This discussion is archived
64074 Views 42 Replies Latest reply: Feb 7, 2010 11:10 AM by Old Toad
Currently Being ModeratedAug 23, 2009 4:18 PM (in response to Terence Devlin)I see it's not only me. I just upgraded to iPhoto '09 today and am now sitting through 72 minutes of waiting while iPhoto sifts through my library. I cannot for the life of me understand why Apple would not have made this OPTIONAL at the first launch of the software, much the way they made the GPS feature optional. I don't look at photos by faces/people...i look at them by dates and places. I assume many do as well. Grouping faces together is just silly in my opinion. Perhaps others like it. But that's the point; it should be an option, not forced upon the masses. If given the option, I absolutely would have clicked "no" as I have no need for it. Yet, here I sit...with 70 minutes to go.
Yes. I've already left feedback with Apple.iMac 20 : PB12 867, Mac OS X (10.5.8)
Currently Being ModeratedSep 8, 2009 6:49 PM (in response to bunheadnux)Wow, I'm amazed there isn't a way to turn the Faces "feature" off. Same with Places FWIW.
I guess I'm going to have to bite the bullet and upgrade to Aperture.
Hopefully someone at Apple will read the suggestion I submitted to provide an OFF button for these cool, but quite useless to me, features.Mac Pro, Macbook Pro, iMac, Cube, 7300, Mac II, Mac OS X (10.6)
Currently Being ModeratedOct 1, 2009 10:24 AM (in response to paulclark)Hi,
I just test Faces today (I hadn't time before) and I agree with you !!
I wrote to Apple to ask them for an OFF button.
I have 46 000 pix (200 G0) with many many faces and I don't want this function wich is not good for me. I'm very disappointed because I love iPhoto, I have many keywords and I don't want to change. Why Apple doesn't want to disable Faces ???
I hope a new version will be better for us !!
Regards from France. JLMacbook pro 17, Mac OS X (10.6.1), LaCie hard disk, coolscan, Nikon D200
Currently Being ModeratedOct 3, 2009 3:49 PM (in response to RobertMan)HI I need your help Robert, i dont use my printer to print photos i send a disc to a local Kodaks, the thing is is that i choose the photos then i click BURN, once thats finished and i go to print them they come out blurry , not as clear this is driving me crazy , now when i read on I photo help it said i should export to a file outside of i photo before i burn, is this necessary? If so why is the burn option on my I photo toolbar if it were not to be used? PLease help since I love to have my photos printed professionally and its getting frustrating. Thank you very much, waiting for your reply.
Currently Being ModeratedOct 4, 2009 12:19 AM (in response to Janan Shihadeh)Janna Shihadeh
Yes, if you want a disk of pics to print then simply select the pics in the iPhoto Window and go File -> Export and export them to a Folder on the desktop, then burn that with the Finder. Result: A disk of full size images.
The Share -> Burn command is designed for folks who want to share or back up a Library - including all the versions, database files and so on. What you see as the blurry images are simply the thumbnails.
TDMacBook Pro 15 2.4 C2D / iMac 20" 2.66 C2D, Mac OS X (10.6), 4 gig RAM/ 4 gig RAM
Currently Being ModeratedOct 25, 2009 7:17 PM (in response to Terence Devlin)"...You might also consider that you may choose not to use a Mac, or even a computer..."
The point is, there SHOULD be an option to disable it. Further, referring to the "it only uses a few kilobytes" comment I saw back a number of posts (don't recall from whom) I beg to differ. I DO NOT use and have NEVER used the faces feature, and I just now discovered that EVERYTHING in my library has been scanned for faces anyway, and in ONE (1) imported directory under my ".../iPhoto Library/Data/..." , there were several MEGABYTES of extra little picture files for each and every face in each and every picture in that directory.
This is a useless waste, and for Apple to not provide a way to turn it off is a "we know better than you do" maneuver similar to something I'd expect from MICROSOFT. I think most of us here like the freedom that Apple products have always given us when compared to oppressive giants like MS. This is a slip toward that megalomaniacal paradigm, and Mac users generally don't like that sort of mindset.
And for the record, I HAVE sent a disapproving comment to the iPhoto help site feedback page (which then automatically pointed me here by the way); AND if there truly is no solution to be had for this issue I will precisely throw iPhoto to the dogs and use something else for my photos.Mac Book Pro, Mac OS X (10.5.6), lots of pro audio/video packages....
Currently Being ModeratedNov 1, 2009 8:17 AM (in response to bunheadnux)It IS a good reason to find another application. It's getting a little obnoxious, not to be able to keep more than a couple of thousand photos in iPhoto. I suppose some GENIUS is going to tell me that I could CHOOSE to not use a computer at all. Does this person work for Apple? Microsoft? Is there a difference anymore?Mac, Mac OS X (10.6.1)
Currently Being ModeratedJan 2, 2010 3:06 PM (in response to danallosso)Can one imagine a life where evert thing automates? you reach for a cup and a hand
reaches out of nowhere and helps you drink it. You reach to tie a shoe lace and your
endeavor is interrupted by the advent of self tying laces. Computing already implements
your design before you even click the mouse. I hope that from time to time Apple Code
daemons "brows" through how the other half lives reading throughout the various forums.
There are so many Apple features I would like to shut off. How difficult is it to provide us users with a bit of a switch? Faces and voice recognition technology is in its infancy, look out! Faces is exhausting. I just keep a shortcut on my desk top and trash the .db files. Incidentally It is not necessary to name the lill face-pegs for the information to be used as third party data, it is an associative process attached to an identity that matters. After all it is the information age.powermac g5, Mac OS X (10.5.7)
Currently Being ModeratedJan 4, 2010 9:56 AM (in response to bunheadnux)Faces actually take up a huge amount of space (and cpu time) on my system for no value with some of the databases I use.
I have over 50% of "more files" just for the little "face" images and about 120% more files at the metadata backup storage than there are pictures in the database. This besides the relatively small db files..
I gave feedback to apple and want to support people here in saying that I also think it should be an optional feature!
BTW: In Picasa it is an optional feature and sad but true it seems to work a lot better in Picasa if you need it!
- HansiMac 27" i7 / 8GB / 1TB, Mac OS X (10.6.2), iPhone / Windows 7 / Parallels 5
Currently Being ModeratedJan 6, 2010 9:10 AM (in response to Terence Devlin)Thanks for your time. All the concerns expressed by so many persons are the same as mine. I followed your suggestion and provided feedback to the iphoto team. I sure hope they address this.
Best to ya
reverseimageimac, Mac OS X (10.5.8)
Currently Being ModeratedFeb 6, 2010 5:30 PM (in response to Terence Devlin)People want to disable Faces for many reasons. Telling them to just let iPhoto do it is not helpful. Someone has stated if one doesn't identify the people in the photos, then there's no problem. This is not necessarily the case. Even if one doesn't identify the faces, the biometric information is still stored in the iPhoto Library, whether or not it is identified by the user. This information can be compared to other biometric information from other places that might be identified. This is a security risk for some. It would be TRIVIAL for Apple to put in an off switch, yet they choose not to do so.
And yes, I've told Apple to fix it.
Currently Being ModeratedFeb 7, 2010 12:16 AM (in response to Chris Langford)People may want to disable faces. No problem. My point is there is no way to do that. None whatever. So, submit a feature request to Apple for that. Posting here doesn't advance the cause one whit. As for the biometric information well that's there in any photo on any computer in the world. That's because the only biometric information available is the photographs themselves.
TDMacBook Pro 15 2.4 C2D / iMac 20" 2.66 C2D, Mac OS X (10.6), 4 gig RAM/ 4 gig RAM
Currently Being ModeratedFeb 7, 2010 11:10 AM (in response to kats_corner_recording)
The point is, there SHOULD be an option to disable it.
Yes, there should. But at the present time there isn't and the options are those which have been posted in this topic and others. Be sure to continue to give your suggestions to Apple via http://www.apple.com/feedback/iphoto.html. Otherwise they'll never know what you and the other users want. They do make changes that users have suggested, just not at the drop of a hat or at the first suggestion.
I have a 39,000 photo library and let Faces do it's thing the first time. From there on I just ignore it. It no longer interferes with my working in iPhoto any more.
there were several MEGABYTES of extra little picture files for each and every face in each and every picture in that directory.
That's not true. Each face image file is only somewhere between 8 and 45 KBs in size, not Megabytes. They are located in the Data.noindex folder and not a folder in the Original folder.
Jumping over those who are only pointing out the facts and the obvious isn't going to get changes made any faster. We're just users like yourself and are here to help users avoid spinning their wheels on something they and we have no control over (except to give feedback to Apple) by offering possible workarounds.3Ghz iMac, 4G RAM, 1TB HD; MBP 2.16 Ghz 2G RAM; 1.5TB/160GB HDs;, Mac OS X (10.6.2), Canon:i850/8600F, Epson R280; 4G Nano, 30G Video iPod; Panasonic DMC-FS15