<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Span your Aperture library across multiple disks</title>
	<atom:link href="http://beardedjoe.com/span-your-aperture-library-across-multiple-disks/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://beardedjoe.com/span-your-aperture-library-across-multiple-disks</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 14 Jul 2008 04:50:23 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: jason</title>
		<link>http://beardedjoe.com/span-your-aperture-library-across-multiple-disks/comment-page-1#comment-78</link>
		<dc:creator>jason</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 14 Jul 2008 04:50:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://beardedjoe.com/span-your-aperture-library-across-multiple-disks#comment-78</guid>
		<description>yeah, masters are the physical images, everything else (versions, previews, etc) are in the kbs in size. this is cause the actual image is not affected. any editing you&#039;ve done is saved in a way that doesn&#039;t harm the image but also doesn&#039;t create another duplicate image. only when you export does the image get the edits added on physically to preserve the original import and save tons of disk space.

i agree, i like the approach. i got aperture a few months ago been spending the whole time since naming tagging and rating my 4,000+ photos taken over the past 2-3 years...truly a mind numbing process. i&#039;d have to account for 1 star photos (i try not to have no star ratings i guess heh), but good idea over all for external drives and not redundant drives.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>yeah, masters are the physical images, everything else (versions, previews, etc) are in the kbs in size. this is cause the actual image is not affected. any editing you&#8217;ve done is saved in a way that doesn&#8217;t harm the image but also doesn&#8217;t create another duplicate image. only when you export does the image get the edits added on physically to preserve the original import and save tons of disk space.</p>
<p>i agree, i like the approach. i got aperture a few months ago been spending the whole time since naming tagging and rating my 4,000+ photos taken over the past 2-3 years&#8230;truly a mind numbing process. i&#8217;d have to account for 1 star photos (i try not to have no star ratings i guess heh), but good idea over all for external drives and not redundant drives.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: jt</title>
		<link>http://beardedjoe.com/span-your-aperture-library-across-multiple-disks/comment-page-1#comment-72</link>
		<dc:creator>jt</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 16 Jan 2008 00:28:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://beardedjoe.com/span-your-aperture-library-across-multiple-disks#comment-72</guid>
		<description>hey!

this is an interesting approach!
I do have a couple questions...
What&#039;s the benefit of &#039;relocating masters&#039; as opposed to something that would move a whole project? does that leave the versions or previews available for some sort of &#039;quick preview?&#039;

And could you &#039;relocate masters&#039; directly  to a folder on the ext hd?

Cheers,

JT</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>hey!</p>
<p>this is an interesting approach!<br />
I do have a couple questions&#8230;<br />
What&#8217;s the benefit of &#8216;relocating masters&#8217; as opposed to something that would move a whole project? does that leave the versions or previews available for some sort of &#8216;quick preview?&#8217;</p>
<p>And could you &#8216;relocate masters&#8217; directly  to a folder on the ext hd?</p>
<p>Cheers,</p>
<p>JT</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
