Traveling Away from Aperture

by Charlie Miller

I just returned to New York after a great trip traveling in and around Santiago, Chile. Whenever I’ve traveled abroad before, I’ve always taken photos and processed them in Aperture upon my return home. For this trip however, I wanted to attempt to share my experiences by keeping a travel photoblog, posting photos to Flickr daily.



This raised a few interesting challenges: I would be traveling without my MacBook Pro and shooting in RAW, so I wasn’t sure how I was going to process my images without Aperture. I had access to a broadband internet connection and a MacBook with 1GB of RAM, and around 10GB of free disk space.



My initial thought was to download the trial version of Aperture and simply use it while I was visiting, then remove it when I was through. But because of the low amount of disk space, I wanted a solution that would allow me to convert my large 10MB RAW images to JPEGs and then simply delete the RAW files. Plus I didn’t really want to be tempted by Aperture’s adjustment tools: my goal was to download my images each day, pick the 10 or 20 best, and upload them to Flickr as JPEGs. I’d leave the RAW files on my camera for processing in Aperture once I returned home.



What about creating a new iPhoto library and processing my photos in iPhoto? This wasn’t appealing because of disk space limitations. I tried importing my RAW images into iPhoto and then had to export each as a JPEG. It quickly became an organizational mess, plus iPhoto’s library folder was quickly filling up my available disk space.


8 Comments

jace rivers
2007-08-16 10:35:55
Ummm... just a question. If you're going to throw the RAW files away (without adjusting them before converting to JPG) then why not just shoot JPGs? Seems like this would solve your space issue as well as your conversion issue.


The point of shooting RAW files is to be able to adjust the file BEFORE converting it to JPG. If you don't want to do this step, just skip RAW all together.

Charlie
2007-08-16 10:45:51
Jace, I never removed the RAWs from my camera. My goal was to be able to keep them there so that when I returned I could process them on my own Mac in Aperture. While I was traveling I simply wanted a way to do a quick evaulation and upload JPEGs to Flickr. I suppose I could have shot RAW+JPEG, but I was pleased with the solution I ended up with.
D0n
2007-08-16 10:55:53
you might have set aperture up to manage referenced files, using your memory cards as external drives. then used the apeture upload to flicker plugin to transfer from aperture to flicker with one click.
jace rivers
2007-08-16 11:07:31
PhotoMechanic is great for that. It processes RAW files super fast and can export into multiple locations at the same time. It doesn't store files into a library, it's strictly a referenced file program. Given the situation you're describing, this is what I would have used. It's funny how there are always multiple ways of doing the same thing!
Steven Alexander
2007-08-16 11:45:22
why are you shooting RAW, you are not using them just tossing them.
Dan
2007-08-17 10:19:12
As stated in the article...
"I'd leave the RAW files on my camera for processing in Aperture once I returned home."
D0n
2007-08-20 06:33:49
outa curiosity...
doesn't the canon shoot raw+jpeg?
might have been easier to use image preiview or a folder action to skim the jpegs, and upload them to flicker.
although I think you defeated the whole point in aperture, by not clearing up your laptops hd to make room for an aperture project.. which would've backed up your files, allowed you to process them and upload to flicker quickly and easily, and still leave the originals on the mem cards.
Charlie
2007-08-20 06:52:52
Don- RAW+JPEG would have been an ideal solution. If I had thought of it... In the end, the tinkerer in me was pleased with this solution. It was a chance to experiment.