Skip to main content

⚠️ Please note that this topic or post has been archived. The information contained here may no longer be accurate or up-to-date. ⚠️

Advice wanted to move 'cocatolog' file....

Permanently deleted user
I am running Mac OS 10.10.3 Yosemite and my iMac has an internal SSD of only 250 GB plus a normal mechanical HD. I keep only my Apps installed on the SSD and so need to keep it as free of space as possible.

On my SSD I notice it displays: Users > Home > Pictures > Capture One Catalog.cocatalog and that this file is currently 676 MB. There is also the file Aperture Library.aplibrary 5.9 MB (but the actual images are on my HD).

Seeing '676 MB' suggests to me that my imported images and/or TIFF edits are being stored on my SSD which is the last thing I want!

How do I resolve this, please?

Many Thanks for any help 😊
0

Comments

9 comments

Date Votes
  • Permanently deleted user
    Can anyone help me with this question, please?

    Is it simply a matter of moving the cocatalog file onto the HD and then trashing it on the internal SSD?

    I don't want to screw things up by getting this wrong.

    Many Thanks
    0
  • meanwhile
    Yep, should be fine to just move it. Just check that the moved copy works and you have a backup before you delete the original.
    0
  • Paul Steunebrink
    I suggest you leave your Capture One Catalog.cocatalog file on your SSD. It will absolutely give you the best performance and stability. Next, you check in CO8 where the images are stored: inside the catalog or not. You can see this from the Library tool > Folders section. Note that this is determined during import.

    Depending on that result, you can determine the next move.
    0
  • Permanently deleted user
    [quote="Paul_Steunebrink" wrote:
    I suggest you leave your Capture One Catalog.cocatalog file on your SSD. It will absolutely give you the best performance and stability. Next, you check in CO8 where the images are stored: inside the catalog or not. You can see this from the Library tool > Folders section. Note that this is determined during import.

    Depending on that result, you can determine the next move.


    ....What is the '.cocatalog' file, please?

    If it is going to get larger as I import more and more RAW images it is going to become a major problem as my SSD is only 250 GB and only has 88 GB currently available.

    I have been storing my imported .CR2 files in a folder on my HD2. Is this where I create a folders tree? I want to organise my images by subject and not by date or session.
    0
  • SFA
    Robin,

    I don't use catalogues but ....

    a cocatalog file is a Capture One CATALOG file.

    It will contain all the information about your settings, edits, the preview files and so one for whatever images you have "Imported".

    As I understand it the two biggest influences for the size of the catalogue files are:

    a. Whether you are importing the original files to the catalogue (lots of space used as you would expect) or keeping them "referenced" somewhere else - perhaps an external drive.

    b. What default size you have set for your Preview files.

    If you are working with TIFFs and round tripping from external applications I would guess there might be an influence there too but I'm not sure - maybe Paul or one of the regular roundtrippers can provide input about that. In fact even just output files are, presumably, storable in the catalogue and can potentially add to the size as you work.

    Back in the days when I used LightRoom V1 I was never happy with the idea of catalogue storage and ever increasing file size so I changed something that did not force me to use a catalogue and then later discovered C1. Most of my stuff is based on discrete shoots so sessions suit me well 90% of the time.

    For more subject/content based activities I keep a generic session or two running.

    I could also access the source files from more than one session to that, in theory, I could work with one session for the shoot and then another that was subject related but I can see some administrative challenges to adopting that as a strategic workflow so it's not something I have spent time "developing", if you will forgive the pun.


    HTH.



    Grant
    0
  • Permanently deleted user
    Thanks, Grant - I am beginning to slowly see the light!

    So, the .cocatalog is just a file which only contains information, not large image files. That information is just instructional and I can now see why Paul advised keeping it on my SSD and it's the same reason why I install all my Apps on my SSD - For speed and efficiency. I'll keep an eye on its size anyway.

    Yes, I roundtrip with nearly all of the images which I edit and decide to keep.

    At this beginners stage I am trying to avoid an organisational structure which becomes tedious to work with. I have to say that Aperture's folder/album structure is excellent and ideal for my purposes.
    0
  • SFA
    [quote="RedRobin" wrote:
    Thanks, Grant - I am beginning to slowly see the light!

    So, the .cocatalog is just a file which only contains information, not large image files. That information is just instructional and I can now see why Paul advised keeping it on my SSD and it's the same reason why I install all my Apps on my SSD - For speed and efficiency. I'll keep an eye on its size anyway.

    Yes, I roundtrip with nearly all of the images which I edit and decide to keep.

    At this beginners stage I am trying to avoid an organisational structure which becomes tedious to work with. I have to say that Aperture's folder/album structure is excellent and ideal for my purposes.


    Hmm.

    If you are using Referenced image files the catalog will only contain information and preview files. (In this way you can, to some extent, edit the images when access to the original is not available but obviously limited to editing the preview at whatever size you have chosen to create it rather than the full original file data.) This is the equivalent of how you have your Aperture catalog set up.

    If you have IMPORTED the files NOT Referenced all of the full size originals will also be in the catalogue. (See Paul's post earlier.) That would certainly cause the a rapid increase in the size of the catalog.

    My investigation of SSDs suggests that the larger versions are likely to have some performance benefits as well as capacity benefits if chosen wisely so you might want to have that thought at the back of your mind as things progress. I would guess that the 7D2 files may be a little larger than the 70D - if so that's another aspect that may affect aspects of performance eventually and can creep up on you without the effects being rampantly obvious.

    HTH.


    Grant
    0
  • Permanently deleted user
    [quote="SFA" wrote:
    [quote="RedRobin" wrote:
    Thanks, Grant - I am beginning to slowly see the light!

    So, the .cocatalog is just a file which only contains information, not large image files. That information is just instructional and I can now see why Paul advised keeping it on my SSD and it's the same reason why I install all my Apps on my SSD - For speed and efficiency. I'll keep an eye on its size anyway.

    Yes, I roundtrip with nearly all of the images which I edit and decide to keep.

    At this beginners stage I am trying to avoid an organisational structure which becomes tedious to work with. I have to say that Aperture's folder/album structure is excellent and ideal for my purposes.


    Hmm.

    If you are using Referenced image files the catalog will only contain information and preview files. (In this way you can, to some extent, edit the images when access to the original is not available but obviously limited to editing the preview at whatever size you have chosen to create it rather than the full original file data.) This is the equivalent of how you have your Aperture catalog set up.

    If you have IMPORTED the files NOT Referenced all of the full size originals will also be in the catalogue. (See Paul's post earlier.) That would certainly cause the a rapid increase in the size of the catalog.

    My investigation of SSDs suggests that the larger versions are likely to have some performance benefits as well as capacity benefits if chosen wisely so you might want to have that thought at the back of your mind as things progress. I would guess that the 7D2 files may be a little larger than the 70D - if so that's another aspect that may affect aspects of performance eventually and can creep up on you without the effects being rampantly obvious.

    HTH.


    Grant


    ....All my image files are IMPORTED into a folder on my HD2 (not my internal SSD).

    The primary benefit of SSDs is their performance rather than capacity. Larger capacity SSDs get very expensive, or at least they used to be expensive - I haven't recently checked.

    My previous, and first DSLR, camera was a 70D and RAW file sizes are very similar. Great camera btw but the 7D2 has a lot of features more helpful for wildlife photography.
    0
  • SFA
    Robin,

    As I recall you are importing the images from the camera to the HD.

    You then import from the HD to the C1 catalog where you have the choice of actually copying them to the catalog or just using them referenced from where they are.

    If you copy them to the catalog the file will get large quickly. Referencing would, I expect, leave the catalog very much smaller. Based on the size of the Aperture catalog that you mentioned I would assume that had to be a Referenced implementation.

    The point about the SSDs was that the larger capacity versions tend also to offer significantly faster claimed read and write speeds. So yes, they are relatively expensive in outright terms but not in price per storage unit of measure terms AND you get nominally significantly faster performance.

    If you buy in the marketplace you can get a fast 1TB drive for less than £300. I appreciate that if you need to buy from Apple for any reason it's likely to be more costly.



    Grant
    0

Post is closed for comments.