I Can't get photos to load into Apple Aperture on my two "newer" computers

[Rob-F]

I hope I can write this clearly. I'm very frustrated! I've been using Aperture for years, first on my 2009 Macbook and 2009 iMac; and then later I added a 2013 iMac Pro. Pretty smooth sailing, few problems. When the 2009 iMac failed, i purchased a 2017 iMac from a local store that refurbishes and resells Mac gear (they are an authorized Mac dealer, also selling new mac gear). They were able to get all my data off the old iMac hard drive and transfer it to the 2017 iMac they sold me. My Aperture program seemed to transfer over just fine. All the pictures are there, and all the post-processing manipulations work fine. And when I put an SD card in the slot, Aperture recognizes the card is there, and offers the usual choices of RAW vs jpg or both, and displays the location where the new photos are to be stored. So far, so good.

What it isn't doing is showing any thumbnails of the photos on the SD card. That field is all blank.

I know the card is OK because it behaves correctly on my 2013 Macbook Pro.
I have actually been through this with two SD cards; one from my Fuji X20; the other from my LeicaSonic D-Lux 6.
They both work correctly in the 2013 Macbook Pro; neither will display thumbnails in the Aperture program that's now loaded in my 2017 iMac.
Again, it's the same program that came out of my 2019 iMac.

That was part one.

PART 2
A couple of months later I bought a refurbished 2017 Macbook Pro from the same store. Several years earlier I had purchased, while still available, a spare copy of Aperture 3, knowing a day would come when I would need it. I had the store install it on my new-to-me later model Macbook Pro. I bought the 2017 models because that is the last year that will run Aperture, which requires an OS no newer than Mojave--which the store installed on both computers.

When I got it home and put in the same SD card that wouldn't show its thumbnails in the new iMac, the first time I tried, IT WORKED. The thumbnails WERE THERE. But before proceeding, I needed to set up a space in the Aperture library for it, so I did that. Then with a library location ready, I started the process over. No thumbnails. My new(er) Macbook Pro was behaving now the same as the iMac. I must be doing something wrong. I did make sure I clicked for RAW plus jpeg; and I made sure "don't import duplicates" was off (just to be safe). So where did my thumbnails go?

I feel pretty sure I am just missing something. Aperture is an old program and the store doesn't know too much about it. I'm writing this on the iMac, which seems fine in all other ways. I don't imagine there is anything wrong with the Aperture program. It's just the same one from my old iMac. It must be me.

BUT WHAT AM I MISSING? I'm really hoping we have other Aperture users on the Forum. I need help!

 

[Godfrey]

Aperture was discontinued back in 2015 ... And it was on life support for its last 5 years having only received minor updates and bug fixes after its last major update in 2010.

While there are some tricks and tools to keep Aperture running, personally I wouldn't recommend it; it's time to move to newer tools. Current iPhoto combined with RAW Power presents supported image management and image manipulation that is being maintained and improved.

And I know the pain of moving from one image processing system to another ... but there are times when it's simply the best thing to do.

G

 

[Rob-F]

Yeah, Godfrey, I am kind of aware of that, but i just really like Aperture, and so have made an investment in keeping it. I have Lightroom, saw that its adjustments were not difficult, but still liked Aperture. I have what is probably the original version of Capture One. I could NOT make it do anything.

I really wanna get Aperture up and running. I did scan some slides. imported them to the Desktop, and slipped them into Aperture. That worked.

I need some moral support, here.

 

[Godfrey]

Well, Rob, sorry to say I can't help you. I ran Aperture for a bit alongside of Lightroom just to see if there was anything in it that did better for me. I decided there wasn't, and Lightroom was simpler to use and understand. I've been using Lightroom (now Lightroom Classic) since it was in beta (what, about 2004?) and it remains my standard image processing and management system, although I also use Photos + RAW Power, and SnapSeed, with iOS and iPadOS devices.

Good luck!

G

 

[Rob-F]

What really bothered me about Lightroom was that I perceived a danger of losing my photos. You have to set up an external file system, right? I revisited Lightroom, which we also transferred over from my first iMac. I had experimented with it a few years ago, loaded a few shots into it to play with. It showed those couple dozen photos I had forgotten about, but it also said they were either missing or offline. So where are they? O Lost! (Thomas Wolfe, "Look Homeward, Angel"). That's what I want to avoid. With Aperture, if I make a mistake, they will still always be someplace where I can find them.

The good news: this time I put the SD card in the slot, and when it showed on the desktop, even though Aperture didn't show thumbnails, I tried clicking on "import" at the upper left area. With that, the thumbnails appeared and I was able to load over 100 photos off the SD card. I don't know why it's not working the usual way. But I gotta remember there can be more than one way to do things on a computer.

I would still like to hear from other Aperture users. We Aperture users should stick together.

 

[splitimageview]

I use Aperture with Ventura. I generally just drag/drop the files into a project

 

[Rob-F]

I use Aperture with Ventura. I generally just drag/drop the files into a project

You mean individually? Picture by picture?

 

[splitimageview]

or select multiples and drag/drop

 

[Godfrey]

What really bothered me about Lightroom was that I perceived a danger of losing my photos. You have to set up an external file system, right? I revisited Lightroom, which we also transferred over from my first iMac. I had experimented with it a few years ago, loaded a few shots into it to play with. It showed those couple dozen photos I had forgotten about, but it also said they were either missing or offline. So where are they? O Lost! (Thomas Wolfe, "Look Homeward, Angel"). That's what I want to avoid. With Aperture, if I make a mistake, they will still always be someplace where I can find them.

The good news: this time I put the SD card in the slot, and when it showed on the desktop, even though Aperture didn't show thumbnails, I tried clicking on "import" at the upper left area. With that, the thumbnails appeared and I was able to load over 100 photos off the SD card. I don't know why it's not working the usual way. But I gotta remember there can be more than one way to do things on a computer.

I would still like to hear from other Aperture users. We Aperture users should stick together.

Lightroom file management is based on an SQL database engine. The database includes information as to where in the file system the imported image files are located, it does not *include* the image data into its structure. Aperture is similar in concept with respect to file management: it can be configured to work exactly the same way, "by reference" essentially, but also can be configured to automate storing the image files into file system locations that it creates for you. That's really the biggest difference in the file handling of the two applications.

The usual way to work when you're using Lightroom is to create a folder (directory) where you want it to build the directory tree that will contain your photographs. If you do not create one yourself, it will create one for you in the Pictures folder in your login account (on macOS; I presume it does similarly on Windows but I have never run Windows as a user so I don't know precisely how the Windows user account is structured) as a default. Every time you import photos into Lightroom, it will by default copy the photos into that folder, building subfolders in it depending upon the rules you specify when you import your photos. Aperture does the same thing if you're using it in "by reference" mode. If you're using it in the defaul "automatic" mode, you've essentially told it to manage where the photos go on import for you automatically: it copies them into folders in a directory tree it creates and manages for you (presumably in the PIctures folder, but it's been a while since I ran Aperture...).

If you use Aperture and have it set up to do the image management for you automatically, it keeps track of where it puts the image files and you don't need to know where that is. If you configure it to work "by reference", it puts the photos where you told it you want them to go. Lightroom does not have the default automatic image management capability that Aperture does, so you always have to tell it where you want it to put your photos. With either app (Aperture used in "by reference" mode or Lightroom), if you move the photos around outside of the app, the app will lose track of them and requires you to manually re-find them and tell the database where they are.

If you never specifically tell Lightroom where to put the files, it will default to putting them in a folder (directory) tree in your account's Pictures directory, just like Aperture (and Photos) will. If you move the directory tree from outside of the context of the running application (using the Finder in other words), in either case, you will have to inform the app where the files are when next you run it.

That's all there is to know in order to use Lightroom correctly with respect to locating images in the file system. It's a little less automated than Aperture (presuming you don't use Aperture in the 'by reference' mode) but in some ways it's simpler and easier to manage when you make a mistake.

G

 

[Coldkennels]

As someone who made the jump from Aperture to Lightroom a while back (2016 or 2017), Lightroom feels like a more "Windows" way of managing things; with the way I've got it set up, you create folders in Finder, "import" them into Lightroom, and Lightroom then allows you to access that folder and its contents from within the Lightroom interface. At that point, you shouldn't really interact with the folder in Finder at all. You can rename/reorganise the folders from within Lightroom, and those changes will be reflected in Finder. However, if you work the other way around (move or rename folders or files in Finder), Lightroom won't know where they are, and they'll appear to be "lost" until you point Lightroom at where the files are now.

In many ways, I preferred Aperture's "closed box" approach, where nothing was accessible in Finder. It just seemed tidier and more foolproof. Of course, the benefit of Lightroom's system is that you can move finished files off to an external drive within Lightroom, disconnect the drive, and Lightroom will still keep all the previews in your library - you just won't be able to edit or export them until the drive is reconnected. That can really help save on internal hard drive space.

The things I really miss about Aperture was how easy it was for other Apple programs to grab images from Aperture and how good the dust spotting tool was - Lightroom's is a bit more memory-intensive and irritating to use, so I normally do all my dust spotting in Photoshop and accept the fact it's "destructive". I do sometimes wish Apple would bring Aperture back, but I wouldn't want to still be using such an old and unsupported program on a modern system or OS nowadays. There's just too many incompatibilities racking up as the years pass.

 

[Rob-F]

OK, that's pretty clear, Godfrey. I'll read it a few times and maybe try it again. I'm thinking maybe iMac #2 lost track of its images during the data transfer from iMac #1 (?)
Lightroom continues to be intimidating, though. It took me 20 minutes to shut it down. I don't even really know how I did it.

 

[bjolester]

I have used Aperture for more than 10 years, and also purchased the final Aperture version: Aperture 3.6. This version is registered in my "purchased items" in my account at the Apple store. The last Mac OS that fully supports Aperture 3.6 is MacOS Mojave (10.14). To be able to run MacOS Mojave you need an old Mac. I have dedicated an 2010 Mac Pro to Mojave and Aperture 3.6, a set up mostly used for editing film scans. My digital cameras (Pentax K-5, Ricoh GRII) are also old enough to have RAW support in my Aperture set up.

For iPhone photos and sometimes also photos from my digital cameras I use Photos (both on iPhone and Mac), which I find mostly to be "good enough".

 

[Timmyjoe]

I used Aperture from the first day Apple introduced it until it would no longer run on updated computers, and loved it. But it's gone now. What is still available, and was developed by some of the team that developed Aperture for Apple, is RAW Power, by the group that calls itself Gentlemen Coders. You can get it on the App Store. It is very similar to Aperture, with more processing power, and is updated regularly so it works with new camera RAW images. They have also introduced a newer program called Nitro Photo which has photo file management options similar to Lightroom (although I have not used it yet). And both of the programs are available for purchase, none of that Adobe monthly rental fee garbage.

Just something to consider.

Best,
-Tim

 

[splitimageview]

To be able to run MacOS Mojave you need an old Mac

You can run Aperture on a later OS after patching it with an app called Retroactive. Of course keeping an old Mac with an older OS also works.

 

[Timmyjoe]

Retroactive has now been discontinued as well. And it does not support macOS Sequoia or later.

Best,
-Tim

 

[splitimageview]

Yes. It's still available but no longer being developed. It works well, as I said earlier, I use it with Ventura.

 

[Rob-F]

I use Aperture with Ventura. I generally just drag/drop the files into a project

So it sounds like Aperture will run on Ventura, at least partially. Any serious limitations? What else doesn't work?

 

[bjolester]

The things I really miss about Aperture was how easy it was for other Apple programs to grab images from Aperture and how good the dust spotting tool was - Lightroom's is a bit more memory-intensive and irritating to use, so I normally do all my dust spotting in Photoshop and accept the fact it's "destructive".

The dust spotting tool in Aperture is probably the main reason for dedicating my "ancient" Mac Pro to Mojave + Aperture 3.6 for editing film scans.

 

[splitimageview]

There are a few things that no longer work, none of which I ever used, like not being able to play videos.

The main reason I like having access is because of old libraries. And the dust spotting is indeed quick and easy compared to my other photo app (Capture One.)

I never liked Lightroom, too steep a learning curve, and I don't like Adobe's subscription model.

 

[Godfrey]

It's always very interesting to read others' opinions. For me, Lightroom was far easier to learn than Aperture (or even Photos and RAW Power. I have never figured out the dust spotting tool in Aperture whereas I can spot a half a dozen dusty negative captures in LR Classic in ten minutes.

Access to old apps due to existing libraries is, to me, the biggest reason to keep some system with Aperture alive. I tested it alongside Lightroom more than a decade ago and have long since moved all those photos into my Lightroom Classic universe so there's no need for me to even think about it.

(And with regards to keeping a system around for old stuff, well, I still do use my now-ancient Light L16 camera and therefore need Lumen, its dedicated processing app, to get the full capabilities of the camera. So I keep my 2012 Mac mini configured with macOS "Maverick" and Lumen around for that purpose ... I shoot up a bunch of things with the L16, move them all into the Lumen library, edit and manipulate them to taste, and output the results as DNG files, then put them onto my current system in Lightroom for finishing... 😉

Oh yes: The latest LR Classic "AI De-noise" algoritms have resurrected my Olympus E-1 and allowed me to get amazing results even at ISO 3200 as well! Could never do that before... 😀 )

The Adobe tax for LR ... I hated it when they announced that, somewhere about four-five years ago. Prior to that, LR was a buy and standalone use product. But $10/mo for LR Classic, as well as the possibility of using Photoshop if ever I need it again, and the six or seven other apps available on the plan should I ever need them are worth it to me.

That said: I've had RAW Power for a good while, I should put the effort into learning it better. I'll have to look up Nitro Photo too. It's good to keep abreast of new tools. And I need to update both my iPad Pro and my Mac mini, both are getting a bit long in the tooth.

Ach. I ramble. LOL!

G

Musician Statue - Haddonfield, NJ 2024
iPhone 15 Pro
ISO 50 @ f/1.8 @ 1/120 sec @ 6.76mm
Finished in LR Classic
​