Having said that, I think we are beginning to see a separation of file location/structure and the interface to those files. Tags are becoming very popular for files; the people who have defined meta-tags have had their standard adopted by a number of other software apps – Tags, Leap, EagleFiler, and DevonThink to name a few. Once files are tagged, you can use front-ends like Leap (which would replace Finder or any other traditional file manager) to create smart or virtual folders. This seems to be where things are heading, and AP falls into the same camp.

LR will probably maintain the connection between physical location and virtual location. But it may be that in time, even operating systems will endorse virtual systems that are so much more powerful over the the current physical/alias file and folder systems.

I like the ability of A3 to organize your files for you. But, I do see others reluctance to give up the file structure that they have spent years and thousands of photos creating. Not that the A3 structure is wrong, it is just a mindset. Now, you say that you can maintain a file structure just like LR, I have not found that? If I am having difficulty letting go of all those folder names that I have created over the years, how do I “relocate masters” and preserve those folder names in A3? Please help. Thank you, Matt

Considering the Aperture team is populated with people responsible for Extensis portfolio that is no big mystery. I thought we were done with this, we will probably never agree but there are a couple of things that I cannot agree with factually. One Lightroom Albums are not at all comparable to Aperture albums in terms of functionality. Two especially considering the first thing – LR does not abstract the file location from you it is always part of managing your workflow always. Three Aperture does not ONLY abstract it with no other choice. Those three things are facts. Aperture provides additional abstraction and additional context controls in many ways. If LR does everything that you want that is great, There are a lot of things it doesn’t do that I want.

I am very open to others opinions but have yet ever heard anything from any person that lists Aperture’s ability to abstract the locations of image masters as a negative with any rational/factual reason that is a giant problem. They say things like “I like to get at my files” and such. Okay so…? Do not get me wrong – I do recommend LR to a lot of people and have done workshops on both. I am glad Adobe got into the race for a better way for photographers to do their work.
What I have found in most cases of “Abstraction resistance” is more of an attachment to a familiar way of doing something than a practical reason or rationale. LR’s abstraction is no more than what Bridge does with a better/integrated ACR interface. That being said – as usual Adobe’s work on ACR and manipulation tools is superlative over the last few years. It’s focus on the UI and overall other functionality of the application leaves a lot to be desired.

RB

Okay, Okay – I give up. You are one of the people that thinks Abstracting file location is a bad thing – I am one of those people that think it is a good thing (as long as you can control how the abstraction works).

RB

I hate to be rain on your parade but 1) You are in no way compelled to use managed masters – never, ever since Ap 1.5. You can set your import to leave masters where they are or just pick a new folder if you are loading from camera and it operates EXACTLY like LR if you want it to. 2) Collections are a shadow of what Aperture albums can do. 3) Relocate masters is amazingly capable of generating or regenerating or reorganizing ANY folder structure you desire using just about any criteria you desire. LR has no equivalent.

Aperture can be as simple or as complex as you would like it to be. LR is pretty much ACR+BRIDGE with a couple of extra features. In terms of image management and organization it really does not have a whole lot of capability.

Hey I know both really well – I have no problem criticizing Aperture where it totally needs work as you have heard from me before but when it comes to organizational capabilities Aperture leaves LR in the dust.

RB