• Global community
    • Language:
      • Deutsch
      • English
      • Español
      • Français
      • Português
  • 日本語コミュニティ
    Dedicated community for Japanese speakers
  • 한국 커뮤니티
    Dedicated community for Korean speakers
Exit
5

How to reindex facial recognition data in LR 6?

New Here ,
Apr 22, 2015 Apr 22, 2015

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

I accidentally deleted all of the faces that Lightroom recognized in my photos upon the initial indexing. Is there anyway to reset the facial recognition index so that I can go through the process again?

Views

13.8K

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
Community Beginner ,
Apr 22, 2015 Apr 22, 2015

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

I have the same issue - but I'm not sure it was user error. I just lost a lot of photos that I had indexed to a particular person from their person keyword.

I'll let you know if I find a solution. Nothing is jumping out right now!

Did you delete the keyword?

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
Participant ,
Apr 23, 2015 Apr 23, 2015

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

As far as I am aware at present face recoginition is a one shot.  If you delete the face recognition box, the only way to get it back is to manually draw it on each and every image! (Not good).

I am sure Adobe will have to add this in the future.  Especially if/when they improve the recognition algorithm.  I am finding that the scan is missing a significant number of faces in images.  It finds about 60-70% of faces that exist in images, but some of that 30-40% are ones that are really clear and yet it misses them.

At the moment - don't delete any face rectangles unless you KNOW you don't want them.  (I know that doesn't help right now).  The only other option is to go back to your LR5 and recovert it to LR6/LRCC and let it find the faces again.

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
Community Beginner ,
Apr 23, 2015 Apr 23, 2015

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

That's going to present a major hiccup for owners of large libraries.

Moving through and tagging lots of images means a lot of multiple selection/rejection on faces and it is quite easy to mess this up. Adobe needs to add a reindex feature.

Thanks for your input!

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
LEGEND ,
Apr 23, 2015 Apr 23, 2015

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

This definitely needs to be addressed to make the face-recognition useable.  You should be able to select several photos or a folder and have it rerun the face recognition.

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
LEGEND ,
Apr 23, 2015 Apr 23, 2015

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

ianbutty wrote:

As far as I am aware at present face recoginition is a one shot.  If you delete the face recognition box, the only way to get it back is to manually draw it on each and every image! (Not good).

It's not good but worse is it appears that you can't rescan to add more faces after the initial work. I hope that's not true and there is a workaround.

So the product is designed such that I have 30K worth of images. I scan them all. I only pick 10 of 20 possible people so I build keywords for those 10, all good and fine. Now I decide I want to go back and add the other 10 people. There's no way to rescan and have the grid exclude the first group of people and allow me to add the other 10? That's awful. Really bad design. If this is true, I'm bummed.

Author “Color Management for Photographers" & "Photoshop CC Color Management/pluralsight"

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
Participant ,
Apr 23, 2015 Apr 23, 2015

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Adobe do have a habit of releasing products minus critical features and then adding them later.  I am sure this will be one of those that they will resolve in time.  The problem of course is that this could be classed as a new feature.  The rumour in the broadcasts from the likes of Kelby, Kloskowski etc is that LR6 (non subscription) will only get bug fix releases not new features.  While LRCC will get the new features.  I hope that's not the case but if it is, then it is a pretty strong argument for paying for the monthly subscription.

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
New Here ,
May 01, 2015 May 01, 2015

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

ianbutty schrieb:

Adobe do have a habit of releasing products minus critical features and then adding them later.  I am sure this will be one of those that they will resolve in time.  The problem of course is that this could be classed as a new feature.  The rumour in the broadcasts from the likes of Kelby, Kloskowski etc is that LR6 (non subscription) will only get bug fix releases not new features.  While LRCC will get the new features.  I hope that's not the case but if it is, then it is a pretty strong argument for paying for the monthly subscription.

I'm a big fan of LR and bought every new version since V2 but if Adobe tries to push me into that subscription thing, I will work with the current version as long as possible an then buy another product. Hopefully that won't happen.

best

Thomas

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
Community Expert ,
Apr 24, 2015 Apr 24, 2015

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Andrew Rodney wrote:

So the product is designed such that I have 30K worth of images. I scan them all. I only pick 10 of 20 possible people so I build keywords for those 10, all good and fine. Now I decide I want to go back and add the other 10 people. There's no way to rescan and have the grid exclude the first group of people and allow me to add the other 10? That's awful. Really bad design. If this is true, I'm bummed.

I'm not sure I follow your workflow. If you only name 10 of the 20 possible people, the other 10 will still be sat in the Unnamed section waiting for you to name them, so you'd have no need to rescan.

______________________
The Lightroom Queen - Author of the Lightroom Missing FAQ & Edit Like a Pro books.

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
LEGEND ,
Apr 24, 2015 Apr 24, 2015

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Hi Victoria,

I think he means he wants to go back a week later for example and do the rescan and not at the initial scan phase.  I agree there needs to be a rescan option for selected photos to make the tool useable. As it is now it is in the same "sort of usable tool" boat as the slideshow, book, web.

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
Community Expert ,
Apr 24, 2015 Apr 24, 2015

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

I agree there needs to be a rescan option in case you accidentally delete a load of face regions, but that's the only case that should require a rescan.  When he goes back a week later, the extra 10 people should still be waiting there in the Unnamed Section unless you've deleted them (er, so don't do that)

______________________
The Lightroom Queen - Author of the Lightroom Missing FAQ & Edit Like a Pro books.

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
Participant ,
Apr 24, 2015 Apr 24, 2015

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Victoria_Bampton wrote:

I agree there needs to be a rescan option in case you accidentally delete a load of face regions, but that's the only case that should require a rescan.  When he goes back a week later, the extra 10 people should still be waiting there in the Unnamed Section unless you've deleted them (er, so don't do that)

I think there is another scenario connected with this.  The algorithm for determining what is and isn't a face is a bit flaky at the moment.  I in my case it is missing 30-40% of all faces and well over 50% of profile shots get missed (very common for people to be in profile when doing theatre photography).  Not only do we need a 'please rescan these images' option, but we need some sort of threshold so we can tell the algorithm to be a bit more aggressive in what it thinks is a face and what it doesn't.  (Yes that will mean more random patterns being incorrectly picked up as faces, but it is easier to delete those than it is to go through all the images and draw rectangles where the algorithm missed people).

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
LEGEND ,
Apr 24, 2015 Apr 24, 2015

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

ianbutty wrote:

Not only do we need a 'please rescan these images' option, but we need some sort of threshold so we can tell the algorithm to be a bit more aggressive in what it thinks is a face and what it doesn't. 

I agree. Plus it finds faces that are totally out of focus due to DOF, image that are really dark and may have no faces etc. We need a better 'quality' granularity. IOW, if it tags something that clearly looks like a stop sign (I've seen this), OK I can see how the algorithm would think it's a face. If it tags something that looks like a blob of out of focus image or so dark it doesn't look anything like a face or the side of a building, don't tag it.

Author “Color Management for Photographers" & "Photoshop CC Color Management/pluralsight"

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
LEGEND ,
Apr 24, 2015 Apr 24, 2015

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Also, it seems to do a really bad job of finding people with totally white or really light gray hair.

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
Advocate ,
Apr 24, 2015 Apr 24, 2015

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

It has just suggested that a lovely little lemur is my granddaughter!!

Bob Frost

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
Community Expert ,
Apr 24, 2015 Apr 24, 2015

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Bob,

It could be worse. It could have identified your granddaughter as aLemur 😉

For fun, select the lemur face, then right click for the context menu. Now choose Find Similar Faces. I suspect you'll get a really interesting mix of...

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
LEGEND ,
Apr 24, 2015 Apr 24, 2015

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Ian Lyons wrote:

It could be worse. It could have identified your granddaughter as aLemur 😉

Or a waterless urinal:

FD.jpg

Author “Color Management for Photographers" & "Photoshop CC Color Management/pluralsight"

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
Advocate ,
Apr 24, 2015 Apr 24, 2015

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

My wife just watched me go through a few thousand images of a trip to India, and at first she thought it was funny seeing her name suggested for male and female Indians as well as a range of inanimate objects. But the funniness soon wore off, and her final comment was "it is ridiculous"!

The LR team have been at this for at least four years, and at the time it was mooted I said I thought there were better things to spend their time on. At present this is simply not worth using. I do hope the face recognition algorithms used by the FBI etc are better than this!

Bob Frost

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
Community Expert ,
Apr 24, 2015 Apr 24, 2015

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Robert Frost wrote:

It has just suggested that a lovely little lemur is my granddaughter!!

It thinks I'm Winnie the Pooh. Hey, at least face recognition is funny!

______________________
The Lightroom Queen - Author of the Lightroom Missing FAQ & Edit Like a Pro books.

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
LEGEND ,
Apr 24, 2015 Apr 24, 2015

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

I didn't realize the Unnamed Section did not disappear if you didn't clear it.   Thanks for the info.  I have just been using a test catalog for learning and always completed the scan

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
LEGEND ,
Apr 24, 2015 Apr 24, 2015

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Bob Somrak wrote:

I think he means he wants to go back a week later for example and do the rescan and not at the initial scan phase.  I agree there needs to be a rescan option for selected photos to make the tool useable. As it is now it is in the same "sort of usable tool" boat as the slideshow, book, web.

Yes exactly, sorry if I wasn't clear.

I have a folder of 10 images. All have people in them. Five are pictures of Joe, the other five are different people. I decide to tag all five of Joe's images and select the other five and either use Delete Key or the no symbol. I don't want to be bothered tagging those five people. A week later I decide I want to tag all five, or just three of the five. I can't? I want LR to reindex that folder and show me ONLY the five that I didn't tag. Heck, if it shows me all 10, five tagged with Joe and five that need to be tagged, that would be better than what we presumably have now. I'm stumped and just can't figure out how to force that folder to reindex the faces for tagging.

So Victoria, did Adobe really release this product with no way to go back and reindex a folder previously set for FR? If so, I'm going to be sad and highly disappointed that they got this so wrong on the 2nd attempt.

Author “Color Management for Photographers" & "Photoshop CC Color Management/pluralsight"

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
Community Expert ,
Apr 24, 2015 Apr 24, 2015

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Andrew Rodney wrote:

So Victoria, did Adobe really release this product with no way to go back and reindex a folder previously set for FR? If so, I'm going to be sad and highly disappointed that they got this so wrong on the 2nd attempt.

Yes, they did, but the really simple solution is not to delete the faces you don't want to name yet.  Or tag them all with "Unknown Person".

Even if they added a reindex command, it would skip the photos you've already added names to, on the basis that it wouldn't want to undo any of the work you'd already done in adding or deleting faces.

______________________
The Lightroom Queen - Author of the Lightroom Missing FAQ & Edit Like a Pro books.

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
LEGEND ,
Apr 24, 2015 Apr 24, 2015

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Victoria_Bampton wrote:

Yes, they did, but the really simple solution is not to delete the faces you don't want to name yet.  Or tag them all with "Unknown Person".

Sorry, that's an unacceptable Kludge. If I reference 30K images (which I did), I want to focus on the images to tag and remove those that I don't. Removing them from view should be possible to continue working without dumping all those images into a condition where I can no longer tag them. Let's hope Adobe fixes this ASAP. FR was one of the features I didn't think I'd care for, found it very useful and exciting the first day of use, now I'm mostly disappointed in the lost potential.

Author “Color Management for Photographers" & "Photoshop CC Color Management/pluralsight"

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
Community Expert ,
Apr 24, 2015 Apr 24, 2015

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

I'm not going to argue with you Andrew, but I will make a suggestion... rephrase your FR as a way to "ignore faces" and post it on the FR site.  The reindexing request in your scenario will almost certainly be declined (except possibly in the case of photos that haven't already been touched), but moving faces to an ignored section has a better shot at being approved with enough support, IMHO.

______________________
The Lightroom Queen - Author of the Lightroom Missing FAQ & Edit Like a Pro books.

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
LEGEND ,
Apr 24, 2015 Apr 24, 2015

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Victoria_Bampton wrote:

rephrase your FR as a way to "ignore faces" and post it on the FR site.  The reindexing request in your scenario will almost certainly be declined (except possibly in the case of photos that haven't already been touched), but moving faces to an ignored section has a better shot at being approved with enough support, IMHO.

I'm not clear on what you're suggesting. What is the FR site?

Author “Color Management for Photographers" & "Photoshop CC Color Management/pluralsight"

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines