How and what is more convenient to organize a photo library?

Question

macOS

There are 100 GB of photos 95% sorted and arranged in folders. I decided today to import them into aperture or iPhoto. First, I threw the entire folder into iPhoto. MacBookPro mid2012 really started to freeze. Canceled. Removed the copy option in the advanced tab. All the same, I didn’t like that the folders and the whole structure were not created, but only a bunch of photos are all nearby.
Moved to aperture. I found the option "import folders as projects" and selected "store files in their current location". After two hours of waiting, everything was ready. I noticed that 5 GB was added to the home folder, although nothing was copied. I tried to move a couple of photos with the finder to another folder and saw that aperture did not change places! Isn't there an update library option or something to revise where the originals were and move them to the projects (subfolders) where they are now?
I tried the other way around, moving a photo from one project / folder to another in the aperture itself. Nothing has changed in finder.
As I understand it, the program makes its own library and everything that you change places changes in this library but not on the hdd from where the import was made ... I noticed that there are relocate / consolidate masters options. But it is not convenient, each time through this option to choose what and where to move.
How will I backup my collection if it has not physically changed. Through "export"? 100 GB?
So far, I see only one way out, to complete the organization of folders and photos in them through the finder. Then import into aperture and then make changes to the photo. The truth is not sure about where all the same these changes will be made.

Answer 1

Pictures should have an Aperture Library file with versions, metadata, projects, and all sorts of caches. If raw's are somewhere else, then it should be small and can be safely backed up.
If it's large, then Show Package Contents on it and see what's in the Masters folder.

Answer 2

somehow dumb, is it really possible to store all the changes and versions of the photo only in masters? If so, since I understand, can I keep a copy of my collection on an external hdd, and only backup masters?

Answer 3

Something with the Aperture you made up your mind.
If you do not move (or copy) the originals to the library, but leave them where they are, then when the library structure changes, it will not move anything, of course. If you move the originals to the library, then, accordingly, they will be organized there.
But I don’t really understand how this all interferes with the backup.
You can use Lightroom, it works with the folder structure on disk the way you want.

Answer 4

Here I say, you are confusing something. Again. If all the photos in the aperture are _with originals_, then move them in the library as you like (by projects, albums), but the originals are already stored physically on the disk in the aperture folder structure and you do not control this.
If the _originals_ are not put into the aperture, then yes, she does not know how to manipulate them on the disk, lightroom can do it.

Answer 5

After thinking for a long time, I finally settled on Aperture, after I discovered that when emptying its trash, you can check the “Move referenced files to system trash” box. Which removes the Masters originals as well. This way I can reorganize my photos.