Skip navigation

Face detection

Jan 9, 2012 11:32 PM

Tags: #lightroom #lightroom_4 #wanted #face_detection #wanted_features
  Latest reply: HawooDiablo, Mar 2, 2012 9:29 AM
Replies 1 2 3 Previous Next
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 21, 2012 7:39 AM   in reply to TomIron

    a few more quick thoughts:

     

    Firstly, Adobe, if you want to implement face recognition quickly then I'd suggest forgetting about region tagging for now. All I care about is that each image includes meta data which describes who's in the photo.  I don't need metadata which describes *where* each individual is within the frame.

     

    Secondly, to anyone who's worried about privacy but still wants to use face recognition: a simple solution is just to use obfuscated or code names.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 21, 2012 7:46 AM   in reply to dan_aka_jack

    I fully agree with this!

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 21, 2012 11:47 AM   in reply to bwl21

    I disagree totally,

    that is the all point of face tagging, otherwise when exporting photos you loose everything. That is exactly why I do not use PSE10 or Picasa. Everything is locked in the software.

    More over the region tagging process is the easiest thing to integrate. Wouldn't take more than a few hours ( and its generous - I would say minutes) to implement it - it is just a problem of writting the region data in the xmp. Do not forget that the region is already computed, it is part of the process to recognise the faces.

    So your request sounds like you are asking someone to do 99.9% of a job and throw to the rubbish 40% of the job that won't work because of those 0.1% not done.

    regards

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • LuxMirabilis
    43 posts
    Jun 8, 2010
    Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 21, 2012 12:04 PM   in reply to TomIron

    Lr is for me a professional photo editing program. Let's keep it focused on what it does and leave the doodads to some other casual app.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 21, 2012 12:08 PM   in reply to LuxMirabilis

    1- Many professional request for it as well, easy to check on this forum. Among them many are wedding photographers

    2- according to a recent survey on Lightroom queen blog more than 50 percent of the users are not professionals.

     

    regards

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • LuxMirabilis
    43 posts
    Jun 8, 2010
    Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 21, 2012 12:15 PM   in reply to Babar_e

    Babar_e wrote:

     

    1- Many professional request for it as well, easy to check on this forum. Among them many are wedding photographers

    2- according to a recent survey on Lightroom queen blog more than 50 percent of the users are not professionals.

     

    regards

     

    By 'professional' I mean professional-grade. Featuritis is usually the killing disease of great tools. Wedding professionals can already use metadata to assign people to photos. I fail to see how face-detection is so important in wedding photography, unless they sell the photos along with Lr for the feature to be of use for the end-user (customer).

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 21, 2012 5:37 PM   in reply to LuxMirabilis

    Here is an example of face detection being very important: Client asks a wedding photographer who shot 6000 images at a wedding: "I want a print of a picture of Uncle Jim. Can you show me all the images you have of him? Oh, and is there one of him and my niece together?"

     

    Using metadata currently isn't an alternative since 1) it all needs to be entered manually, which is extremely time consuming, not to mention tedious and in light of the fact that automated technology is available, unnecessary 2) it is kind of strange if you don't know the names of the people (I can imagine it being a bit embarassing if you have to name your people keywords "that bald guy in the red sweater" and you then showing your client the images inside LR or even accidentally exporting the keyword to a file that gets delivered) and 3) the data should theoretically go into the "Person Shown" field, which Lightroom only displays and stores, but there is no built-in way to search for data inside it, so features like keywords or collections would have to be abused, thus the solution would not really be future proof. There is also a bug in Adobe Bridge CS5 that causes the IPTC extension fields not to show up in the metadata panel, which could be a workflow issue.

     

    The point is that automated face tagging saves an incredible amount of time for anyone who needs to be able or occasionally want to search their images by the people in them often, be it professionals or hobbyists.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 22, 2012 12:10 AM   in reply to peter/w

    p_werner wrote:

    "the data should theoretically go into the "Person Shown" field, which Lightroom only displays and stores, but there is no built-in way to search for data inside it,"

    I am not sure I am reading your remarks correctly here, but Lightroom will search for any text in the metadata fields.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 22, 2012 12:40 AM   in reply to Harry Limey

    I still can't believe people are complaining that this is an unprofessional gadget. It's one more way to sort and present data, it's a highly useful feature. It's not just "a professional photo editing program", that's Photoshop+Camera Raw. It's a tool to organise a mass of data into easily searchable bits.

    As a press photographer for a small newspaper, I do want, and do need to organise my pictures by who's on it. And no, simply tagging them is not enough. As a result, I currently (also) keep all my pictures in Picasa, whose face tagging is excellent, and extremely useful. It's just a nightmare to backup and you never know when you lose your data. Which is why I want it in Lightroom.

    Lightroom is really not at the forefront when it comes to organising pictures, I would want to see this changed.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 22, 2012 2:02 AM   in reply to Harry Limey

    Harry Limey wrote:

     

    I am not sure I am reading your remarks correctly here, but Lightroom will search for any text in the metadata fields.

    Sorry, I should have been more clear. Without plugins, Lightroom will in fact search/filter/smart collection those fields, but only as part of the "Any searchable Text/Metadata" option. So if you want to search for, say, "Amber" inside Person Shown, you'll not only find pictures of that person, but also completely unrelated pictures that have a similar keyword applied (which will bring up images of Amber's wedding, images of jewellery, anything with amber color etc.) or as a filename (img1234_toned_amber_002a.tif). The field is also not supported in the metadata brush, and the way auto completion works for the field is pretty much useless and counter productive and makes it even more inefficient to use.

     

    But the point is, it requires clumsy manual entry of all the metadata and that is extremely time consuming compared to a partly automated solution. For people like press photographers, making people tagging more efficient can make a major difference in terms of how quickly they are able to deliver their images and thus how likely their pictures are to run.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 22, 2012 11:22 AM   in reply to TomIron

    I just logged into this forum as I heard about the lightroom beta.

     

    The reason I logged in was to see if lightroom was supporting face recognition yet. It's the only thing that would really make me upgrade :-)

     

    I have thousands of photos of the family, and recently I have been sorting them in iPhoto because of face recognition. Ideally I want to put them into Lightroom with my other thousands of photos but the face recognition feature really helps me.

     

    iPhoto isn't even that good - I'd like to say - show me Tom & Phil, for example - rather than just by a single individual

     

    Come on Adobe, everyone else is doing this (even you are in Elements, I believe!)

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 22, 2012 4:52 PM   in reply to LuxMirabilis

    As said by other, Lightroom is not only a raw developping tool (which only require camera raw) but is also a DAM, and as such is starting to lag quite a bit over its competitor. One professional grade DAM feature would be to have facial recognition.

    It does not need to be 100% accurate, it just need to make our workflow faster.

    Regards

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 22, 2012 5:10 PM   in reply to peter/w

    Just a note about "Person shown" field.

    This field is not the best creation of IPTC, as it actually does not allow to store more than one name, except if you decide to do it by using comma or semi-column.

    This is not very convenient for searching it, organizing it, editing it.

    I personnally prefer to use keyword, because you can add as many keyword field to an image as you want. not the case with Person shown.

    Also this can be a problem for storing face data directly in a photo.

    Indeed a region can refer to any XMP data, but if it refers to person shown, there will be only one field, and in that field you can have several faces. This means that several region can refer to the same field. Which means that using that field to retrieve a person will not be convenient.

    The best behavior would just be to copy the region description (person in region) in that field.

    I personnally would like regions to refer to keyword so that a keyword refers to a unique region. That way I can use keyword to display regions in photos.

     

    note that the current region standard only allow regions to describe pets, faces, focus point and barcode. It would be great to extend it to describe anything.... but that is not the subject here

    Regards

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 24, 2012 2:31 PM   in reply to TomIron

    Put me down as a YES on facial recognition.  However, I am looking for a simple solution and not concerned about what EXIF or IPTC field should be used and what should pe placed in there.  Let's face it (no pun intended), those who say they need it are probably using keywords now to idendify the person which may or may not travel with the photo, but if they do privacy concerns arise from that as well.  I would just like a simple tool that can some simple metadata tag of individuals in each photo to use in selection, collections etc. the same as many are doing with keywords now.  I could enter a name of the person or assign a number if concerned about privacy

     

    There was a comment earlier that there was no standard for face recognition data which I think is a good thing.  I want functionality to help me tag people in photos in LR but to have no use outside of my catalog even if attached to a photo transferred elsewhere,  It will be very scary when all recognition software hashes to a standard value that is attached to a photo.  No doubt Google would index every photo it knows about and anyone can bring up virtually every picture taken of a person.  I have little doubt this will happen anyway, and sooner rather than later, but I don't want to help the progress in any way.  Its only a matter of time until Google creates an index of every face on the web.  There will be a particular hash value that links every picture of me ever posted anywhere but they would not know my identity.  That is until some well meaning person tags me in a picture in Facebook and in a few milliseconds the cat is out of the bag and there's no putting it back in.

     

    It is exactly the same principal as someone who has ever uses a fingerprint reader for authecation whether to login to your own PC to entering a NORAD site.  The system does not store fingerprints but rather uses the finferprint scanned to creata a hash value to compare to a stored hash created when you were entered into the system.  Even though it is not possible to turn the hash back into the fingerprint, it still would be outrageous to publish the hash values created on every scan to the web where they could be collected and indexed.  FR software allows the same thing except nobody has to have you scan your fingerprint.  Instead you just have to walk into a 7-Eleven, attend a sporting event, walk down the street in many cities or post a picture on Facebook (or a classmate posting a class reunion photo you were in).  I have huge privacy concerns about facial recgnition but also realize that ship has sailed and there is no stopping it.  A decision to not put any FR tools into LR does not even represent a drop in the ocean in this case.

     

    In summary, I would really like FR in LR to help me index my photos but not to enable me to broadcast the idendity information to everyone who has access to the photo.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 25, 2012 2:17 AM   in reply to Ricky W1

    Please, stop with those privacy nightmares -- you've all seen too many movies and trash cops series. No definitive 'HASH' of a person's face can be created.

    This isn't going to happen, not in the foreseeable future. A face, unlike a finger print, has no computer traceable identification points that make it unique. Throw enough faces at a computer system and it will not be able to identify them - period. Face recognition works on a limited user set, but not on the billions of people out there. Computers are unable to read an old book, yet you think that it can accomplish something as difficult as this. Anybody who claims the opposite has no clue of the matter. Yes, TV shows and websites and bad newspapers and magazines will claim it is possible, but this is only part of the media scare. What scares, sells! But it isn't possible. If it becomes possible, it will require heavy state-funded hq data-collection, not a combination of freely available pictures on the web (PS. voting liberal will increase the chances this isn't going to happen).

     

    So, to clarifiy the privacy concerns with face recognition:

    1. what will NOT be an issue: that a computer will be able to identify a random person on the street because tagged pictures are on the net.
    2. what will be an issue: that a person who knows the full name of another person can find her/his picture more easily on the internet (this will be facilitated by geolocation)
    3. what will be an issue: that a person who has a facetagged picture of a person / a group of persons can identify the person on the picture by name

    Note that 2. is already an issue because this data can be stored in other IPTC/EXIF fields. A proper implementation of face recognition will make it easier to implement privacy controls for export that remove this kind of data than it currently is (no such controls exist).

    Note that 3. requires the active help of a person who already knows the people in the picture. Again, a proper implementation will remove this information before export. Current solutions like tags or descriptions will not remove the information except when the user actively removes it.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 25, 2012 2:56 AM   in reply to grovel

    I think it would be greatly benefical to have facial recognition in LR4.  I am surpised that it doesnt have it already seeing Elements has had it for several releases.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 25, 2012 7:59 PM   in reply to grovel

    With all due respect to Grovel and others, I repeat my concerns on the inevitability that face recognition will hugely erode our privacy sooner rather than later.

     

    Google freely admits it has developed facial recognition for its Google Googles smartphone app.  For those not familiar,  Googles allows smartphone users to point their camera at a building, landmark or product and using pattern recognition responds with information, location etc of the subject.  The facial recognition addition allowed pointing at someone on the street and retrieving information about the person based on being tagged in photos posted in social media.  Google decided not to roll out the produce citing privacy concerns probably in no small part affected by the backlash against Facebook's facial recognition and threats of regulatory intervention.

     

    Below are a couple quotes, not by fear mongers or bad TV shows, by the former Google CEO stating the technology exists and the only thing keeping it from being in my Android phone right now is Google realizing the huge privacy implications.    

     

    Google has facial recognition capabilities from its Google Goggles visual search product, but has refrained from using the technology given the sensitivity around user privacy.

    Former Google CEO and current executive chairman Eric Schmidt has warned that Google would not apply facial recognition technology because of the privacy concerns. The Google spokesperson hammered home this sentiment:

    "We've said that we won't add face recognition to our apps or product features unless we have strong privacy protections in place, and that's still the case."

     

    Google has made it clear it will not enter the facial recognition search system, despite rival Facebook launching a face recognition technology that helps users tag photos. According to Google Chairman Eric Schmidt, the surprising accuracy of facial recognition software is matter of concern in terms of privacy rights. Google took this stance after developing a facial recognition app for smartphones. “People could use this stuff in a very, very bad way as well as in a good way,” Schmidt had said.

     

     

    Last year Google completed an multi-million dollar acquisition of PittPats, a facial recognition software company.  What do you suppose they wanted them for? Just search the web for Googles Face Recognition to get more info on the state of the technology.

     

    I realize this off topic on whether LR4 should have FR except perhaps the issues with Googles and Facebook may be causing Adobe to drag its feet on this until the dust settles.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 26, 2012 1:11 AM   in reply to Ricky W1

    These refer to use of face recognition by big companies that would run that technology on a dataset of millions of peoples' photos, allowing them (or others) to track people. However, there is absolutely no such harm in helping you organzie your own photos offline. It's not like you show it a random photo of a random stranger and it tells you a name, facebook profile or anything, the way it works is it shows you all your images that have a particular person in it. This is exactly like manually adding keywords with the person's name, only that the computer helps you do it.

     

    By the way, if you really want to take Google as an example, they do indeed offer face recognition in their photo management software Picasa (which runs offline on your computer) for precisely that reason.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 4, 2012 10:59 AM   in reply to TomIron

    I am also real disappointed that Lightroom B4 does not add facial recognition. For those of you that don't want it, I'll just say fine, then don't use it. One person's "bloatware" is another's critical feature. I respect people's privacy concerns but that cat is out of the bag and I don't feel a LR inclusion or not of facial recognition would make any significant difference to larger privacy concerns, as long as this tagging is not passed along in exports by default. Like many LR users, I'm not a professional but have tens of thousands of family photos dating back to my father's in the 1940's, and add hundreds - sometimes thousands - of new photos every month.

     

    I really like the way FR is implemented in Windows Live Photo Gallery. (I have not tried it in other software.) The recognition does not have to be perfect for the tool to be extremely useful to many of us, as long as there are good methods for verifying suggestions made by the software before committing to them.

     

    Having been burned by this in the past, my biggest concern with any photo management system is that any sort of metadata is handled in as standardized a way as possible so that all my hard work can still be easily read 10+ years into the future by whatever software I'm using then. I do not yet trust any of the facial recognition implementations I've seen (Photo Gallery, Picassa, ...) to remain readable by mixed software implementations into the future, so get this right Adobe. :-) Oh, and thanks for the mapping!

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 5, 2012 3:25 PM   in reply to TomIron

    As a happy and loyal Lightroom customer since the beginning, it saddens me that Aperture has caught up in most aspects, and pulled ahead in others.  I really believe that facial recognition would save a LOT of time for many of us, despite its imperfections.  If LR wants to continue to be considered "the" premier "full-service" photography application, it needs to not only shine in image enhancement features, but also needs to continue to be innovative in workflow, DAM and other features. These other areas are where the competition will attempt to set themselves apart from LR.

     

    Adobe: Please include some form of facial recognition in LR4.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 21, 2012 12:58 PM   in reply to Babar_e

    I cast my vote for adding face detection and recognition. I recently purchased LR3 at a big discount probably because LR4 is coming out. Personally I don't see me paying for an upgrade to LR4 if it doesn't have face detection and recognition. I have Picasa which is free and does a pretty good job of face recognition and keeps adding features. I have PS CS5.5 for editing and use LR mostly for cataloging. Without face detection and recognition there is no compelling reason for me to upgrade.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 2, 2012 9:29 AM   in reply to GaryS1969

    GaryS1969 wrote:

     

    I cast my vote for adding face detection and recognition. I recently purchased LR3 at a big discount probably because LR4 is coming out. Personally I don't see me paying for an upgrade to LR4 if it doesn't have face detection and recognition. I have Picasa which is free and does a pretty good job of face recognition and keeps adding features. I have PS CS5.5 for editing and use LR mostly for cataloging. Without face detection and recognition there is no compelling reason for me to upgrade.

    I agree.

     
    |
    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