What is going on: why do so many reviews of Aperture say "it does not work"?

[VirtualRain]

I guess for me it is is because I want an application independent and operating system independent way of getting at all my photos. This is why I am stuck in the folder structure PC mind set!

I do not want my life stored in an application database that only one application running under one operating system can read.

I agree with the observation that building a complex folder structure is overkill.

I did not realise the in retrospect obvious point that putting camera at the top of my hierarchy was redundant since camera is in the meta data of a photo.

Here's how I organize and back up my photos which (I feel) offers the best of an accessible photo archive and allows me to let Aperture manage the library...

I backup my CF cards to a DMG file named by month/year when they get full or at the end of a month whichever occurs first. I keep these duplicates of the RAW images from my camera on a large HD and I also back those up every month to an external drive which I store offsite.

Thus, if I ever need to go back to my RAW images for any reason (Aperture screws up, house fire, robbery, etc.) I can always do that.

Then I let Aperture manage all the photos that I import and work on. I organize my folders in Aperture by event/trip/shoot. And every year or for really big events, I'll create a new Aperture library to keep the size of the library manageable.

I use Time Machine to backup my active Aperture libraries in case I ever need to restore something I've done work on (so far never), and store my old, no longer active libraries, on the offsite backup drive.

Last but not least, I use an unlimited online Zenfolio account to export high quality JPEGs for sharing and which also acts as a backup of my finished product. Individual JPEGs never exist on my system.

This sounds like a lot of work, but it's nothing really... it requires the least amount of overhead in managing photos that I can think of. I'm only ever working with DMGs or Aperture Libraries... never with OS file system folders or individual photo files. And this scheme provides easy direct access to RAWs, a managed Aperture library, and a sound backup strategy.

 

[wolfpuppies3]

It is all personal preference. Ford vs Chevie, Nikon vs Canon sorts of things. Aperture works as does iPhoto. I personally have but hate both of them and use Photoshop and Lightroom because those are the programs with which I am most familiar. Are they better and more versatile than the Apple products? I personally believe they are but all four will work and probably exceed most amateur's abilities at any rate.

 

[snberk103]

Okay, that makes sense. However, I can see why someone would do that because it makes it easier to just look at the folder structure to figure out what's in it. You can also do that just by naming the files in a useful way when they import. So the folder naming could be a bit of overkill. But, I'm not going to go so far to say it is wrong if it works for them.

I am fundamentally a lazy person, so I look for ways to let the machine do as much work as possible. So, yes... if someone wants to go to the trouble of renaming their file system folders - it's not "wrong", but it is more work for very little gain. Plus it is risky. People can get more benefit by expending the same effort at refining the Ap/Lr virtual folders/albums/collections.

Part of the issue is that while they can then navigate their file system folders, any photos they find are not tagged, rated, or edited. If they edit that image they need to ensure they make a duplicate first so they don't corrupt the database, and then they have to import the newly edited image back into Ap/Lr to have it accessible.

Why not just do that inside Ap/Lr using the tools that make it easy, and call up the external editor so that they don't have to add the step of re-importing a copy?

Plus... if the user starts renaming folders/images after they have been catalogued by Ap/Lr then the database loses track of the images, and the images have to be reintroduced to the database. It just seems like more work for no gain. So... not "wrong".... but not what I would call a "best practice". I'm a photographer.... and I want to spend my time working on an image, not renaming folders and images when I don't really need to.

I guess for me it is is because I want an application independent and operating system independent way of getting at all my photos. This is why I am stuck in the folder structure PC mind set!

Why? It's not "wrong"... but you are working harder than have to.

I do not want my life stored in an application database that only one application running under one operating system can read.

The photos are always still available outside of the application, if you need them. Lightroom in a visible Year>Month>Day (by default) system and in Aperture by simply opening the package. It is not that they aren't accessible. They are actually safer this way... once Ap/Lr have "imported" the images they are left untouched. As soon as people start mucking about with the images directly they run the risk of losing or damaging the images by making a mistake.
...

Here's how I organize and back up my photos which (I feel) offers the best of an accessible photo archive and allows me to let Aperture manage the library...

I backup my CF cards to a DMG file named by month/year when they get full or at the end of a month whichever occurs first. I keep these duplicates of the RAW images from my camera on a large HD and I also back those up every month to an external drive which I store offsite.
...

Sounds like a complete backup strategy. I would just add, for those who have already decided to use Lightroom, that Lightroom has a feature that allows you make a copy of the RAW file during import to a secondary location while you are importing the images to the primary location. I don't use the feature, but my understanding is that if primary HDD fails you can point the catalogue (database) at the secondary location and carry on.

----

It should be noted for anybody reading this thread.... it is vital to backup the database (the catalogue or library) as well as the RAW images. All of the work (tagging, keywording, editing, etc) are recorded in the database.

 

[maflynn]

The only concern I have with Aperture is apple's dedication to aperture. It seems to sit there for so long before we see an update.

There's a lot of things I like in aperture and there's a lot I like about LR.

Since we're now in 2013, I start a new library and I may revisit aperture again.

 

[James_C]

The only concern I have with Aperture is apple's dedication to aperture. It seems to sit there for so long before we see an update.

There's a lot of things I like in aperture and there's a lot I like about LR.

Since we're now in 2013, I start a new library and I may revisit aperture again.

While I agree that Aperture has not seen a big upgrade, Apple has been continually providing fixes, improvements and new features - For example these were the improvements added in the 3.3 update 6 months ago.These improvements where free to all existing 3.x users.

• New unified photo library for both iPhoto (v9.3 or later) and Aperture; no import/export required; Faces, Places, slideshows, albums and web sharing work across both applications.
• Support for AVCHD video has been added.
• Aperture now lets you use camera-generated previews for faster browsing of RAW files immediately after import.
• Highlights & Shadows tool has been updated to deliver higher-quality results and work with extended range data.
• A new Auto Enhance button has been added to the Adjustments panel.
• White Balance tool now includes Skin Tone and Natural Gray modes to simplify color balance.
• Auto button has been added to the White Balance tool for one-click color balancing.
• Set Desktop command has been added to Share menu so you can set a desktop background from within Aperture.
• A new Manual option allows you to drag and drop projects to customize sort order in the Projects view.
• New preference allows you to set the background brightness of the full screen browser.
• Facebook, Flickr, and MobileMe albums are now displayed as thumbnails in the main window when accounts are selected in the source list.
• Minor terminology changes, including "Original" instead of "Master" and "Info" instead of "Metadata."
• Source list includes a new "Recent" section, showing Last Import and recently-viewed projects.
• Raw Fine Tuning is no longer displayed in the Adjustments panel by default.
• Faces can now be named by dragging them from the Unnamed Faces browser to existing snapshots on the corkboard.
• The Faces corkboard now includes a menu that allows you to set the order of face snapshots.
• Newly designed monochrome source list and toolbar icons.
• Addresses numerous issues related to overall performance and stability.

 

[xxmarkc]

I am old enough to have seen many forms of media,and file formats live and die. Apple might not be here in years to come. Many people will think I am mad to say this!

I think I would be happy with some variant of VirtualRain's approach.

 

[James_C]

I am old enough to have seen many forms of media,and file formats live and die. Apple might not be here in years to come. Many people will think I am mad to say this!

I think I would be happy with some variant of VirtualRain's approach.

I agree to a certain extent - but people get burnt because they archive their data off to a particular media and leave it to gather dust. Then in 15 years time they realise that the critical file/photo is on a floppy disk and they can't use that on their current machine. I believe the best plan is to make sure all your files are actively maintained. All my digital photos I have ever taken going all the way back to 1999 are stored in my Aperture Library. If Apple stops making Aperture or Apple suddenly stops trading, I make sure I can then manage the transition to a PC or to another product like Lightroom, by exporting out of Aperture.

Those that fail tends to be because they have moved the data off their current system and stuck it in a filing cabinet for a number of years.

I think the key point here is making sure your data is actively maintained and have an exit strategy. Keeping files in a folder is not going to help you if you don't keep your media updated.

 

[VirtualRain]

I agree to a certain extent - but people get burnt because they archive their data off to a particular media and leave it to gather dust. Then in 15 years time they realise that the critical file/photo is on a floppy disk and they can't use that on their current machine. I believe the best plan is to make sure all your files are actively maintained. All my digital photos I have ever taken going all the way back to 1999 are stored in my Aperture Library. If Apple stops making Aperture or Apple suddenly stops trading, I make sure I can then manage the transition to a PC or to another product like Lightroom, by exporting out of Aperture.

Those that fail tends to be because they have moved the data off their current system and stuck it in a filing cabinet for a number of years.

I think the key point here is making sure your data is actively maintained and have an exit strategy. Keeping files in a folder is not going to help you if you don't keep your media updated.

It's a great idea but not for everyone. What about all your negatives and slides pre 1999? If you had actively maintained those by scanning them all back in 2000 you'd be very disappointed with the quality now. I've been thinking I should digitize my old slides and negatives for years... and it just hasn't been necessary. Life is too short. So yeah, they sit in a box and I don't really miss them.

 

[stockscalper]

I switched from Aperture 3 to Lightroom 4 and here's why. Apple seems to have forgotten this app and while Lightroom keeps advancing Apple has only put out minor updates. But to get the updated version you have to have Mtn Lion. For those on Snow Leopard you're just SOL. Lightroom 4 will run on machines with Leopard.

Lightroom 4 has more features and is more powerful. You can do so much more with it. Plus it is much, much faster than Aperture. Aperture used to lag when brushing in certain adjustments and I've seen none of that with Lightroom.

Lastly, images just look better when they're processed in Lightroom. I don't know why, but they just do. I've taken a number of RAW photos of different types of scenes and processed them separately in Photoshop, Lightroom and Aperture and the ones in Aperture look fine until you compare them side by side with the other ones. Of the three the ones processed in Lightroom look way better and have a certain pop to them. If I had to rank the processing I would put Aperture last behind Photoshop.

I don't like the dark interface of Lightroom and it was not as intuitive to learn as Aperture. But since I've began using Lightroom the interface doesn't bother me now, although I still have problems remembering some of the hidden features of the program and how to access them.

 

[Prodo123]

Aperture is on my list of possible buys. Only delayed since I have not yet migrated from PC+Picasa.

Every time I go to the app store and read reviews they are either "it is great" or "it does not work at all".

There must be a simple explanation for this:

1) The software is crap and roll a dice to find out if it will work on your PC (I find this hard to believe).

2) Pilot error. There problem is the user - they don't know what they are doing.

3) Old hardware / software. I have a 2011 iMac (around 10 months old) and always run the latest os)

4) Something else?

What do people reckon?

Usually it's pilot error. iPhoto users expecting the same basic interface, for example.
Lightroom would be easier to migrate to especially from Picasa!

 

[cprevost]

The newest version of Aperture uses the iPhoto library. It organizes and stores all the photos for you just like iPhoto. That means you simply import your photos and the software takes care of the rest. There is no need to do any organizing of any kind before importing as it's all done from within the app. That's the big difference between this and Lightroom and the reason I like Aperture better. I have Photoshop if I need to do something more complex than Aperture can handle but it handles 99% of all photo edits I need. I much prefer the interface to Lightroom. Aperture is a ram hog though and you'd better have at least 8gb of ram if you have a large library.

 

[Prodo123]

The newest version of Aperture uses the iPhoto library. It organizes and stores all the photos for you just like iPhoto. That means you simply import your photos and the software takes care of the rest. There is no need to do any organizing of any kind before importing as it's all done from within the app. That's the big difference between this and Lightroom and the reason I like Aperture better. I have Photoshop if I need to do something more complex than Aperture can handle but it handles 99% of all photo edits I need. I much prefer the interface to Lightroom. Aperture is a ram hog though and you'd better have at least 8gb of ram if you have a large library.

Well to be honest I have 8GB of RAM and find Lightroom slower and laggier than Aperture.
One HUGE thing missing from Lightroom is "Delete upon import." Apparently it's against Adobe's philosophies and that this encourages users to back up their cards more often, but to me the Lightroom import IS the backup and the lack of this feature just gets in the way big time.
I also don't like how everything is consolidated into one library, especially when the library grows to humongous sizes. A 100GB library WILL fragment more than a referenced library, slowing Aperture down a lot.
I tried to stick with Aperture, I really did. It truly works great and the Aperture workflow absolutely kills Lightroom's, in my opinion. But the fact that Lightroom has better features, better images and thus better end products still stands, and that's why I use Lightroom now.

 

[snberk103]

...
One HUGE thing missing from Lightroom is "Delete upon import." Apparently it's against Adobe's philosophies and that this encourages users to back up their cards more often, but to me the Lightroom import IS the backup and the lack of this feature just gets in the way big time.

I'm of the other opinion. A "Delete on Import" is not a backup, it means there is still just one copy, with no backup copy. I don't delete my cards for several days after importing, so that I can make sure my nightly full backups have completed. Those, plus Time Machine, plus the unformatted cards means I will have 3 backups (until I format the cards).

The other reason for not formatting the cards is that most camera manufacturers recommend formatting the cards in camera and not "deleting" the files in the computer. Several makes of cameras don't recognize the deleted files as being deleted, so an empty card can appear full. There was thread on this last week, and several in the past few months. Adobe is, in essence, making you do it properly... whether you want to or not...

I also don't like how everything is consolidated into one library, especially when the library grows to humongous sizes. A 100GB library WILL fragment more than a referenced library, slowing Aperture down a lot.

I can't speak for Aperture, but I like one humongous library. Much easier to backup, and much easier to restore in case of HDD failure. It all just copies back with one command.

YMMV

I like Lightroom too... I'm still learning how to use it fully, after several years.

 

[Prodo123]

I'm of the other opinion. A "Delete on Import" is not a backup, it means there is still just one copy, with no backup copy. I don't delete my cards for several days after importing, so that I can make sure my nightly full backups have completed. Those, plus Time Machine, plus the unformatted cards means I will have 3 backups (until I format the cards).

The other reason for not formatting the cards is that most camera manufacturers recommend formatting the cards in camera and not "deleting" the files in the computer. Several makes of cameras don't recognize the deleted files as being deleted, so an empty card can appear full. There was thread on this last week, and several in the past few months. Adobe is, in essence, making you do it properly... whether you want to or not...

I copy to my computer, which does a Time Machine backup automatically upon import and hourly so I have two copies of all photos at minimum. This is why I consider it to be my backup. To me Adobe's way is just a hindrance in the workflow. Also confusing when you have to import a card full of photos from multiple shoots.
If my way isn't the "proper way" it surely is the most efficient for me, and Adobe's bogging it down big time.
As for formatting drives, it'd be a hassle to set up Magic Lantern every time I unload a card. (and yes it's a lifesaver in so many situations)

I can't speak for Aperture, but I like one humongous library. Much easier to backup, and much easier to restore in case of HDD failure. It all just copies back with one command.

I think I didn't quite explain correctly. Aperture's managed libraries are single files; if any portion of that single file is corrupted then the entire library might be gone. Also, since the program is accessing one big file, which is prone to fragmentation, the overall speed of the application suffers.
Now referenced libraries fix everything.

 

[James_C]

I think I didn't quite explain correctly. Aperture's managed libraries are single files; if any portion of that single file is corrupted then the entire library might be gone. Also, since the program is accessing one big file, which is prone to fragmentation, the overall speed of the application suffers.
Now referenced libraries fix everything.

Sorry but that is not correct. An Aperture Library is not a single file, but a package of the original files, adjustments, copies and thumbnails as well as other data. You can actually see the individual files in Finder if you right click and choose show package. Apple does it this way to prevent casual users going into the finder and messing with the database.

A referenced library makes no difference to fragmentation, the speed of the Application or the robustness of Aperture. If fact a referenced library is possibly more prone to data corruption as it is easier for you, your partner / kids to mess with the files and folders in a referenced library. The only way a referenced library is faster, is if it is stored on a faster drive.

 

[Daysight]

I do not want my life stored in an application database that only one application running under one operating system can read.

As several have explained, Aperture users can either let Aperture store all photos in one packaged library, or use a Windows-like folder system (Aperture calls it "referenced", meaning references to images in folders. I use the former, but a friend uses the latter.

 

[Prodo123]

Sorry but that is not correct. An Aperture Library is not a single file, but a package of the original files, adjustments, copies and thumbnails as well as other data. You can actually see the individual files in Finder if you right click and choose show package. Apple does it this way to prevent casual users going into the finder and messing with the database.

A referenced library makes no difference to fragmentation, the speed of the Application or the robustness of Aperture. If fact a referenced library is possibly more prone to data corruption as it is easier for you, your partner / kids to mess with the files and folders in a referenced library. The only way a referenced library is faster, is if it is stored on a faster drive.

As far as I know when the .aplibrary suffix is appended on a folder the OS no longer treats it as a directory but rather as a package file containing other files, much like a ZIP archive except with minimal or no compression.

I've had noticeable speed improvements from moving to a referenced library, due to the fact that defragmentation tends to group small files within directories together, whereas the OS defrag treats the managed library as a single file (mind you I know very well that it's a package but anything with a suffix is a file to the OS) and causes uneven distribution of data across the drive.

It's much easier to do a thousand 10-piece jigsaw puzzles than a single 10,000-piece jigsaw puzzle. Same number of pieces that one has to arrange, but one's significantly harder than the other.

 

[Dan--]

Every time I go to the app store and read reviews they are either "it is great" or "it does not work at all".

There must be a simple explanation for this:
[...]
3) Old hardware / software. I have a 2011 iMac (around 10 months old) and always run the latest os)

I can tell you that I wanted to love Aperture on my old 2006 MB with maxed out RAM, but it's performance sucked horribly for seeing before and after differences, for which PSE and Lightroom were absolutely fine. Now, with the base 2012 13" MBP, everything works great in Aperture.

I still use PSE on occasion, but very rarely for my type of photography.

 

[mozumder]

As far as I know when the .aplibrary suffix is appended on a folder the OS no longer treats it as a directory but rather as a package file containing other files, much like a ZIP archive except with minimal or no compression.

I've had noticeable speed improvements from moving to a referenced library, due to the fact that defragmentation tends to group small files within directories together, whereas the OS defrag treats the managed library as a single file (mind you I know very well that it's a package but anything with a suffix is a file to the OS) and causes uneven distribution of data across the drive.

It's much easier to do a thousand 10-piece jigsaw puzzles than a single 10,000-piece jigsaw puzzle. Same number of pieces that one has to arrange, but one's significantly harder than the other.

The OS still treats the Aperture library as a directory. You can do that when going into the Terminal command prompt and "cd" into the Aperture library directory.

It's only Finder that treats the Aperture directory as a single file object, like to does with other kinds of directory objects.

Apps are another example of Finder treating directories as single files, but you can "cd" right into them in the Terminal command prompt.

 

[James_C]

The OS still treats the Aperture library as a directory. You can do that when going into the Terminal command prompt and "cd" into the Aperture library directory.

It's only Finder that treats the Aperture directory as a single file object, like to does with other kinds of directory objects.

Apps are another example of Finder treating directories as single files, but you can "cd" right into them in the Terminal command prompt.

Yep, otherwise Time Machine would create a 500GB backup every time I add some photo's to the library, it doesn't it only backs up the new images I added.

 

[mtngoatjoe]

What happens to all my Faces, Places, Keywords, and Ratings?

So, it seems like both Aperture and Lightroom will manage your photos using reference libraries (folder structures) if you prefer. Personally, I don't care what folder my photos are in; I prefer using events and smart folders in iPhoto to organize my photos.

But even if I use a reference library, what happens to my medadata if I want to switch between Aperture and Lightroom? What happens to all my Faces, Places, Keywords, and Ratings?

Someone mentioned that using the lens as part of the folder structure is redundant since the lens is part of the metadata. I would like to point out that the date is part of the metadata also.

 

[666423]

I use Aperture on weekly basis, and almost a daily during wedding season. I HATE it.

I should rephrase that - I love the software, hate that it doesn't work 100% of the time. When I first decided between Aperture and Lightroom price was the biggest factor so I went with Aperture. I'm still using it only because I don't feel like forking out more money for LR and I've spend a lot of money on actions only usable in Aperture. For now, Aperture still gets the job done. I just have to have a lot of patience with it.

I'm so used to the software that I edit more quickly than it can keep up with. I spend most of my time waiting for the "processing..." prompt to disappear so that I can continue editing. Otherwise it crashes or does scary things to my photos. It's on occasion done bizarre things to my photos and ruined a couple of files. (Thankfully I keep back ups of everything).

I would recommend LR over Aperture any day!

 

[JPGR_Fan]

I use Aperture on weekly basis, and almost a daily during wedding season. I HATE it.

I should rephrase that - I love the software, hate that it doesn't work 100% of the time. When I first decided between Aperture and Lightroom price was the biggest factor so I went with Aperture. I'm still using it only because I don't feel like forking out more money for LR and I've spend a lot of money on actions only usable in Aperture. For now, Aperture still gets the job done. I just have to have a lot of patience with it.

I'm so used to the software that I edit more quickly than it can keep up with. I spend most of my time waiting for the "processing..." prompt to disappear so that I can continue editing. Otherwise it crashes or does scary things to my photos. It's on occasion done bizarre things to my photos and ruined a couple of files. (Thankfully I keep back ups of everything).

I would recommend LR over Aperture any day!

My Aperture is as responsive as you ask, on a MB Pro Retina 15". So, you may need to upgrade your hardware.

Now, before you jump on me, I suggest you look at how Adobe treats "older" hardware and Operating Systems. Ha. Adobe makes no effort to upgrade for Mac OS versions nor hardware. Once you buy PS you are stuck with that point in time. My experience is that at least Apple software, viz. Aperture, it runs on older Mac OS and older hardware, it just slowly degrades until you upgrade. Again, ha.

 

[666423]

My Aperture is as responsive as you ask, on a MB Pro Retina 15". So, you may need to upgrade your hardware.

Now, before you jump on me, I suggest you look at how Adobe treats "older" hardware and Operating Systems. Ha. Adobe makes no effort to upgrade for Mac OS versions nor hardware. Once you buy PS you are stuck with that point in time. My experience is that at least Apple software, viz. Aperture, it runs on older Mac OS and older hardware, it just slowly degrades until you upgrade. Again, ha.

I'm running it on a 27" iMac that's only a year old. So I don't think that's the case

 

[flynz4]

It's a great idea but not for everyone. What about all your negatives and slides pre 1999? If you had actively maintained those by scanning them all back in 2000 you'd be very disappointed with the quality now. I've been thinking I should digitize my old slides and negatives for years... and it just hasn't been necessary. Life is too short. So yeah, they sit in a box and I don't really miss them.

I disagree. I did digitize 100% of my slides and negatives. The alternative was to let them sit there and decay in boxes. They are now actively maintained as Mr Craner suggests.

I am not at all disappointed in the quality now. If I had only left them in shoe boxes as you suggest... I would have eventually been disappointed in the quality. By scanning them... I have stopped the decay... and made them accessible.

Your post doesn't make any sense. If you do not miss those old boxes of photos... and you do not use them... why don't you just destroy them?

/Jim

----------

I think I didn't quite explain correctly. Aperture's managed libraries are single files; if any portion of that single file is corrupted then the entire library might be gone. Also, since the program is accessing one big file, which is prone to fragmentation, the overall speed of the application suffers.
Now referenced libraries fix everything.

This is absolutely wrong. It is also one of the most commonly confused aspects of "packages".

If you open a package... you see that it is exactly the same file system underneath. All the package does it conveniently hide the structure, which prevents casual users from poking around in there causing problems.

/Jim