Dear Aunt TUAW: Do I need to upgrade to Aperture?

Time Machine is definitely not backing up entire library after each change.

However, iPhoto maintains large monolytic files with picture thumbnails. In case of my library (it is well over 20k photos), i have file named Thumb64Segment.data which is 649M and ThumbJPGSegment.data which eats 324M. Considering that they get updated after each import, amount of data to back up incrementally is still substantial.

I just splitted my library and iPhoto became much snappier. What's interesting, before split it happened to hang even when clicking to editi a single photo - a bit counterintuitive behaviour, since it is just one file to open.

Google's Picasa, anyone? I love it and my customers do too.

1. iPhoto handles multiple libraries in the same way that Aperture does; but iPhoto doesn't allow you to change libraries without restarting iPhoto; however, the whole switch library command in Aperture seems to take just as long.
2. Time Machine handles backups of both Aperture and iPhoto incrementally and quickly. The TM & library issue hasn't existed since Aperture v1.1
3. Reasons to switch from iPhoto to Aperture - Aperture's tools are more precise and there are more shortcuts to take advantage of. There are tons of other differences, but I think those will be what the average consumer cares about.

I find that most of these problems go away if you choose to not let iPhoto manage your files for you (I choose this method for iTunes as well - it keeps my digital purchases separate from my ripped music, which is better for knowing what needs to be backed up)). Just make a "My Pictures" Folder in the Pictures file, then use Image Capture to upload pics from your SD Card to a new folder within, named after the event. Then when you go to iPhoto and you import that folder, it names the event after the folder name and leaves the pics where you had them! This way, you can back up only certain folders in this scheme, etc. This is a great way to manage your originals as well, because all of your edits go into the iPhoto library package, leaving your originals alone in your custom Finder structure. This also allows you to have both an Aperture and iPhoto library that reference the same files on your drive, without needlessly duplicating them.

My workflow involves both Aperture (for sorting and making adjustments) and iPhoto (for viewing and sharing), but another Aperture pro is that the Aperture library file only stores the "edited data" for your pics, whereas iPhoto actually makes a separate copy of the entire photo when you edit it (this becomes a headache with some cameras, because iPhoto will interpret a tag to rotate the file as an edit and store a duplicate of a file you haven't even changed!).

I use Aperture regularly and have also Used Lightroom. Neither will change your backup situation in my opinion. However I would think that if your library is on an external drive that is perhaps USB not FW 800 it may simply be an issue with the speed of the USB and the drive itself. I have recently had some extremely major Time Machine issues that were resolved by changing my Segate Goflex drive from the USB base to FW800 and Bam all fixed and noticeably faster. This may all be un-related but the upgrade to Aperture will be useful for other reasons.

First I disagree with John from Buffalo in that while I have used Lightroom to obtain quick use of their presets for a bleach bypass or split toning look in terms of Raw conversion for me Aperture has a much more natural look than Adobe ACR in my opinion (some may differ of course) At close inspection of crops ACR/Lightroom can have a grainier background such as skies or out of focus areas.
The difference will be most obvious to those experienced with the process however if you are new to pro level editing it will be mostly indistinguishable. Dont let pixel peeping make your secision think of your real needs and they both can do the job IMO

So to me the best reason to upgrade is flexibility in editing and room to learn the craft. The second reason is price in the App store AP3 is $79.00 or something like that so its very affordable. I find using brushes absolutely great but be prepared as AP3 in most cases will need Ram and a fast Mac to run in a pleasing way. I have a quad i7 iMac and it works as well as some older 8 core Mac pro's very smooth

Overall Both Lightroom and Aperture are great apps. I give AP3 the prize mainly as i prefer the interface and workflow. I also appreciate the Apple like organization and filesystem however I am flexible to work in the Adobe way should I choose to manage my own filesystem (LR3 can do this as well)

Adobe may be quicker to market for new camera's but what Camera do you have? If it is supported then you are fine. Besides you can still import unsupported files into aperture with DNG or JPEG TIFF etc there are workarounds although i have never needed to use them


Cheers
Roger

Consider what you really need.

I ditched iPhoto years ago in favor of... the Finder. In combination with Image Capture and EXIF Renamer, the Finder was faster, I had control over all my actual photo files, I could sort them in every way. I could have my photo files spread over several disks and they don't need to be available all the time. If I had a damaged file or missing EXIF data for whatever reason (tons), it doesn't crash the Finder, but it could hang iPhoto and even corrupt the library (been there). My library never needed to be upgraded.

If you desire control over your files, I advocate something like this plus using iPhoto to store copies of your best photos, to make a book for instance. Because think about it, in ten or twenty years you'll have 500 terabytes of photos and you will not care about the vast majority. You will not keep up your keyword and tagging system. It's a pointless waste of time. Find the good ones, put only those in a management application like iPhoto, but keep the rest around "just in case". In the file system.

I've used iPhoto Library Manager for years to handle multiple libraries. It's a great program. It also allows you to easily merge or split libraries and import albums from one library to the next. You can get basic features for free but the advanced features are well worth the $19.95.

http://www.fatcatsoftware.com/iplm/

I would be more interested in what's best to sync a photo collection with multiple computers (i.e. between my iMac and my Macbook). Normally I import photos into my iMac, but sometimes, especially if I'm on vacation or even just out shooting, I'll import into my Macbook.

Is there a feature in Apreture (or iPhoto) to sync between computers?

In addition to Josh's comment:

If you prefer a more sophisticated solution for iPhoto multi library management, then give "iPhoto Library Manager" a try:

http://www.fatcatsoftware.com/iplm/

It even allows transfer of photos/events between the libraries and has become an essential tool for me.

If you like iPhoto, there is no need to switch to Aperture.

I'd actually recommend using the free (donations accepted) utility called iPhoto Buddy.

http://www.iphotobuddy.com/

It allows you to easily manage multiple iPhoto libraries. I have mine split up by year... it makes them much easier to load and maintain. I just copy them to an external once a month. I also let Time Machine back them up to my TM Drive. Having them in three places should take care of you. Offsite backup is a fourth option -- a very good option. In case your house gets destroyed, you'd have a somewhat complete record of your data offsite.

Backup, backup, backup. :)