on 2012-07-12 11:29 Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote
On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 9:29 AM, steve harley <p...@paper-ape.com> wrote:
as an interesting point of comparison, Aperture can copy image files into a
backup location on import; i do this, automatically creating a YYYY/MM/DD
folder hierarchy on both master and backup volumes (the latter over Gigabit
Ethernet)

Lightroom does the same with respect to the master files imported into
the catalog. It's an import convenience. And it can create a backup
second set as well ... but there it doesn't copy the import structure,
it just places them in a date ordered set of folders.

now that i've found LR's controls for that i see they are almost equivalent; Aperture can copy the original folder structure, though i never do that; it looks like LR can do that too; i just can't tell if LR's "destination" folder structure is also used for the "second copy" — if it is then you can automatically structure masters and backups the same, which is the primary benefit i was describing


It's up to the user to manage their original files.

for me the originals are on an SD card and get deleted eventually; in other words no management is necessary; the master is what's copied to my drive during import; LR can do this too, and i would recommend using the option to create a folder structure on import; sounds like you copy files to your drive prior to import, which i'd see as an extra step, but not harmful


Aperture also supports fully automated, managed files incorporated
into the .aplibrary sets. I have always disliked that ...

i totally agree; it's an option for people who don't want to think about files at all, but it makes it harder to recover and to divide your work onto several drives; it's worth noting that if you start using Aperture and let it do this by default, you can easily change your mind and have it move the files to a discrete folder hierarchy for you; as such, Aperture is also a good tool to extract files from the black hole that is iPhoto


I prefer to
manage my files myself, and have sophisticated backup and archiving
policies/systems that do it for me in an efficient and reliable way.

for me it's so simple to let Aperture do the bulk of it that i don't need much more except for the secondary backup system; i offer this not as a LR vs. Aperture debate, but to explore ways to get things done (file organization, backups) as simply as possible, which i assume will benefit folks like Christine; i just know Aperture so much better that i use it as example, and to help those who may not have invested in one or the other yet


I don't want to get into a huge Aperture vs Lightroom vs
Photoshop/Bridge debate here.

not debating, but the topic has evolved past Christine's immediate need; Aperture and Lightroom mostly do the same things, but how i read your comments led me to see a significant difference for those who want to achieve a simple workflow; turns out they aren't that different after all in this respect

i have tried to use Bridge in the past, and was a Photoshop professional in the early 90s, color-correcting, retouching and compositing photos for prepress; but i now use mostly Aperture and a bit of Lightroom; Photoshop for occasional panoramas and focus-stacking (Aperture works well with Photoshop); from a workflow perspective i think LR and Aperture offer very similar benefits; they differ more in interface details and non-organizational features, but there's no obvious best choice; if nothing else, i think Lightroom has a brighter future


--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Reply via email to