• Welcome to the Lightroom Queen Forums! We're a friendly bunch, so please feel free to register and join in the conversation. If you're not familiar with forums, you'll find step by step instructions on how to post your first thread under Help at the bottom of the page. You're also welcome to download our free Lightroom Quick Start eBooks and explore our other FAQ resources.
  • Dark mode now has a single preference for the whole site! It's a simple toggle switch in the bottom right-hand corner of any page. As it uses a cookie to store your preference, you may need to dismiss the cookie banner before you can see it. Any problems, please let us know!

Face recognition does not see any face

Status
Not open for further replies.

theovane

New Member
Joined
Dec 16, 2020
Messages
2
Lightroom Version Number
6.14
Operating System
  1. Windows 10
Hi,

Since a few months I am working a lot with Lightroom. (6.14) Face recognition first worked quite well, but suddenly it stopped working. I suspected an error in the catalog. So I started a new catalog, but no result. Then I reinstalled Lightroom, and started with a fresh new catalog. But again no result.
I tried face recognition in the background and then I tried "only find faces as needed", but again, no result.

Any suggestions what this might be?
 
Same here, not working is currently best case and worst case is LR crashes. I'm getting same behaviour on two separate Macs, catalogs, and OSs as per other thread in this forum. It's almost like something has changed recently external to the application. I hope somebody has some idea how to resolve this.
 
are you sure it is (still) set?
Lightroom->Catalog Settings->Metadata->FaceDetection
 
Sometimes this helps:
Turn Face detection off, shut down Lightroom, then turn off your computer.
Turn on your computer, start Lightroom, turn on Face detection again.
 
Sometimes this helps:
Turn Face detection off, shut down Lightroom, then turn off your computer.
Turn on your computer, start Lightroom, turn on Face detection again.
Thanks for the suggestion. No joy trying this either. If LR doesn't crash outright, it does not detect any faces.
 
Maybe you have too many computers in the list of pc/Mac that are using LR.
I had that about a year ago, I connected to Adobe help, they saw the list and asked which computer was not used anymore and then they scrapped that from the list: I restarted LR et voila: issue over.
 
Maybe you have too many computers in the list of pc/Mac that are using LR.
I had that about a year ago, I connected to Adobe help, they saw the list and asked which computer was not used anymore and then they scrapped that from the list: I restarted LR et voila: issue over.
Thanks @LexS been on with Adobe for the last day with no result. Suggested this might be the problem but they did not indicate it was. Spent a few hours with them remotely accessing my computer to no avail. Was about to get back online with them when I saw the reply from @theovane which nailed it. I'm able to reproduce the workaround.
 
I found the source of this problem, and a work around.
Read the following article: https://petapixel.com/2020/12/24/adobe-lightroom-v6-is-falling-apart/
Thanks so much for this! Just as I originally suspected but could not find anything on the Internet. As recommended by @LexS in the previous post, I've been online with Adobe Help for the last couple of days to try and resolve the issue with no indication that it is a known issue. This at least means I don't have to continue to waste my time trying to debug it.

Hopefully Adobe will fix this as it looks like pretty good grounds for a class action lawsuit selling a "Perpetual License" that isn't really perpetual. The main reason I bought Adobe 6 was for the perpetual license. I actually bought it when I heard that they were going to a subscription model.
 
Hopefully Adobe will fix this as it looks like pretty good grounds for a class action lawsuit selling a "Perpetual License" that isn't really perpetual. The main reason I bought Adobe 6 was for the perpetual license. I actually bought it when I heard that they were going to a subscription model.
I think people read far too much into the "perpetual".

It will be interesting if Adobe actually embedded a time bomb in the version whether on purpose or not (i.e. a literal "if date > x then die"). That's a bit different. But frankly I think it is wrong to assume because you have a perpetual license that Adobe owes people updates to keep it running, for example if Google changes something in maps, or Microsoft or Apple change things that break it.

Has anyone seen an acknowledgement from Adobe there was a time bomb in it? Now that's very different I think. And honestly if Adobe did not realize it, I am not sure that is any excuse.

I think the whole concept that you can buy something and without paying for support or subscription use it forever is flawed. It doesn't work for anything else in life - things break. I have the right to use my TV forever; I do no expect it to keep working forever. You are making a bet when you buy anything like that, that it will last long enough that it was more cost effective than buying it with a support contract. I do realize software is a bit different but... not that different, as they exist in an economic framework.
 
I think people read far too much into the "perpetual".
...
Has anyone seen an acknowledgement from Adobe there was a time bomb in it? .
The nature of Hardware and Operating System development is that of eventual software obsolescence.

I have perpetual license for Lotus Symphony the runs on DOS. It is unrealistic for me to expect the software to be usable today.

If you think that your are getting something that will continue to meet your needs by buying a perpetual license, then you need to be prepared to freeze your Operating System and hardware to the specs of that license.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
I agree with you completely, Cletus, but I think that is different than delivering something with an explicit time bomb in it that stops working as of a given date.
 
I agree with you completely, Cletus, but I think that is different than delivering something with an explicit time bomb in it that stops working as of a given date.
True enough, but there is no reason to believe that Adobe has included a time bomb in Lightroom.

However, no one can reasonably expect Adobe to port over old versions of Lightroom to the CPU chip in their new models.
 
True enough, but there is no reason to believe that Adobe has included a time bomb in Lightroom.

The article referenced above reported:

Some users then discovered that changing their computer’s system date to November 2020 or earlier instantly fixed both problems — they could open the facial recognition module and create virtual copies again without the app closing unexpectedly.

Petapixel is not all that reliable, but if true that is pretty damning that purely a date change makes it work or fail.

{eople who buy a new CPU and find a 5 year old program won't run on it, well, they should be happy for five years, not complain all over the internet. But... it is the internet.
 
I agree with you completely, Cletus, but I think that is different than delivering something with an explicit time bomb in it that stops working as of a given date.

With the rapid advancement of computer hardware and Operating systems, there is no need for a Company like Adobe to include some drop dead date. Programs like Lightroom will eventually self implode because they can’t support the hardware or the refinements in the OS.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
The article referenced above reported:



Petapixel is not all that reliable, but if true that is pretty damning that purely a date change makes it work or fail.

{eople who buy a new CPU and find a 5 year old program won't run on it, well, they should be happy for five years, not complain all over the internet. But... it is the internet.
It's weird for me to be actually defending Adobe.:eek: (Please, I won't make a habit of it ...) But that time bomb could equally have been in the third-party utility that Adobe licensed.

Consider that I could recently re-install CS 6 Illustrator and InDesign, which I got maybe in 2012 or 2013.
 
It's weird for me to be actually defending Adobe.:eek: (Please, I won't make a habit of it ...) But that time bomb could equally have been in the third-party utility that Adobe licensed.

Consider that I could recently re-install CS 6 Illustrator and InDesign, which I got maybe in 2012 or 2013.

And I am the last to defend people who think they can perpetually get support for free, but...

Any component that Adobe licenses and automatically incorporates inside their product is their responsibility.

If they knowingly licensed a component only for (say) 5 years and included it in a "perpetual" licensed products without disclosure I would say that is very bad. Fraud or just ethically bad is a matter for lawyers, but bad.

If they UN-knowingly did the same, they are either incompetent or were defrauded, and should be standing behind their customer in fighting it.

I see that as different from the google situation, where they use a 3rd party SERVICE and the 3rd party changes it.

Though lets not ignore what may even be more likely and the reports of all this are distorted and it is something else entirely. That's why I started by asking what Adobe has said.
 
I think people read far too much into the "perpetual".

It will be interesting if Adobe actually embedded a time bomb in the version whether on purpose or not (i.e. a literal "if date > x then die"). That's a bit different. But frankly I think it is wrong to assume because you have a perpetual license that Adobe owes people updates to keep it running, for example if Google changes something in maps, or Microsoft or Apple change things that break it.

Has anyone seen an acknowledgement from Adobe there was a time bomb in it? Now that's very different I think. And honestly if Adobe did not realize it, I am not sure that is any excuse.

I think the whole concept that you can buy something and without paying for support or subscription use it forever is flawed. It doesn't work for anything else in life - things break. I have the right to use my TV forever; I do no expect it to keep working forever. You are making a bet when you buy anything like that, that it will last long enough that it was more cost effective than buying it with a support contract. I do realize software is a bit different but... not that different, as they exist in an economic framework.
While I agree with most of this in principle, and nothing lasts "forever", I believe it is reasonable to expect that a perpetual license will last at least as long as there is a viable hardware and operating system platform available that meets the minimum requirements of the software it was designed for.

I don't believe that Adobe purposely embedded a "bomb" but the fact remains that by modifying the date of the computer, LR People View either works or crashes LR catastrophically. This may be a bug, but if it is due to as at the article states, a DLL that Adobe licensed from a 3rd party and that license had a time limit, that is another matter indeed.
 
I just had something happen that has an interesting relation to this. I turned my TV on and it had updated (without my permission apparently), and said to use it fully I must agree to new terms and conditions, then gave me access to screen after screen of new agreements, which I agreed to.

What if I had not? I have no idea (and it offered no indication) what would no longer function if I did not agree.

So even when we buy a "thing" today, its use may not be perpetual.
 
While I agree with most of this in principle, and nothing lasts "forever", I believe it is reasonable to expect that a perpetual license will last at least as long as there is a viable hardware and operating system platform available that meets the minimum requirements of the software it was designed for.

I don't believe that Adobe purposely embedded a "bomb" but the fact remains that by modifying the date of the computer, LR People View either works or crashes LR catastrophically. This may be a bug, but if it is due to as at the article states, a DLL that Adobe licensed from a 3rd party and that license had a time limit, that is another matter indeed.
If Adobe did indeed ignore the time limit on a licensed DLL, it could easily have been a "low level" decision by someone who had (1) no intention to do harm to customers and (2) was thinking short-term, and (3) unaware of the long-term consequences. Also that person may have naively assumed that all customers would upgrade to the latest LR version.

I can easily imagine an engineer identifying the need for the DLL, and a purchasing agent trying to minimize costs, so the time limit was put into place. Yowzers, I'm still defending Adobe. Somebody please do an intervention.

Honestly I don't see this issue as one of "evil Adobe." If anything works us up, it should be the discontinuance of perpetual licenses for LR, but that's part of a larger industry trend away from one-time purchases and towards monthly or yearly subscriptions. A Chief Financial Officer once told me that Wall Street prefers that companies have subscription pricing, because it means a more predictable stream of future earnings.
 
Yowzers, I'm still defending Adobe. Somebody please do an intervention.
Repeat after me: "My name is Phil Burton and I'm a defender of Adobe".... a twelve step program will follow, but you must subscribe to get to step 2. Step 1.1A may follow since Step one did not work well for non-English enrollees. Please note that Steps 8-12 are still in development and will ship "soon". First let me send you the license agreement. We also need a few drops of your blood for DNA verification.

More seriously: even if your scenario plays out, it begs the question of Adobe being responsible for the acts of its employees.

I'm still looking to see if they actually respond. It's all internet speculation until then.
A Chief Financial Officer once told me that Wall Street prefers that companies have subscription pricing, because it means a more predictable stream of future earnings.
Financial types of all sorts prefer predictability. They would rather a company steadily make $x a year, than average twice that but be up and down hugely without being able to predict. Or worse, where the company promises one thing and delivers completely differently (even when better than expected it is something of a black eye for their finance managers).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top