Skip navigation
Currently Being Moderated

Face detection

Jan 9, 2012 11:32 PM

Tags: #lightroom #lightroom_4 #wanted #face_detection #wanted_features

What about face detection - this much wanted feature? It's been there for quite a while in PS Elements...

 
Replies 1 2 3 Previous Next
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 10, 2012 12:01 AM   in reply to TomIron

    Very good question!

    Especially for people who shoot on bigger events with lots of people this is an essential feature in my opinion.

    Currently you have to work around that - if you need it - with Picasa and Jeffreys great Plugin, but an implemented FR would really save a lot of time.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 10, 2012 12:37 AM   in reply to TomIron

    Face detection is not supported in Lr4 Beta. I have no idea if that will change in the final version.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 10, 2012 1:27 AM   in reply to TomIron

    In this day and age, I am simply amazed that people not only tolerate face detection—but request it.  Call me paranoid if you must—the idea of automated algorithms that sift through my catalogs, harvesting and cataloging biometric information about everyone in my photos is not something I want, need or will tolerate, frankly.

     

    Face detection—in its most benign usage—largely serves the people that make money off of it (i.e. social-network advertisers, data miners, etc.), not the consumers for whose benefit it is ostensibly provided.  I'm sure there are a few exceptions in which it can actually be substantially-helpful to a photographer's work, or to a person's legitimate enjoyment.  For every one of those, there are probably 20 people who've never really considered the potential privacy and safety risks of this "feature."

     

    Removing this feature altogether would suit many people just fine—and I think it would be the most socially-responsible move for Adobe to make.  If Adobe wants to strengthen its presence in the social-networking space—there's a lot of room for innovation and improvement within the publishing / syncing features in Lightroom.

     

    In either case, I'd like to encourage all users to avoid face-detection altogether—if not for their own privacy, then out of a sense of responsibility and consideration for the privacy of others.  It only takes one bad-actor... one stalker... one predator... one thug... one gangster... one kidnapper... to take the "neat-o" right out of face detection.

     

    Just my $.02...

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 10, 2012 2:33 AM   in reply to jasonwarth

    Sorry, but I do not agree! It is like forbidding all knifes, because someone has stabbed with one....

    It is a TOOL and as a user I have the RESPONSIBILITY to use it in the correct way. (Like don't publish photos with tagged names of the persons on it - there are filters for this).

     

    I have many cases where I need to tag my photos with the names of the persons on it: I am shooting people on many occasions over the year and must be able to provide all photos with a given person on it afterwards. Tagging all this photos is a major time consuming task and I would be happy to get some automatically help with this. So please Adobe, I am waiting for this feature!

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 10, 2012 2:46 AM   in reply to TomIron

    Completely agree, this feature is at least one version over due. Most consumer and professional software products have it already (Picasa, iPhoto, Aperture). It doesn't even have to be 100% spot on accurate, it just has to be accurate enough to save time. Face detection is absolutely essential for a photo managing software in 2012 (or even 2010).

     

    I don't agree at all with the negative comments. The face detection data would stay completely inside the LR catalog, which is a file on your hard drive. It's not like facebook where you cannot control who uses it and how. It is just a feature that increases productivity.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 10, 2012 3:13 AM   in reply to peter/w

    Can I just ask what would be the object of having face detection in Lr?

    Is this along the lines of face recognition, where the software actually

    recognises certain individuals and is capable of applying appropriate

    keywords?

     

    Just interested that's all 

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 10, 2012 3:31 AM   in reply to Harry Limey

    Exactly, the idea is that it will recognize the faces in your photos, allows you to assign names to them and then search and filter based on that information. For instance, if you are, say, a sports photographer, you could quickly filter for all images of a particular player in a particular game. Or if you shoot weddings, you can show the bride all the photos of her and her sister together if she asks you to.

     

    Most programs have separate metadata fields for the face data instead of using keywords because they not only store the name, but also to position and size of the face in the image, which theoretically allows you to search for things like "Close photos of Jim". There are also special metadata fields for the names of people that are defined in different standards, like "Person Shown" in the IPTC Extension category. iView Media Pro used to have their custom "People" field, which is also supported by a variety of applications. Microsoft has recently got some fields standardized that are dedicated to face detection data I believe, but I'm no expert on that.

     

    If you wanted to, you could of course add corresponding keywords semi-automatically (useful for instance if you are a news shooter), but keeping face information somewhat separate from keywords makes sense because if a person is only very small in the background, you probably don't want them listed in your keywords, but when you are looking for "That great image of Sarah at the beach that had Jim and Lucy barely visible in the background", being able to have that information in your database can be an advantage.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 10, 2012 8:42 AM   in reply to peter/w

    Thank you, that does sound like it would be a useful feature.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 10, 2012 8:46 AM   in reply to jasonwarth

    Noted. On the flip side, face detection makes images easier to share and more discoverable. If Adobe were to introduce the feature one would assume they can learn from Facebook's past mistakes and include proper security or "opt-in" controls.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 10, 2012 8:48 AM   in reply to TomIron

    Here's why I don't want face detecting in Lightroom.

     

    There's no standard for storing this data.  Picasa, Windows Live Photo Gallery, Elements and the rest all use different and incompatible methods of storing both the names and the regions.

     

    Until the standards guys get their acts together and get this figured out, it's more than useless, it's potentially harmful because you may lose all your hard work in getting this done if standards come about or if you switch applications.

     

    So, come on companies and standards folks, make a well-thought-out standard for storing people's names and their regions that everyone can use.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 10, 2012 9:07 AM   in reply to TomIron

    I vote for face detection. It would help me big since I shoot lots of events. At this point I use Picasa for face detection which is not so bad but I hoped Lightroom would do a better job.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 10, 2012 10:03 AM   in reply to Lee Jay

    Lee Jay wrote:

     

    Here's why I don't want face detecting in Lightroom.

     

    There's no standard for storing this data.  Picasa, Windows Live Photo Gallery, Elements and the rest all use different and incompatible methods of storing both the names and the regions.

     

    Until the standards guys get their acts together and get this figured out, it's more than useless, it's potentially harmful because you may lose all your hard work in getting this done if standards come about or if you switch applications.

     

    So, come on companies and standards folks, make a well-thought-out standard for storing people's names and their regions that everyone can use.

     

    While I hear what you are saying Lee, coming from a web background where we deal with people using out of date software like Windows XP with IE 6 I don't think Adobe can afford to sit back and let everyone else define what facial recognition should be.  And with Adobe's new release schedule where users need to lease the programs on a monthly/yearly basis or upgrade every version starting this year, based on what the Adobe VPs and staff are saying, if these changes are not in the initial release we should continue to push for them.  Adobe did state this licensing change was to "...add cutting-edge innovation on an on-going basis to keep our customers ahead of the changing technology and device landscape.".

     

    So my vote is definitely yes.  There's no reason not to have the software do this.  The requirements are high enough, the technology exists.  Why wait anymore?

     

    Personally speaking from a photography perspective I would say the following additions are useless to me:

     

    • Extended video support for organizing, viewing, and making adjustments and edits to video clips.
    • Easy video publishing lets you edit and share video clips on Facebook and Flickr®.

    As a PHOTOgraphy program, based off PHOTOshop, why do I care at all about enhancing VIDEO features?  Isn't that what FCP or Premiere should be doing for me?  Just because cameras can shoot video, doesn't mean all the programs have to be in one.  I have a camera on a phone, but I sure don't want to see Skype integrated into Lightroom.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Michael Hagmann
    2 posts
    Jan 10, 2012
    Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 10, 2012 2:06 PM   in reply to SnakEyez02

    I also vote for Face Detection. Because of many Portrait and old not Taged Fotos.

    thanks Mike

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 10, 2012 2:13 PM   in reply to SnakEyez02

    SnakEyez02 wrote:

    While I hear what you are saying Lee, coming from a web background where we deal with people using out of date software like Windows XP with IE 6 I don't think Adobe can afford to sit back and let everyone else define what facial recognition should be.

     

    I agree - I think Adobe should participate, and even push or lead this.

     

    And video handling was a very strong request of mine, since I often incorporate short video clips with my still images.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 10, 2012 4:27 PM   in reply to Lee Jay

    Hi Lee,

    No there are standard for face tagging, Adobe , microsoft,... wrote them

    but no one as used them yet. It is about time to start.

     

    John R. Ellis

     

    3

     

     

    John R. Ellis 8 months ago

     

    The Metadata Working Group, of which Adobe and Microsoft are members, has already defined a standard method for representing regions and metadata associated with those regions. In particular, keywords, map locations, and persons (as already defined by the standards) can be associated with regions. This all gets stored in XMP metadata, of course.

     

    See "Guidelines for Handling Image Metadata, Version 2", section 5.9 for more details.

     

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 10, 2012 4:47 PM   in reply to Babar_e

    Babar_e wrote:

     

    Hi Lee,

    No there are standard for face tagging, Adobe , microsoft,... wrote them

    but no one as used them yet. It is about time to start.

     

    John R. Ellis

     

    3

     

     

    John R. Ellis 8 months ago

     

    The Metadata Working Group, of which Adobe and Microsoft are members, has already defined a standard method for representing regions and metadata associated with those regions. In particular, keywords, map locations, and persons (as already defined by the standards) can be associated with regions. This all gets stored in XMP metadata, of course.

     

    See "Guidelines for Handling Image Metadata, Version 2", section 5.9 for more details.

     

     

    It's a guideline, not a standard, and people haven't universally (or even partially) adopted it.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Billy Sheahan
    27 posts
    Nov 3, 2009
    Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 10, 2012 4:54 PM   in reply to SnakEyez02

    Many of us have photography projects where we shoot both stills and motion with our DSLR cameras. More common as we move forward. It's convenient to have *everything* from a shoot organized in Lightroom. Even without the enhanced video features of LR 4, it's easy for me to quickly see if, in any given shoot, there is motion footage along with my stills. It's not for everyone, but a lot of us do use it.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 10, 2012 6:27 PM   in reply to TomIron

    Just one more voice . Adobe please add face recognition. The idea of Lightroom is to be able to catalog and find images fast. It is great at it but face recognition is the last missing bit. You just added geo tagging so we can find images based on location. Why would it be any less important to find images based on people in them. The problem with facial recognition is not really the technology - as others have said - picasa and Elements do it. It is good usability. Picasa mixes its user interaction paradigms so much that it takes much of the fun out of the process. It is also not great at working with very large libraries and large numbers of people. If anyone can solve the usability problem it is the Lightroom team. You have nailed down the usability on so many other complex problems. Show us you can do it with this one. Please ... pretty please ... with a cherry on top (I hope you like cherries)

     

    (BTW your spell check for posting comments should really pick up Lightroom as a correctly spelled word)

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 10, 2012 7:10 PM   in reply to TomIron

    +1 on adding face recognition.   Very disappointed when it wasn't listed as a feature.   This is critical for metadata management.  It should have been in version 3 or a point release.  I would hate to wait another 18-24 months for this.  Video, maps, and overall image quality is nice. 

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 10, 2012 8:27 PM   in reply to Lee Jay

    Lee Jay wrote:

    So, come on companies and standards folks, make a well-thought-out standard for storing people's names and their regions that everyone can use.

    This is precisely what the Metadata Working Group has done. Their charter:

     

    The Metadata Working Group (MWG) is a consortium of leading companies in the digital media industry, focused on the following goals:

    • Preservation and seamless interoperability of digital image metadata
    • Interoperability and availability to all applications, devices, and services

    The MWG publishes technical specifications that describe how to effectively store metadata into digital media files. These royalty-free specifications are made available to software developers, manufacturers and service providers so that they may create products that use metadata in a consistent way, and that allow consumers to better describe, organize and find their media. Where possible, these specifications rely on existing standards, and aim to create a unified and cohesive approach to applying these standards.

     

    The members of the consortium are Adobe, Apple, Canon, Microsoft, Nokia, and Sony. Their Guidelines for Hanlding Image Metadata (2010) is in actuality a precise technical specification and called such within the document and throughout their Web site. They adopt the language of standards specifications:

    This document attempts to conform to the keyword usage practices defined in RFC 2119. This RFC defines the use and strength of the capitalized terms MUST, MUST NOT, SHOULD, SHOULD NOT and MAY. All sections and appendixes, except the first chapter "Introduction", are normative, unless they are explicitly indicated to be informative. These imperatives are used to highlight those requirements that are required to insure interoperability and drive compatibility.

     

     

    They even provide "Test Files for Verification":

     

    In order to ensure consistent behavior with regards to the Guidelines for Handling Image Metadata specification, the Metadata Working Group provides a set of tools and test files that assist in the verification that the specification is implemented correctly by a product.

     

    It typically takes several years at a minimum for an industry standard to be drafted, revised, and deployed widely. Lightroom 3.4 has already implemented large parts of the specification. It would be interesting to know how various product teams view the "regions" part of the standard and what their long-term plans for it might be. (But I'm not holding my breath...)

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 11, 2012 1:00 AM   in reply to TomIron

    I would love to see face recognition added to LR4.

    I hate having to use Picasa as a work around.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 11, 2012 4:09 AM   in reply to Lee Jay

    There is equal confusion (absence and profusion of standards) over star ratings and coloured labels, stacks, flags etc etc. Shall we remove them from Lightroom? Of course not, that would be ludcrous.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 11, 2012 2:56 AM   in reply to TomIron

    I'm sure we won't see this feature, but I certainly would like it. I have take thousands of images at events, and to be able to tag people with either their name or competition number more automatically would be wonderful - though it also has the potential to create more work if it doesn't work as well as we all think it should do!

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 11, 2012 3:05 AM   in reply to Lee Jay

    Lee Jay wrote:

     

    It's a guideline, not a standard, and people haven't universally (or even partially) adopted it.

     

     

    blah - even W3C "standards" are recommendations.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 11, 2012 3:07 AM   in reply to AHeathcote

    AHeathcote wrote:

     

    I would love to see face recognition added to LR4.

    I hate having to use Picasa as a work around.

    How do you transfer the information from Picasa to Lightroom? I could not find a proper way do do this.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 11, 2012 3:10 AM   in reply to TomIron

    I am shooting lots of social events, and face recognition is THE feature I need. Particular use case is, that I am often asked: do you have good photos of person xyz. Then it takes me hours to go through the images of 10 years and find the desired ones. I was desperately hoping that the next LR-Version has this feature. So please please add it now.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 11, 2012 3:31 AM   in reply to TomIron

    I really don't get why Adobe didn't include this. IT IS ESSENTIAL! Here, I'm going to say it: Every Mac-User who is thinking about which product to use for their photo library: buy Aperture!

    As for us poor losers who are stuck on a PC, or have invested thousands of hours into our catalogue, we just have to swallow our frustration and continue with stupid workaround that probably will become obsolete once Adobe - in a fancyful fit - decides to actually implement the cataloguing features needed in this millennium.

     

    Sorry for the rant, but why? Adobe, why? What is your reason for continuing to ignore this major request? For every single feature (except the video stuff, but hey, I don't see the forum go "this is what we needed") there were easy workarounds. But cataloguing in Lightroom sucks. There is virtually no intelligent use of meta-data to organise your pictures. Now we finally have geo-coding, which I've seen implemented for the first time in 2004. Facerecognition and tagging has been around since 2006, but has been usefully implemented by the Other software in 2009. I've been sad that it didn't make it into LR3, but the timespan to implement it was too short to react to the concurrence. But now we have to wait for (at least) another major release, and this makes me really angry. In 2014, even your camera will do face-tagging, but it will be anyone's guess whether the principal software solution on the market will support it.

     

    I don't care how buggy or basic your implementation of this feature is, Adobe, but please flush it into the second beta, so that we finally know how you intend to store the meta-data, because no matter what people are writing on this thread ("please wait until we have a standard"), YOU are the software company that can introduce the standard. And I'm willing to bet that it doesn't take weeks for tools to crop up that migrate face regions between iPhoto, Picasa, Facebook (yeah, some of us use it responsibly), and the like.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 11, 2012 5:06 AM   in reply to bwl21
     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 11, 2012 5:11 AM   in reply to grovel

    You do not need to wait until 2014 for face detection in camera.

    According to Amateur Photographer the new Ixus 500HS and 125HS will have this feature as standard. See http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/news/canon_ixus_duo_check_your_su bjects_id_news_311040.html?aff=rss

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 11, 2012 9:08 AM   in reply to TomIron

    Isn't it quite possible that a FR feature would use a lot of resources on a program that already is somewhat of a resource hog?  I would not use it and I would disable it. I don't use it in my PS Elements either.

     

    I understand it can be useful for many users, and I respect those with privacy concerns too. Back in 1990 - the biggest growing concern was public privacy.  20 yrs later its astounding what personal info we hand over on the internet.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 11, 2012 9:19 AM   in reply to SnakEyez02
     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 11, 2012 10:55 AM   in reply to TomIron

    Hi all,

     

    also not being a professional, I take enough pics that I really want that face recognition feature! Technically there cannot be arguments against it as Adobe itself uses it in PSE. So why is it not in LR? I can only think of Adobe wanting to draw a line between pros and amateurs. But: Should the "pro" version lack features the "small, simple amateur version" does have? As somebody else already said: It is 2012, so come on and include it! The ones who said they are afraid of: Ok, I can accept this, then just do not use it.

     

    best

     

    Michael

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 11, 2012 12:06 PM   in reply to jasonwarth

    From a privacy perspective, were you imaging that Adobe was going to be sharing the metadata of your library?  Other than that, I don't understand your concern.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 11, 2012 12:20 PM   in reply to TomIron

    I also vote for face recognition. I use keywords for the persons shown in a picture. For me this is absolutely essential to find pictures. I was almost sure that Adobe would implement it.

    For me privacy is not a concern as the data is kept in my local folder. On export I need to think already in LR3 what metadata to export.

    "Waiting for a standard" is also not relevant in my opinion. Simply store the information as a keyword.

     

    I am really disappointed about this. Especially as nearly all other picture databases offer this useful feature.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 11, 2012 1:18 PM   in reply to RalphCropped

    Ralph, full agreement. Dissappointment on my side, too. So, Adobe, your chance to make us happy is a revised beta ;-)

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 11, 2012 2:48 PM   in reply to TomIron

    It is a very important feature.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 11, 2012 4:55 PM   in reply to TomIron

    Facial recognition should definitely be included in LR 4. I am disapointed that it is not in the beta. This is a feature that is already included in (the now very affordable) Aperture and even iPhoto. Now facebook as well as google are doing facial recognition on uploaded photos. LR really needs to catch up. I personally hate the time I have to take tagging people in my LR catalog. I understand that facial recognition algorithms are still not great so a good intuitive interface to check and correct the results is essential. This is something that Aperture is sorely lacking. I am currently still sporting LR2 and trying to figure out whether I should upgrade my LR or move to Aperture. If LR is not leading on features I think I will find it difficult to pay its premium price compared to (affordable) Aperture.

     
    |
    Mark as:
1 2 3 Previous Next
Actions

More Like This

  • Retrieving data ...

Bookmarked By (2)

Answers + Points = Status

  • 10 points awarded for Correct Answers
  • 5 points awarded for Helpful Answers
  • 10,000+ points
  • 1,001-10,000 points
  • 501-1,000 points
  • 5-500 points