Digital Media | Spotlight: Photography | Inside Aperture | Blogs
Referenced v. Managed
Another one of those questions that re-appear endlessly on the various forums is managed files v. referenced files. As with a lot of Aperture questions, there isn’t a right or a wrong answer...
Mostly, it comes down to personal preference, and how big a hard drive you have. First up, though, what do the terms mean?
Managed files are images that are stored within the Library package (usually within ~/Pictures). They will be backed up in your Vaults, are always accessible in Aperture but can’t easily be accessed from outside Aperture without exporting (and duplicating) Masters. Obviously, the number of images you can store in this way is limited by the size of the hard drive. For most people, managed files are the way to go as there are fewer issues to keep track of.
Referenced files are stored outside the library package, in a folder (and sub-folder structure) of your choice, including external HDs. They will not be backed up in the Vault, so you always need to make alternative arrangements for backing them up. Referenced files/Masters are shown with an ‘alias’ badge in the Browser pane.
There are two main reasons for using referenced files over managed files:
You’re working on a notebook and have more images in your Library than you want to clutter up the drive with.
You want easy access to the master files in other applications - but note that of course you won’t see any adjustment of metadata changes from Aperture.
Moving from one to the other mode is pretty easy - referenced files can be moved into the Library by going to File>Consolidate Master... with the option of either moving the files or duplicating them.
Going in the other direction is also pretty easy, using File>Relocate Masters... which lets you choose a destination folder and a sub-folder structure such as Project name/Year/Month by using the folder naming presets. This can also be used to move already-referenced files to a new location.
Also worth investigating is File/Manage Referenced Files... which allows you to reconnect referenced files that have been moved outside of Aperture.
What do I do? As someone who mostly works on a MacBook Pro, I have a mostly referenced Library, with ‘current’ images stored on a pocketdrive, plus a couple of larger external HDs back at base which contain all the Masters, using ChronoSync to duplicate any new files on the pocketdrive onto the main drive when needed.
Ian
Comments (14)
Before 10.5 and Time Machine, backup was a big problem with ref files but now ref files system is probably the best way to handle Aperture pictures
I view this issue the way I view the issue of managing email. I don't want to manually manage tens of thousands of individual email messages, and even trying to do it using the Finder would be an act of high comedy. So I let my mail program manage my email for me. In fact, so far as I know or care, my email is IN my email program. Where it actually resides on my computer's file system is totally irrelevant. Likewise, I don't want to spend any creative energy or time managing my photos. I just let Aperture do it. This way, file management is not only transparent to me, it basically doesn't even exist. It's not an issue. I know exactly where my pictures are at all times — they are in Aperture — and finding, sorting, copying or sharing them is easy, consistent and predictable, and I never have to stumble around the clumsy, arcane circus side show that the Finder has become.
This is the very reason that Aperture needs to allow a Managed Library to be created on a network drive.
I absolutely agree — something I could access from anywhere in the world, or from across the room.
@Ed,
You can use Aperture today with a Managed Library on a network drive. You just have to create a disk image on the network drive, and then copy the Aperture Library there. Make it a sparse image so it can dynamically grow as needed, and won't take up more space than necessary.
Yes, there are a couple downsides to this -- from non-Apple machines the volume is opaque for one. However, with disk images the file format is a known quanity (with a generic NAS it is *not* -- often these are Linux and may be running EXT2 or EXT3 or MurderYourWifeFS), and the naming constructs used by Aperture contain characters which are illegal in some other file systems than HFS+
Curious. Why does it have to be on a disk image?
It only needs to be a disk image if it's not an HFS+ formatted HD, as far as I can remember.
Ian
"You want easy access to the master files in other applications - but note that of course you won’t see any adjustment of metadata changes from Aperture."
Actually that is not true. I use referenced files, and I do most of my captioning in Photomechanic due to the code replacement facility. If I change the IPTC outside of Aperture, it is in fact changed in Aperture as well. Very handy feature actually.
Michael - like I said, changes you make in Aperture won't be reflected in the files*. Changes you make with other apps is information going in the other direction... ;-)
Ian
Sorry Ian, my mistake, I read it the wrong way :-)
Great Blog BTW
Mike
@Mark - I so want to do that. I have a MBP with a 120GB HD and my main Aperture library currently resides on an external Firewire drive because it's now over 200GB. So I *can't* do what you suggested. I also have an Aperture library on my laptop that I've used to mess with projects when I don't want to be "connected" (around 6GB). If I could dump my RAW files in the cloud I would be very happy that I could still work on my laptop where ever but I would need something faster than FIOS to be able to really use Aperture if I'm still wanting to make image adjustments.
Problem is, I don't know if I'm ever really done with an image. I've delivered images to clients and I still find myself messing with them on my own time to see what else I can create.
I've tried NAS drives with Referenced Masters and I've had both die on me so I'm not too excited about trying that route any time soon.
I've currently messed with the the same project in both Aperture libraries, I'd like to sync them up somehow.
Ian - thank you for this clear explanation of managed vs referenced files.
I'm experienced with DAMs, but new to Mac - and now I totally understand what was happening - iphoto and Aperture were sucking images into a managed library, and I prefer that that files stay as referenced.
Very clearly presented -
Thanks
Marion - compulsive mom, not a prof photographer
I work with reference files and this requires some rigourous file management to make it easy to find images when you want them. Basically my folders within folders, within folders etc. and finally the filename are a form of keywords. It would be so nice if the keywords applied in Aperture could be used by finder.
Marion - thanks!
Bob - sounds like you are making life much more complicated than it needs to be. Select an image in Aperture, then Right/Control-click on it and choose 'Show in Finder'. This will open up the relevant Finder folder with the correct image selected.
If the volume the image is on is offline, you will get a dialog box telling you which HD to plug in.
Ian