Aperture & Flickr ate my images!

Well, good luck. I know what you mean about over softwaring something. Photoshop which I used to use had all these ways of doing the same thing and all these endless drop downs. I finally just decided to use PSE with no cable hook up. And just put the files I want on the internet using a stick to another computer that is hooked up. I know it is stupid but nobody is allowed to use my photo computer.
 
Two things. First, Time Capsule is the worst Apple device ever. (I have one, but completely gave up on it. Much better and less problematic is getting a simple LaCie external drive.)

Second, I would recommend against using an integrated Flickr uploader that comes with Aperture or Lightroom. My experiences with both have led me to use supplemental applications made for this specific purpose. (I have found them to be much more reliable--and less likely to alter content [without my intent] on my computer or on Flickr.)

Regrettably, neither of these comments help with your current predicament, but may help in the future.
 
Images uploaded to Flickr from Aperture are an album that is linked.
If you remove from one it will do from the other.

I am a proponent of using a REFERENCED library system if you use Aperture. The managed system screwed me also (use error) but still..

Since I shoot film I don't need a photo management system to deal with the thousands of images generated in one weekend...
I ended up using (I am a certified Aperture consultant....) an old fashioned folder system with the original scans sorted by Year - Month - Day. Keepers are processed and stored separately and resized in 2000 pix jpeg's that are stored in iPhoto for easy retrieval and sharing. If needed the date stamp and image number allows me to track the original down in no time.

To edit the meta info more efficiently you could look into Photomechanic.
 
hmm am not regretting staying with old school file based programs, such as Photoshop & Bridge. though dipped my toe dangerously to Lightroom pool recently. am using currently hybrid, importing with Bridge, so I really know where the stuff is and named what, and run backups as always. maybe LR could replace Bridge altogether, but am taking small steps. last, add new photos to LR catalog for editing.

Time Capsule, tried some early versions without good experiences. but main problem was it clouds whats really being done. and it does not want to confirm anything from user, it just does (?).

not that this much helps Rob :(
 
Success. Got help from Apple Care. It appears that I simply needed to go back a few earlier iterations of my Time Machine/Time Capsule backups to get one the at was uncorrupted. Out 3200 images only about four weren't recovered in this process and I have copies of them elsewhere. So, all's good.

I will probably add an extra layer of backup -- saving my libraries to Vaults on a new hard drive -- in addition to Time Machine. TM was a lifesaver.

To every who offered suggestions, THANK YOU!!! I will probably incorporate bits and pieces from many you very, very smart folks.
 
This maybe like closing the barn door after the cows have left but...

I keep my photographs on external hard drives. I use something like this:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produ...l_WDBBXV0010BBK_NESN_1TB_My_Passport_USB.html

Cheap. 1 TB for $79.00

At that rate a person could have one for each year!

I use the internal hard drive on my computers only for software.

I have a MacBook with a 70 gig HD and it has Photoshop plus some other things like On-One Software. No photos! I still have 34.34 gigs available!

Hope this helps you.
 
I have both Aperture and Lightroom. I've never gotten a feeling of security or comfort using Aperture, don't know why really —*I just don't trust it.

One thing that does make me feel better when using Aperture is to import files by reference, rather than using a managed library. That leaves my originals in the file system where I put them, organized the way I want them. This is how Lightroom works and I like it much more than having my files embedded into some hidden directory tree.

Doesn't help with your current situation, but you might consider that going forwards.
 
The fellow at Apple, in their Professional Services department, told me, much to my surprise, that he thinks managed is perfectly robust. He says he's been using the protocol in Aperture for six years. Personally, I think he was just repeating the party line.
 
As long as you know where the masters are (location as pointed out in the thread), shouldn't be a problem either way.
 
Let's just say that I now know a few things I didn't know before (thanks to many of you good people!), including how to find those "hidden" masters. The guy at Apple essentially said, when I told him what I'd learned, that "we are not allowed to talk about that."

digitalintrigue said:
As long as you know where the masters are (location as pointed out in the thread), shouldn't be a problem either way.
Click to expand...
 
My $.02 is that a referenced library is the only way to go with Aperture. It does add some additional burden to the user for managing their masters, but a small tradeoff. And given that things are constantly changing is this digital world, I already have my masters structured so as to be ready should I need to move to another photo/editing software application.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom