A Lightroom Reality Check

[Glevum Owl]

I'm the only person I know in the non-digital world using Lightroom Classic so would appreciate a reality check on my perception.

Is it me or is LR's face recognition function getting worse?

I have memories of it finding 90% of faces. Then a few updates ago the recognition rate fell to below 50%. After the latest update, It's recognising less than 25%.

No change in the devices creating the images, the people in them or the hardware on which LR runs (Mac Mini).

 

[gryphon1911]

I stopped using it a long time ago. It was too CPU intensive and a resource hog.

 

[Glevum Owl]

Okey dokey, then.

I like Lightroom. It does everything I want in a way I'm used to, I can afford the hardware + storage to run it efficiently and effectively enough to fulfil my needs and the subscription model bothers me not one jot.

I’m not having the best of weeks. An elderly relative’s property sale is turning into a paperwork nightmare, their solicitors are morons, my DD’s injured her leg and the car needed all new brake pads thus wiping out the GAS fund.

To add to the fun, at a routine checkup my doctor said she wants tests done to check my cancer hasn’t returned.

So, maybe my nerves are rubbed a little raw right now but, honestly, I would very much like to avoid yet another well worn, wearisome and, frankly, pointless discussion on the merits or otherwise of Adobe and its products.

I would, however, warmly welcome fellow LR users’ views on my original post.

Right, I’m off to contemplate life, death and upcoming medical tests whilst imbibing a cup of over-sugared tea and comfort eating far too many plain chocolate digestives.

 

[WhidbeyLVR]

Sorry about your tough start to the year.

I do not use PS, but a quick search yielded this, with possible help:

Lightroom Classic - Face Recognition Getting Significantly Worse?

This is in reference to Lightroom Classic version 11.4.1 on an Intel Mac running Monterey 12.5 but applies to previous versions of Lightroom Classic as well. My memory will not be able to provide dates and versions but I remember eagerly waiting for face recognition in Lightroom Classic and...

www.lightroomqueen.com

 

[Glevum Owl]

Sorry about your tough start to the year.

Thanks. I'm 99.9% certain I'm OK but fear lives in the .1%!

I do not use PS, but a quick search yielded this, with possible help:

Lightroom Classic - Face Recognition Getting Significantly Worse?

This is in reference to Lightroom Classic version 11.4.1 on an Intel Mac running Monterey 12.5 but applies to previous versions of Lightroom Classic as well. My memory will not be able to provide dates and versions but I remember eagerly waiting for face recognition in Lightroom Classic and...

www.lightroomqueen.com

Thanks again. At the beginning of last year I did try re-running face recognition and perceived some improvement but the 'hit rate' following the last two updates has dropped noticeably.

One thing the Lightroom Queen thread does raise, which I hadn't realised, is the possibility that manual additions affect the face recognition process. I do add a lot manually and might try removing a few to see what happens.

 

[MiguelATF]

I'm the only person I know in the non-digital world using Lightroom Classic so would appreciate a reality check on my perception.

Is it me or is LR's face recognition function getting worse?

I have memories of it finding 90% of faces. Then a few updates ago the recognition rate fell to below 50%. After the latest update, It's recognising less than 25%.

No change in the devices creating the images, the people in them or the hardware on which LR runs (Mac Mini).

At the risk of admitting I'm even more of a dinosaur than anyone else, Mark, I am using Lightroom 6.14 - which was the last standalone LR that could be purchased I believe. I'm not sure if it is the same thing as "Lightroom Classic" but for some (probably irrational) reason, I always thought that LR6 predated LR Classic. In any case, I actually have NEVER used (or even tried) its 'face recognition' capability - so I honestly don't have a clue. I do remember reading that LR6 didn't do the face recognition very well and that numerous users reported it actually made the program freeze or crash. Incidentally, I run mine on old Mac Hardware (a late 2012 Mac Mini) and relatively old Mac software (OSX 15, aka Catalina).

For what it's worth, my ancient LR6 has always pretty much done almost everything I wanted it to and more. I do use a handful of plugins (including the original Nik series), and on occasion (usually with wildlife or bird telephoto shots), I also use a slightly archaic version of Topaz Photo AI (the newer and more contemporary versions won't run on my ancient hardware).

 

[Glevum Owl]

At the risk of admitting I'm even more of a dinosaur than anyone else, Mark, I am using Lightroom 6.14 - which was the last standalone LR that could be purchased I believe. I'm not sure if it is the same thing as "Lightroom Classic" but for some (probably irrational) reason, I always thought that LR6 predated LR Classic. In any case, I actually have NEVER used (or even tried) its 'face recognition' capability - so I honestly don't have a clue. I do remember reading that LR6 didn't do the face recognition very well and that numerous users reported it actually made the program freeze or crash. Incidentally, I run mine on old Mac Hardware (a late 2012 Mac Mini) and relatively old Mac software (OSX 15, aka Catalina).

For what it's worth, my ancient LR6 has always pretty much done almost everything I wanted it to and more. I do use a handful of plugins (including the original Nik series), and on occasion (usually with wildlife or bird telephoto shots), I also use a slightly archaic version of Topaz Photo AI (the newer and more contemporary versions won't run on my ancient hardware).

I've always held that the two primary principles of any technical hobby are "please yourself" and "whatever works".

There's a piece of software my WinTel box I use for managing content on my Nokia 3330 (original version). The program's over 20 years old but works just fine. In using the word 'dinosaur' disparagingly it's often forgotten, or overlooked, that dinosaurs existed for about 165 million years whereas us 'new' Homo sapiens have been around for only 300,000 years.

A Mac Mini M1 sits on my desk for editing but a much older (and much slower) Mac Mini sits under our TV for playing home movies we've shot on various devices over the years. Both work perfectly for their intended purpose.

I too had the older, standalone versions of LR but my later cameras weren't supported. I also wanted the newer features as I'm one of those people who wants the latest software in case I'm missing out on something. Can't help it, it's just the way I'm built.

I think 'Classic' was added to the name of the locally installed version to differentiate it from the online offering which was called, confusingly, Lightroom. Cynics might argue it was an attempt to migrate users to the online version and sell cloud storage with it.

LR's face recognition can be very hit and miss. It recently identified the pattern of a beige, shag pile carpet as the face of a very close friend. There are 100's of photos of him in LR, all 'face recognised'.

Perhaps Adobe see face recognition as a 'must have' to appear to keep up with the competition but consider it of no use to the 'serious' photographer. As LR's the best all round software for my purposes, I'm content to work around its 'foibles'.

 

[John King]

I've always held that the two primary principles of any technical hobby are "please yourself" and "whatever works".

There's a piece of software my WinTel box I use for managing content on my Nokia 3330 (original version). The program's over 20 years old but works just fine. In using the word 'dinosaur' disparagingly it's often forgotten, or overlooked, that dinosaurs existed for about 165 million years whereas us 'new' Homo sapiens have been around for only 300,000 years.

A Mac Mini M1 sits on my desk for editing but a much older (and much slower) Mac Mini sits under our TV for playing home movies we've shot on various devices over the years. Both work perfectly for their intended purpose.

I too had the older, standalone versions of LR but my later cameras weren't supported. I also wanted the newer features as I'm one of those people who wants the latest software in case I'm missing out on something. Can't help it, it's just the way I'm built.

I think 'Classic' was added to the name of the locally installed version to differentiate it from the online offering which was called, confusingly, Lightroom. Cynics might argue it was an attempt to migrate users to the online version and sell cloud storage with it.

LR's face recognition can be very hit and miss. It recently identified the pattern of a beige, shag pile carpet as the face of a very close friend. There are 100's of photos of him in LR, all 'face recognised'.

Perhaps Adobe see face recognition as a 'must have' to appear to keep up with the competition but consider it of no use to the 'serious' photographer. As LR's the best all round software for my purposes, I'm content to work around its 'foibles'.

Mark, while I tend to agree (bold part), I have never been able to get on with Lightroom. Like Pascal (the programming language), it just never made sense to me.

I've used Adobe Bridge, ACR and Photoshop since prior to CS2, and these continue to work well for me. I'm now using the CC version, after stalling on CS6 for many years.

I worked out that the subscription plan was actually cheaper than any outright purchase plan, when amortised over 3+ years or so, and is constantly up to date.

My new PC has the required grunt needed to run it, along with all the other garbage I normally leave running.

 

[ShipleyNW]

I pretty much don't take pictures of people, so I don't use the people masking in LRC. Have you compared it with the other AI masks? I find the sky, subject and object masks to be hit and miss. They're pretty good, mostly, and they trend towards getting better. But I'm never surprised when they're less than perfect. It's like anything auto; it's usually a good place to start, but sometimes not even that.

From what I understand, you need PS if you want precise masking. I don't need that often, which means I don't use PS often, which means I don't know how to use PS. Every time I try, it feels like I'm starting over. I just do the best I can with LRC. Working with people images might force your hand.

 

[Glevum Owl]

@John King
I have one friend who uses a very old version of SilkyPix (and another who still grumbles about the cancellation of Aperture). Software, like camera kit, is a highly personal thing. The only reason I persevere with LR and it's multiple niggles is that it does everything I want and, to be honest, just the thought of transferring all my photos to another program makes me feel tired.

Completely agree with you about PASCAL. It felt like too much effort. I started my programming in COBOL, moved to a more managerial role and never learned anything else except a little PERL and some UNIX scripting. And apart from the odd DOS command, I've forgotten the lot!

I did exactly the same maths over three years for the Adobe subscription and signed up straight away. Never regretted it. Although if Serif had released a half decent DAM that hooked into their Affinity products I'm not sure I'd still be with Adobe.


@ShipleyNW
LRC's Auto quick fix setting is always my starting point and that has improved (for my files) over the years.

However, you're absolutely right; LRC's masking isn't anywhere near as good as PS. I rarely use masking, in fact I don't often use PS as much as I did a few years back. When I do, like you I have to think where everything is. The PS updates don't help as Adobe constantly tweak the UI and I often 'lose' tools. Invariably I open a browser on the secondary screen to look up stuff.