Skip navigation
This discussion is locked
Currently Being Moderated

i am the only one who wants face recognition in LR ?

Aug 16, 2012 3:45 AM

first... i know where to request features and that this is not the right place.

the feature was requested a long time ago in this forum and also at the adobe feature suggestion website.

 

i really hoped that with LR 4 we will see face recognition.
and i think it´s a feature many LR user would love to see in lightroom... right?

 

i have tested a few programs and their face recognition a while ago.

picasa was a bit buggy but the actual face recognition and tagging capability is good. IDImager face recognition was not that accurate.
other apps i have tested... well not worth to mention.


i still found picase and idimage usefull and while face recognition was not perfect .... it was a great help.

 

please support this feature request if you like by voting here:

 

http://feedback.photoshop.com/photoshop_family/topics/face_recognition _in_lightroom

 

THX!

 
Replies
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Aug 16, 2012 3:51 AM   in reply to -Agfaclack-

    No, you're probably not alone - but just for balance, let me be the first to say that I literally could not care less if Lr ever gets face recognition: if it comes, let it be after ever single other thing that ever needs to be done to Lr is delivered, bedded down, fine tuned and the subject of universal acclaim..!

     

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Aug 16, 2012 3:59 AM   in reply to -Agfaclack-

    It´s a must have.

     

    It´s 2012 and even my Mobile Phone Applications have Face Recognition.

     

    Lightroom is trailing behind some other Applications in DAM features lately.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Aug 16, 2012 4:40 AM   in reply to Keith_Reeder

    I agree with Keith. I hope LR continues to develop other features.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Aug 16, 2012 4:57 AM   in reply to -Agfaclack-

    If LR puts resources into face recognition, then it is putting less recources into other areas of development. Sounds like Keith and me (and maybe others) don't want fewer resources put into these other areas of development.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Christophe CUSSAT BLANC
    24 posts
    Aug 29, 2006
    Currently Being Moderated
    Aug 16, 2012 5:43 AM   in reply to -Agfaclack-

    I don't see how it can be usefull for my workflow to have face recognition. I know who is in my studio in front of my lens. When I'm outside, I write the people's name in a notebook. Often, I never meet them again. So, if face recognition should be a fun gadget for a family software, in a pro one like LR, I'm pretty sure it's useless.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Christophe CUSSAT BLANC
    24 posts
    Aug 29, 2006
    Currently Being Moderated
    Aug 16, 2012 6:00 AM   in reply to -Agfaclack-

    It's not because the software is used by a lot of non pro photographers that the software is not a pro software (like photoshop).

     

    The real question is : how much time do you spend to add the people's name on your photos with selection and paint tool ? Compare with the time you spend when you have to verify the results of face recognition. I've done the comparison with iPhoto and my conclusion is that I've added the keywords faster with LR than with iPhoto.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Aug 18, 2012 5:29 AM   in reply to -Agfaclack-

    I would not expect facial recognition to be useful to pros who shoot portraits, to to anyone who exclusively shoots landscapes.  However, I *would* expect it to be useful to to anyone, pro or otherwise who shoots live activities - weddings, parties, possibly sports, etc.  I shoot youth activities at a high school, and would love to have the sort of facial recognition that Picasa offers.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Oct 2, 2012 5:49 AM   in reply to -Agfaclack-

    This seems to be a heated topic wherever it's brought up.  Let me start by saying that I work in the software industry and totally understand the tradeoffs you have to make sometimes.  You don't have infinite resources...ever.  And I understand the sensitivity in this case because for folks who have used LR for a long time and are dependent on it to get their job done, they clearly want investment in features that they know they will use.  If you have used Lightroom for a while and have an established workflow, I can totally understand why face recognition would be useless.  And if it's useless, it's logical that you'd want investment in something that was...well...useful.

     

    I, however, agree with the poster and believe that facial recognition is a pretty important feature for Lightroom. 

     

    I'd like to offer two perspectives. 

     

    The first is my personal perspective.  I would consider myself a casual user.  I'm a family guy.  I've got about 65k photos in my collection and they are all friends/family.  My organization scheme has been through 3-4 computers and multiple backup systems over the years.  It has been through a variety of different tools from some homegrown things to native Windows tools to Picasa.  Bottom line, I have a real mess.  Many duplicates due to funny sync strategies but being paranoid about losing photos.  Multiple folders because my wife is not so computer savvy and often makes multiple copies.  Very little organization.  We have a real mess.  I've known it for a while and have spent several months trying to find the right solution.  Picasa didn't scale for us.  IDImager was promising but they are going through some regrowth as they try to adapt to the Mac user community where it was only previously for Windows.  Lightroom was the only product I found that could come close to meeting all of my needs.  So now I have it in place.  I have all of my pictures imported into the catalog.  But I need to start tagging/organizing.  I want facial recognition to get me started...having to go through 65,000 and manually type keywords for each one is unreasonable.  For new photos I import I can do it piecemeal...no problem, and no facial regonition required.  Until I can get the existing photos into a searchable/maintainable state, however, I can't take full advantage of Lightroom.  While it may not be forever useful, it's crticial to new users getting started with the product.

     

    The second is an industry perspective.  Adobe has clearly branded itself as the leader in image editing technology.  Heck, "photoshop" is now used as a verb in the average household for people who have never even used the product!  That's awesome marketing.  That's awesome brand presence.  You don't get to be a leader by saying yes to everything.  You have to selectively say no.  But in cases where you are falling behind from a technology perspective and leaving an obvious hole in your portfolio (especially while potential competition is buying up companies/IP to compete).

     

    In my opinion, the "personal DAM" market is underserved today.  The digital age is causing even casual users to outgrow products like Picasa.  People are looking for something new.  While Lightroom is probably overkill for most of them (me included), it's one of the few products on the market that has a large support community and actually does have enough features to support all of the needs of the home.  While more expensive than most of the other home products, it's not out of reach even for the casual user.  Adobe has the potential to grow market share (actually, to even grow the market) if they target those needs and improve their "on ramp" for new users.  Besides face recognition, this is probably 80%+ a marketing issue and not one requiring product features.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Oct 2, 2012 7:38 AM   in reply to adobeaggie

    adobeaggie wrote:

     

    ...having to go through 65,000 and manually type keywords for each one is unreasonable.

     

    You're going to have to do it anyway.  Faces are only one thing to be tagged.  How about places, objects, animals, events, and so on.

     

    This is why I've never started keywording.  With over 200,000 images, I'd have to take a year off work to catch up.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Oct 2, 2012 9:02 AM   in reply to adobeaggie

    Adobeaggie, as you work in the SW industry (as did I) I’d like to offer just a thought and perhaps a third perspective …

     

    As you said, the LR team resource is finite, there is a priority to development some driven by customer or expert voices, some by market strategy and other reasons.       There is however an un-tapped resource … photography software developer enthusiasts.     

     

    Perhaps it would be better if the LR team invested, potentially a smaller effort, and develop an external access LR API so that third parties could generate applications to understand and access the users library content, read and write (some) meta data against images and most importantly request (via the LR API) rendered version of the stored images.     These applications could run alongside LR as “Sidekicks” i.e. standalone applications, not plugins.   

     

    This would allow third party applications to fulfil the kinds of needs such as facial recognition and allow a raft of other capabilities which I believe are not possible with Plugins for a variety of reasons.   

     

    Clearly to mitigate risk and support overhead on the LR team there would have to be some constraints on writing to the library via this API but I believe it could be done usefully.     I acknowledge this would be a scary, but brave, move for LR – but it could create a very powerful ecosystem around LR.   

     

    As said, it’s just a nice thought, but I doubt it will ever happen.     Still, I’m not sure facial recognition will either.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Oct 2, 2012 10:11 AM   in reply to AlanUniqueName

    AlanUniqueName wrote:

     

    There is however an un-tapped resource … photography software developer enthusiasts.    

     

    Perhaps it would be better if the LR team invested, potentially a smaller effort, and develop an external access LR API so that third parties could generate applications to understand and access the users library content, read and write (some) meta data against images and most importantly request (via the LR API) rendered version of the stored images.     These applications could run alongside LR as “Sidekicks” i.e. standalone applications, not plugins.   

     

    Alan - Both are interesting ideas (tapping the enthusiasts and having an open API to the databases).  Not sure how open they'd be to the latter because it does represent a combination of both opportunity and risk.

     

    FWIW I spent way too much time last night looking at plugin APIs, existing plugins, available libraries for facial recognition, etc

     

    I will probably solve my problem in the short term by leveraging Jeffrey's Picasa Facial Recognition plugin to get started.  My wife had already started that effort with Picasa so it's not like starting over (but it's also not complete)

     

    Thanks all for the musings on this topic.  I'm a "+1" for adding it as a feature, even if it is controversial, and I guess we can leave it at that.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Nov 30, 2012 6:19 AM   in reply to adobeaggie

    Hi.. I'm new to adobe online's community.

    I have a big question. I'd like to use face detection for a batch working regarding ligths, colour, contrast etc around human faces and even bodies. Wouldn't this be great to process many portraits taken to the near same condition of light and background? Think about it. Probably it could apply the same skin enhance to the pictures with the same person in it.

    I think that kind of software would be great for many. I am a wedding photographer in Romania and I have about 6-8 wedding in a month and that's a really hard job processing about 3.000 pics a week to be in time with everything. Thanks. Sorry for my english if there are mistakes.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Dec 23, 2012 4:57 AM   in reply to -Agfaclack-

    I badly want face recognition. Please, in my opinion this is an absolute must have for LR5 (and should have already been in LR4).

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Dec 23, 2012 6:05 AM   in reply to gezuru

    Hope you posted your support on the site mentioned in the original post in this thread.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Dec 23, 2012 6:45 AM   in reply to DdeGannes

    Ah, didn't notice the link. Thanks

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Dec 23, 2012 8:04 AM   in reply to -Agfaclack-

    Although I've read all the replies, re the OP, couldn't care less if it has face recognition.  I have that on several programs and don't both with it.  Makes software bloatware IMHO.  I keyword all of my photos as I take them...... after a month long trip, that may be 6-7,000, but I will do it and keep everything up to date.  Just my work flow.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 17, 2013 7:27 AM   in reply to -Agfaclack-

    I had a friend who asked during a ad hoc teaching session on LR 4 why this feature isn't in LR when it is in Aperture.  He mentioned why he wanted it; so that he could recognize photos of his family and then locate them easily.  But when I looked at doing that myself, I thought really that doesn't help me since I photograph THOUSANDS of faces.  More useful would be to recognize other objects in non-portrait images (ocean, trees, dogs, cars, etc.) for the purpose of automatic keywording.   So...I guess if it came as a feature that is not at the expense of better/faster image improvement tools OK...but it really is limited to people who only want to recognize a very limited number of faces..a very CONSUMER personal function.  I suppose a photographer who photographs celebrities all day long and repetitively shoots the same people would find that very useful, I don't see the benefit to professionals.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 24, 2013 8:22 AM   in reply to irvinephotos

    I am always surpised to see narrow minded people. Instead of embracing new ideas, technologies. I even read on another forum that face recognition makes people lazy. Yeah, that's right, we all want to be lazy, it's a fundamental law.

    If Lightroom won't add it soon, ideally with other object recognition as well, it will lose a potential market, the market of semi pro, like me and the op.

    I don't think that will be a benefit for the Pro users as well.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 24, 2013 9:41 AM   in reply to Rinusripsus23

     

    Rinusripsus23 wrote:

     

    I am always surpised to see narrow minded people. Instead of embracing new ideas, technologies.

     

    Lack of enthusiasm for FR has got nothing - nothing - to do with that  bogus argument. There are simply too many, far more important things for LR's devs to focus on before getting round to a niche "gadget" like FR - and niche it is.

     

    If Lightroom won't add it soon, ideally with other object recognition as well, it will lose a potential market, the market of semi pro, like me and the op.

     

    Which really overstates the importance - or at least your opinion of the importance - of that segment.

     

    More to the point, since when do you speak for all semi pros?

     

    Even more to the point, I know umpteen pros and semi pros who have zero interest in FR because they don't shoot people. What benefit is FR to a wildlife photographer or a motor sports shooter or an interiors/architectural pro?

     

    Most to the point: what is it about your situation right now that you "can't do without" FR for?

     

    Absolutely nothing, I imagine...

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 24, 2013 2:24 PM   in reply to Keith_Reeder

    I don't even want GPS, video, book or web printing, I just want a bloody great cataloguer with the tools it has right now but also the ability to make layers.

    Face recognition? Why? What possible use? Sorry, nice little toy it might be for some but it would be about last on my list.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Apr 2, 2013 9:49 AM   in reply to howmanypigginnamesdoitry

    PS is aimed at Pro's and business. LR is priced for a larger enthusiast market, many of whom value FR. By not having FR it is already falling behind. Picasa does a great job with face recognition. Google owns mapping (LR uses Google's technology). Picasa is more user friendly than LR and does a good job at cataloging. Probably just a matter of time until Google adds high-end mapping features to Picassa. Google owns Nik. And how about Picasa with free Nik editing (the power of masking without having to master masking/layers)? LR needs to keep getting better lest someone builds a better mouse trap. Google is formidable at information management and indexing.

     

    Whats with some of the responses denigrating FR in this thread? FR may not be useful to YOU, but YOU may not be the center of the universe? Clearly FR is important to many. Unless Adobe does not care about market share (and they are not idiots), they'll add FR. Family shots likely comprise a significant percentage of the average user's collection. Picture someone new to cataloging with thousands of non-tagged family photos spanning years. Seems pretty obvious that FR would be useful to such users. And useful to current users who havent been religious about keywording over the years.

     

    And if Adobe doesn't have the resources to add FR without sacrificing some other important feature then that wouldnt speak well to their long term competitiveness.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Apr 2, 2013 3:31 PM   in reply to 1RoyN1

    I doubt it is just family either. For any Event Pro that wants to maximise sales where Aunt Alice wants each and every photo that features her favourite Godchild at an event . I wouldn't want to be the one sifting through 400 photos and especially 600-1200 outtakes that could bring in enough sales to pay for the next upgrade of LR.

    Even if it doesn't appear in 5 or even 6, it is inevitable.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Apr 2, 2013 6:03 PM   in reply to -Agfaclack-

    Wow ... there certainly seems to be at least a bit of intolerance strewn about this thread.  I have been growing quite weary of the misguided attitude that there should be a singular view as to future development of Lightroom.  Lightroom has NEVER been a Library and Develop modules only application ... from the very first beta ... it had more than two modules and was developed to answer the needs of a broad cross section of users.  Not just the needs of a very vocal few who think they know better.

     

    Why must there be the belief that if something is added to Lr, it will absolutely cause other development to suffer?  Adobe has annual revenues that approach $4.5B (yes, that's a "B" for billion). Surely, if the executives in charge would choose to allocate the resources, we all could have our needs met in short order. While I do realize that even with that volume of revenue, Adobe does not have infinite resources, they could offer more than what is currently being used.  In fact, if resources were of such a limited nature, why did Adobe drop the price of the full version by 50% ... how are they to survive on half rations?  More importantly, how do they ever plan to satisfy a much broader user base who will surely make requests for the addition of new features like Face Recognition?  That price reduction has opened the flood gates to a much wider group of users who are surely to have a more diverse view on what their individual needs are.

     

    So the solution here, in the U2U forum is to attack and belittle fellow users who make requests for development outside of the Library and Develop modules?  Doesn't make sense when you factor in these users also paid good money for Lightroom.  Somehow the cash they presented to Adobe isn't worth quite as much as a certain few who want to shout them down?  I take no issue with any user who wants to voice their support for specific features, though I find it more than a bit disconcerting when they choose to attack others for simply requesting a feature that some users would welcome as an important asset to their workflow.

     

    Currently, I don't have any real need for Face Recognition ... though I never thought I had much need for the Maps module either ... now I use it quite a bit ...

    It is quite evident, for anyone willing to look past their nose, that there are other Lr users who do think Face Recognition would be a benefit ... why shouldn't they be allowed to make their case without retribution?   This is all especially troublesome when you considerthat Face Recognition has 222 votes over on the feature request/feedback forum ...

     

    http://feedback.photoshop.com/photoshop_family/topics/face_recognition _in_lightroom

     

    ... and the Multi-User/Network feature (which has been rerquested by many since Day One) only has 214 votes ...

     

    http://feedback.photoshop.com/photoshop_family/topics/multi_user_multi _computer

     

    By all means, I expect everyone to share their views ... though, a little tolerance could be in order.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Apr 2, 2013 8:17 PM   in reply to Butch_M

    Maybe I missed it, but I don't see anyone belittling anyone for their views Butch...if they did, that certainly isn't what this place is for.

     

    I guess what I was thinking here is:  just like many other softwares, a "service plugin" would probably work as well.  That way professionals that have no need for the FR feature would not have to be negatively impacted by it.  And since you mentioned the Map feature...I have never even clicked on the app until just now.   I must be useful for pros who geo code their images, but is totally useless to me.   I would gladly trade this functionality for the ability to filter and sort by filesize (huge screaming void in functionality that LR should have by now.)

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Apr 3, 2013 4:42 AM   in reply to irvinephotos

    irvinephotos wrote:

     

    Maybe I missed it, but I don't see anyone belittling anyone for their views Butch...if they did, that certainly isn't what this place is for.

     

     

    Well ... you just did it yourself here:

     

    irvinephotos wrote:

     

    That way professionals that have no need for the FR feature would not have to be negatively impacted by it.

     

    ... and here:

    irvinephotos wrote:

     

    I(t) must be useful for pros who geo code their images, but is totally useless to me.

    ... and you did it earlier in the thread here:

     

    irvinephotos wrote:

     

    ... I don't see the benefit to professionals.

     

     

     

    You see ... the term "professional," ... as so many have been using in this thread ... has been thrown around as some narrow definition implying that no professional would find Facial Recognition useful or meaningful to their workflow.

     

    I contend, that there are many "pros" who would find it useful. Folks who earn a living shooting large group events, parties, conventions, etc. where it is unwieldy to take down ID's while shooting, who could later use the feature to sort out desired images after the shoot to more definitively market to clients with greater ease ...

     

    Sort by file size? Should I take the same attitude as yours and tell you I would very likely never need this feature, so by your standard, I should lobby that the feature never exists so that my interests are better served elsewhere in Lightroom's further development?  I don't really think there is the need to rob Peter to pay Paul in this respect ... Lightroom not only can be more, it should be more than it is today ... arguing over what it could be is purely trivial.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Apr 3, 2013 4:50 AM   in reply to Butch_M

    well there are a bunch of 24/7 members on this forum who think they know everything about what other people need.....

     

     

    Even more to the point, I know umpteen pros and semi pros who have zero interest in FR because they don't shoot people. What benefit is FR to a wildlife photographer or a motor sports shooter or an interiors/architectural pro?

     

    blahblah... and there are tons of people who never use the book, slideshow (even scott kelby says it´s useless crap in his GRIP show) or map modul.

    your "argumentation" makes no sense at all... all it does is showing your ignorance and narrow horizon.

     

    you don´t want a feature so it´s useless.. that is ALL that is behind your posts.

     

    it has nothing to do with "wasted resources" or stalling other more important features.

    hell shareware apps have FR today.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Apr 3, 2013 6:32 AM   in reply to hamada2003

    So I guess the only people that can post on this thread have to agree with the thread?  For folks who are so sensitive to people's negativity, sure seems like you and Butch are ultimately the most negative of all since you can't stand to hear someone's differing opinion.

     

    I stand corrected.  Professionals know nothing about the tools they use, nor should they have an opinion about its features. 

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Apr 3, 2013 6:46 AM   in reply to Butch_M

    I have no problem with people arguing FOR FR.  I didn't belittle anyone, or tell them their view is stupid (like you are doing right now).   At this point, anyone who gets paid as a major source of income (oops! I almost said Professional, a word that seems to enrage some folks) and uses LR to do this but would NOT want to see this feature implemented should just keep their mouths shut..

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Apr 3, 2013 6:50 AM   in reply to -Agfaclack-

    Your topic is a good one, however it has become overrun with petulance.   I hope your FR feature gets implemented in a way that does not impact LR's current funtionality badly.  I'm going to turn of notifications now. 

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Apr 3, 2013 7:05 AM   in reply to irvinephotos

    irvinephotos wrote:

     

    ... sure seems like you and Butch are ultimately the most negative of all since you can't stand to hear someone's differing opinion.

     

    Quite the contrary. Apparently you have not completely read my comments or you wouldn't have missed this:

     

    By all means, I expect everyone to share their views ... though, a little tolerance could be in order.

     

    Most reasonable thinking individuals would expect self-proclaimed professionals to be capable of exhibiting just a bit more tact and manners when they express themselves.

     

    My issue with this thread is certain individuals appear to be experts on all that is "professional" ... when clearly there is a much more diverse spectrum of Lightroom users than some would care to admit ... those users should not be pigeon-holed as non-professional in order to validate your point.

     

    Your support, or lack thereof, for proposed features should be based upon the actual merits of the feature, not your misconception that those who are requesting the feature lack the qualifications to be a bona fide participant to make such requests. Thereby rendering their concers as unprofessional by default.

     

    I think it is high time that some folks move beyond the middle school autocracy that seems to permeate this forum.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Apr 3, 2013 7:52 AM   in reply to irvinephotos

    i give a rats a** what you or others think to be honest. sorry but that is the truth.

     

    i don´t care if it is pro photographer, who can barely make a living, or an rich amateur with 50000 euro worth of gear, who requests a feature.

    if someone request a feature he has a reason for it... and who am i that i say it´s useless!!

     

    i never use the WEB, SLIDESHOW or BOOK module. they are unprofessionell and lame.... 0815. especially WEB and SLIDESHOW.

    they suck so much that scott kelby spend half an hour ranting about them in one GRIP episode... and the guy makes his money with teaching people about it.

    do i harass adobe to stop developing it, stop wasting respources on it?  NO!!

     

    im not so full of myself as some here.

     

    but i wonder why someone who is not interested in a feature spend hours arguing against it.

     

    it´s not as if they have to use it.

    and don´t annoy me with this stupid "wasted resources" argument.

     

     

    I hope your FR feature gets implemented in a way that does not impact LR's current funtionality badly.

     

    yeah because that sure would be the case... LOL

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Victoria Bampton
    5,302 posts
    Apr 1, 2008
    Currently Being Moderated
    Apr 3, 2013 10:00 AM   in reply to -Agfaclack-

    Thanks for your viewpoints everyone. 

     

    The thread's gone way off topic and is now purely personal arguments, so I'm closing it.

     
    |
    Mark as:

More Like This

  • Retrieving data ...

Bookmarked By (0)

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