheme is being employed by the computer's owner. They don't need to be explicitly managed by Lightroom to support the integrity of the backup process. The catalog is a SQLite database and the backup process creates a snapshot of that database in an external file as it exists at a point in time. That file can then be swept up by Super Duper, et al. So much for backups, they're covered by our regular tools.

So why does Lightroom need a direct analogue to Aperture's vault feature? Backups? No, those are already handled. Clone the catalog and images? No, that's handled too. What specific functionality does the vault feature provide that doesn't exist in Lightroom?

 

[OreoCookie]

Either I am confused or one of us isn't getting their point across. ... So why does Lightroom need a direct analogue to Aperture's vault feature?

Lightroom does have an analogue of vaults*: scheduled backups of the catalog. That's my point.


* It's the analogue, because Lightroom does not have an equivalent of managed files.

 

[147798]

Either I am confused or one of us isn't getting their point across.

In the case of Lightroom the image files are out there individually on disk, they theoretically don't change (that theoretical part is why we're backing them up, right?), and they are backed up by Super Duper, Time Machine, or whatever backup scheme is being employed by the computer's owner. They don't need to be explicitly managed by Lightroom to support the integrity of the backup process. The catalog is a SQLite database and the backup process creates a snapshot of that database in an external file as it exists at a point in time. That file can then be swept up by Super Duper, et al. So much for backups, they're covered by our regular tools.

So why does Lightroom need a direct analogue to Aperture's vault feature? Backups? No, those are already handled. Clone the catalog and images? No, that's handled too. What specific functionality does the vault feature provide that doesn't exist in Lightroom?

I don't think I would have learned all this by reading the manual!

Wouldn't the vault create a combo of files and db that can be restored easily, where you have to manually synch your db backup and file backup in LR. That is, if you accidentally backed up one and not the other, then when you restore, the db and file set could be out of synch (or not?)

 

[Cliff3]

Lightroom does have an analogue of vaults*: scheduled backups of the catalog. That's my point.


* It's the analogue, because Lightroom does not have an equivalent of managed files.

Except -

Vaults: Containers that each hold a backup of the library and all its images and information.

Is that definition incorrect?

Vaults appear to be more like an exported catalog and not a simple backup, which was my point. I know disk space is cheap, but so is my inner Scot. Lightroom does not need to create multiple copies of images to facilitate the backup process.

 

[Cliff3]

I don't think I would have learned all this by reading the manual!

Correct, you would have discovered it in a hurry by using the trial software you said you used.

 

[OreoCookie]

Is that definition incorrect?

It's incomplete. Referenced files are not copied. Vaults contain the Aperture Library bundle and history (you can recover deleted files).

Aperture doesn’t back up the masters of referenced images located outside the Aperture library.

Vaults appear to be more like an exported catalog and not a simple backup, which was my point.

They're not.

I know disk space is cheap, but so is my inner Scot. Lightroom does not need to create multiple copies of images to facilitate the backup process.

Things are not copied multiple times, only once. The vault is synced with the current state of the library and deleted masters are put in a special directory.

 

[Cliff3]

It's incomplete. Referenced files are not copied. Vaults contain the Aperture Library bundle and history (you can recover deleted files).


They're not.

Things are not copied multiple times, only once. The vault is synced with the current state of the library and deleted masters are put in a special directory.

Right, one copy in the library and another in the vault. That's two. Then the vault gets swept up by whatever backup software is being used, resulting in a third copy.

I don't recall the notion of referenced files being available back when I evaluated Aperture 1. That was one of the reasons why I went with Lightroom. I prefer to let the OS manage the individual files. Aperture still has a strong preference for ingesting files into its file bundle.

 

[OreoCookie]

Right, one copy in the library and another in the vault. That's two. Then the vault gets swept up by whatever backup software is being used, resulting in a third copy.

I don't mean to be rude, but you still don't understand how Vaults are used: you don't store the vault on the same volume as your images, you place them onto different harddrives (e. g. external harddrives). Aperture acts as its own backup software. In principle, there is no need to use another backup tool. Vaults are meant to be kept on different harddrives.

I have two vaults: one on a dedicated harddrive and one on my offsite backup drive which I keep at my parents' place. I also let Time Machine backup my Aperture Library (I have yet another external harddrive dedicated to Time Machine alone), so I have three backups altogether.

I don't recall the notion of referenced files being available back when I evaluated Aperture 1. That was one of the reasons why I went with Lightroom. I prefer to let the OS manage the individual files.

Referenced files have been available since Aperture 1.5. Aperture is extremely flexible in this respect: you can set a default (managed/referenced) in the Prefs, but change this setting on a per-file basis. If you want, you can also put older, completed projects onto an external harddrive while your MacBook Pro's harddrive contains only the active projects.

So if you don't like the fact that Aperture manages your file automatically, you can switch to referenced mode with the click of a button.

Aperture still has a strong preference for ingesting files into its file bundle.

Aperture doesn't keep more files in its bundle than Lightroom if you choose to reference your image files: the Library contains all the metadata that's not written in the master's exif data, versions, books, albums, etc.

 

[Cliff3]

I don't mean to be rude, but you still don't understand how Vaults are used: you don't store the vault on the same volume as your images, you place them onto different harddrives (e. g. external harddrives). Aperture acts as its own backup software. In principle, there is no need to use another backup tool. Vaults are meant to be kept on different harddrives.

I have two vaults: one on a dedicated harddrive and one on my offsite backup drive which I keep at my parents' place. I also let Time Machine backup my Aperture Library (I have yet another external harddrive dedicated to Time Machine alone), so I have three backups altogether.

I understand the notion of how a vault is supposed to work. Lightroom exposes similar functionality via the export catalog command. However, Lightroom is not Aperture, and vice versa.

Anyway, I expect you'll disagree with what I just said. The last word is all yours. I'm tired of repeating myself.

 

[147798]

So in short, I think I hear:

Ap can work like LR - managed files, backup the db and manage the files outside ap. Additionally, you can choose to NOT render the thumbnails as jpgs if u are concerned about space for some reason. Howevern Ap DOES provide the vaulting capability for a really easy back up if u do choose to brin the photos into the ap library.

This I like, but I'm finding I like the LR edit tools better than Ap, and I don't mind the LR 'modules' approach. It's pretty easy to switch between. I also am slighlty concerned about Apple's commitment to it's Pro apps, but I can get a used copy of Ap at about $100, LR runs at $240 and up. I think Ap suffers a bit from all of Apple's applications - imo apple does a poor job of really explaining what their applications can do. In multiple forums I read people choosing lr because ap 'duplicates' their photos. It seems that many do not understand that a) that is optional and b) there are benefits to that approach.

A follow on question - if you start with externally managed files but decide later you want them brought into the system - can you do that and still keep all the database adjustments?

 

[OreoCookie]

A follow on question - if you start with externally managed files but decide later you want them brought into the system - can you do that and still keep all the database adjustments?

You can change it on a per-file basis if you want, but it's probably more practical to change it on a per-project basis. Right-click on a project you want to reference/have managed and select the corresponding option. The rest of the procedure is self-explanatory.

One more thing: the Aperture library is a bundle (a bundle is just a directory with a special flag for the Finder as to display it as if it were a file). If you import pictures into the library (managed files), then they are copied into the proper project. The directory structure mirrors basically the structure of your folders and projects within Aperture. Every project is yet another bundle. If you want to/need to copy a whole project, then just copy the bundle. If the images of that project are managed, then they are contained in that bundle.

 

[ajpl]

I also am slighlty concerned about Apple's commitment to it's Pro apps, but I can get a used copy of Ap at about $100, LR runs at $240 and up.

Aperture started off at $500 and Apple keep dropping the price hoping more people will buy it. LR has gone up in price as has the number of people using it, even amongst Apple owners who have the choice of using Aperture.
But I use Bridge 80% of the time anyway.