Referenced or Managed files in Aperture
There seems to be a never ending debate among Aperture users as to wether they should use managed libraries or referenced libraries. The difference being that managed libraries have the application store all your pictures in a single file, and referenced libraries let you select a location where all your pictures will be saved in hierarchal folders.
When I first started using Aperture I created a referenced library. I’ve always been good with computers and felt that I should be able to see exactly how my pictures are saved and stored. After using the application for several years I started to realized I never ever accessed the pictures from outside of the program. Any task I needed to do it was simply faster and easier to launch Aperture and find the picture I needed. I also started to see some of the shortcomings of having a referenced library. I migrated my entire system from a MacBook Pro to an iMac and it caused every image in the library to disconnect from it’s master file, even though my user name and all my system settings were identical on the new machine. Same thing after doing a clean install of OS-X when I upgraded to Snow Leopard. Both times it was a quick fix, but it was still an unnecessary waste of time especially considering I wasn’t benefiting from maintaining a referenced library.
I started to wonder if it wouldn’t be smarter to just convert by library into managed library, so I took the jump and made the change. Having now spent several months working with only a managed library I think it’s an infinitely better choice. I’ve never had a disconnected or lost image. Because you are dealing with one all inclusive file there are no permission problems. If you do a clean install on your computer all you need is that one Aperture Library file, with that all your settings, pictures, keywords, and albums will be in place. It even becomes simpler to use one library and work off of multiple machines, just store it on an external hard disk and then you can work out of several computers by launching the library file in Aperture.
Never lose a file in Aperture
One of the biggest fears I see from people that are weary of using a managed library is that of losing files. In my experience I have never lost a file, neither with a referenced library or with a managed library. But if you are still feeling a little worried about the possibility of losing files, here’s a little tip to help you stay alert of any possible problems. Make a smart album and set the following options:
- The main rule should be that “Any of the following that match.”
- Add a rule and select “File Status” then from the drop down select “Offline.”
This rule is good for those of you that use referenced libraries. This will mean that the album will contain any picture where the connection between Aperture and the master file is broken.
- Add rule “File Status” then from the drop down select “Missing.”
This rule should apply to managed libraries, and it should populate the smart album with pictures where the master file is missing. Which hopefully never happens.
- Add rule “File Status” then from the drop down select “Referenced.” (Optional)
This rule makes it so the smart album shows and picture that is a referenced file. I use it because I’m not using a managed library and I don’t want any files to get accidentally imported in a referenced manner, should some settings accidentally get changed. For those of you using referenced libraries you could set it to “File Status is Managed” and have the same effect where the album would show anything got accidentally imported as a managed file.
You can click on the graphic bellow to see my smart album settings:
That’s a nice little tip, you will have a smart album that hopefully remains empty all the time and if ever a picture or two end up in there you will be able to quickly identify what the problem is.
If I use a Managed Library on my internal hard drive (iMac 1TB), is it easy to move that entire library to an external if I see it growing too large? What procedure would I use to do that? just a copy and paste?
Thanks,
Mark
Hey Mark, thanks for stopping by. To answer your question yes a managed library is very easy to move around. You have one file, by default location in your Pictures folder and you can copy it and paste it where you will. Just make sure you remember to update the preferences inside of Aperture so the program knows where you’ve moved the file.
Michael,
Thanks for that last tip! Might have forgotten to do that and would probably have had a few minor anxiety attacks before figuring out.
In your above post where you said “This rule makes it so the smart album shows and picture that is a referenced file. I use it because I’m not using a managed library and I don’t want any files to get accidentally imported in a referenced manner”. That was a bit confusing to me, because I thought you said you had switched to a “managed” library.
Thanks again!
Thanks for pointing that out, think I will go back and edit the article next weekend so it reads properly. I am using a managed library and have been very content with it since I switched away from using a referenced library.
I’ve been using managed masters for several years and never lost anything but have run into two problems: performance and library management.
My managed library gets really big (>300GB) in a year which slows things down significantly because of file fragmentation and disappearing disk space. My solution is to start a new library each year and keep the older libraries on external drives.
Multiple libraries work okay except that only one can be loaded at a time. If I need to find an image from years ago, there does not seem to be a way of searching keywords across all libraries.
One advantage of using referenced masters is that the library is much smaller so that performance is improved and all the file info is in one place. How do you deal with a massive managed library?
Like you I have archived older work on external drives and DVDs, which seems to be the most practical solution. I’m also pretty critical of what I save over the long term. Shooting mostly press related sports I tend to only keep the images I upload into my agency’s picture bank. There is no reason to keep 400 to 700 RAW images from each match I attend, if it wasn’t good enough to go into the picture bank then I doubt I will give it a new life a few years down the road.
Looking forward I’m planning on investing on a Drobo at some point in the near future. Ideally I’d like to get one with Thunderbolt, even though my computer doesn’t have Thunderbolt so that it’s future proof. At that point I think I might just move the entire managed library onto the Drobo or switch back to a referenced library and move that onto the Drobo. Either way the Drobo should allow my library to grow freely as I can always replace one hard disk with a larger one, and the Thunderbolt should improve the performance to the point that the disk feels like it’s on the computer and not an external mounted drive.
Excellent clear advice that should work for the large majority of Aperture users. Thanks!
I mostly follow your scheme. The only exception is that I have a folder of photos on Dropbox that is accessed by a different database program. These relatively few photos don’t change that often, and shared access from multiple computers and offsite Dropbox backup is a real plus.
Your smart-folder idea also works well for those of us who use a mixed model. For instance, the ‘Referenced’ folder allows me to quickly make sure I’ve imported new images the ‘right’ way.
Thanks again!
I am in the throes of deciding between managed and referenced Aperture 3 file management. Your original note regarding moving Aperture from one Mac to another and breaking links to your referenced masters includes the line “Both times it was a quick fix.” What was the quick fix? In other words, will “Relocate Masters” work “quickly” if tens of thousands of image files are involved? Years ago Aperture 1.0 burned me badly when something in my “managed” files became corrupt. I lost all file management, changes, etc. and have been with Lightroom ever since. Now I’d like to return to Aperture but am skittish about putting all of my image eggs in the Aperture basket. I don’t mind the extra work involved in the referenced path but certainly will move from my current MacPro to a new one (as soon as Thunderbolt is included!) and I don’t want to risk some gargantuan problem reconnecting referenced files. Thoughts?
Hey David, thanks for stoping by and leaving a comment. I guess it depends on the size of your library and possibly how well the files are organized. When I was forced to do a “relocate masters” my library was certainly not tens of thousands. So I’m certain the time involved and performance takes a major hit the larger the library becomes.
If you are returning to Aperture and are planning on starting from scratch then I would go with a managed library. I think it’s just an all around better solution for management. Gives you more ability to move the entire library and reconnect it with just one click. Plus with the arrival of Thunderbolt you should be able to get some nice performance even if you keep the library on external disks.
Michael, thanks for the rapid reply. For years I’ve used Lightroom to manage and manipulate a mountain of images I’ve taken for a local non-profit and that I’ve use, with video clips, to create a series of eight to nine minute, animated “slide shows.” These presentations feature service dogs and their recipients and tend to be quite meaningful to the families involved. But because hard drives keep getting larger and cheaper, I’ve moved folders around many times and, consequently, my numerous Lightroom catalogues are spread far and wide, most with broken links. Keeping up with all of this is, for me, no easy task in Lightroom and that’s been one of my chief complaints. I’m hoping Aperture is a solution — one central database of all of these shots, easily and reliably accessible. It is the “reliable” part that gives me pause, based on my initial experience years ago with Aperture (when it crashed big-time). I may follow your advice and go the “managed” route since, as I understand it, I easily can shift to “referenced” down the road.
Computers are strange beasts, some people have wonderful experiences while others have nightmares. I’ve been rather fortunate, especially after making the jump from Windows to Mac. Even with other programs like iTunes I’ve been able to store my library on a separate disk and move it from system to system without losing a step.
In your case I really maintain that if you start from scratch you should go with a managed library. I think it’s the best case scenario. I would also make a second recommendation. In your first comment you mentioned Thunderbolt and from this I deduct that you are looking at external storage solutions. I would recommend some type of solution similar to a Drobo. Where as space fills up you can add another disk to the box, rather than buying new new external hard drive and moving things over to that one. That should help in keeping things in a central location without moving them around to much.
Another tip you might consider, depending on your workflow, is creating libraries based on year. So each new year you take your old Aperture library, rename it, and move it to an external disk. Then you create a new library for the coming year inside of Aperture. This should give you better performance as the libraries remain smaller, and give you the option to load older libraries by holding down the option key when starting up Aperture.
If and when you make the jump to Aperture let me know if you have any issues or problems, I’d love to help out.
I have lost referenced files from Aperture.
I like other things about Aperture but I am sick and tired of it loosing mass quantities of referenced files so that I have to go through all the work of reconnecting. – I hate it.
I once lost hundreds of photos early on with Aperture through a series of unfortunate events but I find the program very fickle. I advise anyone considering the program to look at Lightroom before laying out your money.
This morning I have found that once again, Aperture lost my referenced files for hundreds of photos. I was just about to do a quick job and Apple’s program made it a huge pain in the @#$.
Sorry to hear about your negative experiences. Unfortunately I don’t share your views. I work with Aperture more or less every day and I’ve never had any serious problems. In my experience files don’t go missing unless the user makes some changes, wether it be renaming a disk or a folder. I’ve migrated my Aperture library across several machines and through several versions of Aperture and never had any major problems. I have had picture become disconnected when upgrading to a new machine, however nothing was lost and it was fairly simple to have Aperture reconnect everything on it’s own.
Anyhow best of luck with Lightroom or whatever application you choose to use, at the end of the day the most important thing is finding a workflow that works for you.
I have also been grappling with the entire managed vs referenced debate. I thought about going referenced, but I’ve been using managed files since iPhoto. What I like the most is the vault system. It makes me feel good to know that I have that automatic backup of everything (masters included.) So, like the previous poster on here mentioned, I’ve split my libraries per year now and I have a library for all photos Pre- 2007. It seems to work quite well. I also try to make sure the libraries don’t go over 50GB. That way I can back them up with 2 layer blu-ray as an extra layer of protection. One can never be too safe.
Thanks for stoping by and leaving a comment. I’ve been grappling with how to modify my workflow to account for the ever expanding library. I’ve been thinking it would make a good blog post sometime in the future.
The way I see it there are two alternatives:
- A yearly library system, as you mention. Which is then backed up and saved.
- One main library stored externally on a RAID drive. For every assignment you create a new library locally on your machine. Then once you are complete you merge it into the main library, which is always being backed up.
Performance wise I believe your solution is probably the best. However I can’t help but feel that kind of defeats the purpose of using a program like Aperture. At it’s core it’s really a cataloging tool and being able to search for a keyword and then having all the results there instantly is something I really don’t want to live without.
Hi Michael
I discovered your blog searching for a solution for my “master images offline” that made me worry a lot!
Thanks to your smart album I solved the problem, and I found out that part of my library is managed and part is referenced….
Now, I recently changed the HD in my Mac Book and I do changed the drive name and some files are seen as resident on the old disk, while they are on the new one.
How can I solve this issue? I still have the old drive and it’s backup if it helps.
Would you suggest me to create a new Aperture library, re-importing all the images in the managed way?
I could also split them per year
Thanks again for your blog and best regards
There are multiple ways you can solve your problem. I guess the best way depends on the amount of images you have and the amount of work you have done to them in Aperture.
If you choose to remove everything and then re-import everything you will lose all your edits, all your ratings, and all your meta data. If your library isn’t too large that might be acceptable. You will at least get the satisfaction of knowing that you are going to bring everything back in exactly how you want it, and that you are starting a new database with no issues to it.
If you have simply too many images to start over then I would do the following. Using Finder find all the files that are referenced on your computer. Take those files and back them all up to a memory stick or an external drive. Once you have a back up of the referenced files go into Aperture and use my smart album technique to find all the referenced files. Delete all of the referenced files from Aperture, make sure you tell Aperture to move the masters into the trash. Empty the trash in both Aperture and then in OS-X.
Once you’ve completed that you can get the files you backed up and reimport them into Aperture. Make sure in the Import settings you have “Store Files” set to “In The Aperture Library.”
That should get you all fixed up, drop me a reply if you have any questions or just to let me know how things went.
As for your suggestion to separate the library into years. That’s a very popular workflow with Aperture. The smaller the library the better the performance, so I understand why so many are attracted to it. The only drawback is that you lose the ability to search through your entire body of work. Personally I think it’s a pretty big setback and kind of defeats the purpose of using Aperture. I also believe any performance gains will disappear in the coming years as we transition to SSD drives and Thunderbolt externals.
Thanks for your interesting reply.
My issue was .. the human being in front of my Mac.
When I changed the HD I changed also its name and I noticed that some referenced files remained appended to the old name, but they were always in the same place on the new internal drive.
So I restored the old name to my drive (starting from an external system), then with you smart album technique I found all the “missing” masters, located them and reconnected them back to the versions in Aperture library.
Now everything is OK, and for the future only managed files “stored in Aperture library” and backup of the originals on external HD.
Let us know when you’ll decide to post a blog about managing & merging different libraries, I am sure we’ll appreciate it!!
I have a Mac Mini which simultaneously raises the library type question and the the problem of what kind of external HDD arrangement would be best for now and in the future. I haven’t been able to get started with aperture until I make both decisions. So I am going managed. I’ll probably just put up with two large USB external hard drives until thunderbolt devices become affordable. if that is too slow I might be able to get better speed by using a low power NAS solution using the Tonido Plug. Still thinking, but I can see the light at the end of the tunnel thanks to this thoughtful post and comment thread.