Okay, a friend of mine who uses macs is having difficulty with swapping between Aperture and Bridge. She uses Bridge to import her images, do some quick edits in ACR and then do the rest of the editing in Photoshop. This produces xmp files. She also uses Aperture to manage the files.
Here's the question though...
When she views the RAW images in Aperture, the edits in the xmp file are ignored. Is there a setting in Aperture that utilises the xmp file when rendering the thumbnails in Aperture?
Nope. The info in the XMP files is only used by Adobe products (ACR & Lightroom) and won't be used by any other program (the exception being that Photo Mechanic now uses the same crop variables as Adobe does). If she uses both Bridge and Photoshop and wants to be able to see the edits in her database, she'll have to switch to Lightroom or use Bridge for file management.
Thanks Emile. I'll pass that on. Bridge is pretty easy and she's using some of the functions of Bridge right now, so it shouldn't be a problem for her. I think she was really only using Apeture for the web stuff anyway and watermarking anyway. I don't think DAM is her thing given how many copies of the same (or slightly different) images she has all over her computers, Lightroom might require too much of an analytical mind. I gather that using Lightroom means you have to manage your copying and pasting of images and directorires from within Lightroom to keep track of everything. Would that be the case?
Steve, you're welcome. She can do her file management elsewhere but she'd have to continuously tell LR where her images have moved so it's probably more convenient to do that right in LR. The upside is she can do her image editing straight in LR without ever needing Bridge and make virtual copies with different settings without the need to have many different .jpg images strewn around her harddisk; just export them when needed and delete the exported file after use. It does need a change of habit though... If she's using Aperture mainly for web and watermarking she'd probably be better off waiting for LR3 though; watermarking is included in that version without the need to download plug-ins (I think you need them in the current version but I might be wrong - I've never needed watermarking...).
Well, hang on a minute! I use Aperture as my DAM and everything comes in thru it. I don't use LR and only occasionally pass by Bridge so am not sure what they do. I do know that when I export a master out of Aperture it gives me the opportunity to also export a xmp file which it does as a separate text file that is labeled originalfilename.xmp. I just fired up Bridge and had it open one of these files and all of the data is displayed there so it's obviously reading it. A file edited in PS and brought back into Aperture shows all relevant data correctly so I'm guessing it is reading something correctly.
I'm not sure why Steve's friend feels she needs both Bridge and Aperture for as they sort of do the same thing except Aperture is much more developed. It also - with the judicious use of plug-ins - works as a light editing tool and can call whatever photo editor one wants. It does track versions and various locations automatically. For someone who may not be "much of an analytical mind" it might be a better tool as the interface is superb.
@Alan, Aperture definitely can see .xmp files and incorporate the information. I assume it can do this with referenced files though I don't know as I don't use referencing. Apple's website has complete technical details if "enquiring minds really need to know."
Yeah, she's not an analytical thinker. She has both Nikon and Canon gear (and an Xpan). She runs both Mac and PC. So she needs duplicate lenses and speedlights and all sorts of stuff to run two brands. She also needs two software licences to run on the two platforms.....
The reason she has all that software is that she only knows how to do bits and pieces in each and therefore between them to complete her workflow. I used to help her out a lot with this stuff, but I got too frustrated with the disjointed nature of it all and left her to her own devices for a while. Obviously someone else has told her to use Aperture for the web stuff.
Anyway...I think I've convinced her to use the same workflow as me for now which is import via Bridge, use ACR to set crops and other basic global edits and add keywords, then edit and batch process through CS4. Web stuff is done in JAlbum which also does the watermarking for her client galleries. She has Lightroom, but it is a much more sophisticated tool than Bridge and therefore I have doubts that she will manage Lightroom without screwing up at some stage. Usually I am the first help-line she calls and I don't know Lightroom or Aperture, so I'm covering my own ass here.
Plus she's left it a bit late in the day to change things as there will be seven photogs shooting two school proms tonight and another four shooting a prom on Saturday whilst I shoot a ballet for her. All those images need to go through a working workflow and be on the web within two weeks. My workflow will handle that. her current one requires too much swapping and changing.
Robert, I was mainly reacting on the fact that development settings aren't read by other programs though I must admit to not knowing Aperture does support xmp sidecars nowadays. That's good news; it was the main gripe I had against it two years ago when I had to choose between it and Lightroom: I don't want all my development settings stored in just one big database. If and when a database file gets corrupted, you're up shit creek without a paddle. With settings stored in .xmp, you're home safe: just build a new database and you're done. When did they introduce this?
