RKart

Q: Can Faces be turned off in iPhoto 11 ?

I have a very large photo library which I use for reference as a professional artist. I gave up trying to upgrade to iPhoto '09 from '08 because it just kept crashing after hours of trying update my large library. I decided it must be because it was trying to apply the Faces technology to too big of a library. So I am wondering if Apple finally has put the option in iPhoto '11 to turn off Faces before you update your library like you can in Aperture. I like working in the clean simple interface of iPhoto so I don't really want to go to Aperture.

Dual-core Intel Xeon 2x2.66 GHz, Mac OS X (10.4.9)

Posted on Oct 22, 2010 12:17 AM

Close

Q: Can Faces be turned off in iPhoto 11 ?

  • All replies
  • Helpful answers

Previous Page 2 of 4 last Next
  • by ElTocino,

    ElTocino ElTocino Apr 10, 2011 6:30 PM in response to RKart
    Level 1 (0 points)
    Apr 10, 2011 6:30 PM in response to RKart
    I have an issue that I was in a play and in the rehearsal room the walls were lined with various actors head shots, 100's of them and now I have a whole bunch, 1000's of these face shots. Can I delete them from my hard drive without screwing up the original image?
  • by Old Toad,

    Old Toad Old Toad Apr 10, 2011 6:37 PM in response to ElTocino
    Level 10 (141,164 points)
    Mac OS X
    Apr 10, 2011 6:37 PM in response to ElTocino
    Welcome to the Apple Discussions. Yes. However, there's not assurance they won't be recreated as time goes on but they may not. Just don't remove anything else from inside the iPhoto Library Package.

    Make a temporary backup copy of the library before deleting the image files with "faces" in the file name just in case. I had no adverse effects in my test library mentioned above.



  • by Robin Brett,

    Robin Brett Robin Brett Jun 13, 2011 5:11 PM in response to Old Toad
    Level 1 (35 points)
    Jun 13, 2011 5:11 PM in response to Old Toad

    I've tried this just now, and iPhoto seems to be working a bit more quickly than it was.  I've also put in feedback to Apple for the second time complaining about the inability to disable it altogether.  I love the Apple products on the whole, but some of the things that they do, like the introduction of this "feature" that I didn't ask for and I don't want and now can't get rid of, are just as bad as anything Microsoft ever did.

     

    I haven't even heard the official justification for it.  I can only conclude that there isn't one.

  • by TNVancity,

    TNVancity TNVancity Jan 21, 2012 1:00 PM in response to Robin Brett
    Level 1 (0 points)
    Jan 21, 2012 1:00 PM in response to Robin Brett

    adding to this thread because I too cannot stand the 'Faces' feature and especially the fact that it can’t be turned off. why would something like this be mandatory to begin with? please Apple iPhoto, make this feature optional in your next update!

  • by Terence Devlin,

    Terence Devlin Terence Devlin Jan 21, 2012 1:12 PM in response to TNVancity
    Level 10 (139,557 points)
    iLife
    Jan 21, 2012 1:12 PM in response to TNVancity

    iPhoto menu -> Provide iPhoto Feedback

     

    Apple don't promise to read anything here.

  • by Jason BC,

    Jason BC Jason BC Jan 25, 2012 8:52 PM in response to RKart
    Level 1 (4 points)
    Mac OS X
    Jan 25, 2012 8:52 PM in response to RKart

    I get the feeling Apple just isn't listening to this post. We want to be able to turn Faces off in iPhoto. For those of us who don't use it (most users, I'd guess) it's incredibly annoying to have our machines cranking along for minues on end when we don't even have a single face registered. Please give us the simple ability to turn it OFF. I've seen posts on this back from 2010, so I don't think it'll ever be fixed.

     

     

  • by Robin Brett,

    Robin Brett Robin Brett Jan 26, 2012 2:43 AM in response to Jason BC
    Level 1 (35 points)
    Jan 26, 2012 2:43 AM in response to Jason BC

    No, they're just not listening.  Nor are they listening to feedback sent directly to them, as Terence Devlin keeps telling us sneeringly that we should do.  Apple has obviously decided that Faces is a feature that everybody should want, even though nobody does, so we are refused permission to turn it off.

     

    Well, I suppose that if you're the most successful computer company in the world, you can do anything you like. 

     

    Apple has benefited greatly from being perceived as the antithesis of Microsoft, which for so long simply assumed that it knew better than everybody else, including its customers.  Well, Apple, with things like this, you're no better than Microsoft at its worst.

  • by Terence Devlin,

    Terence Devlin Terence Devlin Jan 26, 2012 3:46 AM in response to Robin Brett
    Level 10 (139,557 points)
    iLife
    Jan 26, 2012 3:46 AM in response to Robin Brett

    Here's another way to look at it:

     

    iPhoto and Aperture are like iMovie and Final Cut.

     

    The both do the same job, but the pro app is more expensive, more powerful and has more options.

     

    In Aperture you can turn off Faces.

     

    I think it's more likely that Apple have decided that this level of configurability is one of the variables used to distinguish the two apps. (There are many others)

     

    But here's the thing: Apple haven't added the ability to disable Faces in iphoto so far, but that's not to say that if enough people ask them that they won't revisit the decision.

     

    In any event, it's that or use another app.

     

    Regards

     

     

    TD

  • by Robin Brett,

    Robin Brett Robin Brett Jan 26, 2012 3:03 PM in response to Terence Devlin
    Level 1 (35 points)
    Jan 26, 2012 3:03 PM in response to Terence Devlin

    I understand your point, Terence, but I still don't think it's a good answer.  Aperture costs $199, and for me as a normal, domestic user of iPhoto for managing a domestic photo library, it's completely inappropriate.  For me to buy Aperture would be like buying the full Adobe Photoshop suite just so I could open pdf documents. (Admittedly not as expensive as that.)

     

    As for sending feedback, I've been seeing threads like this one for years, all with users saying exactly the same thing, and also saying that they've sent feedback to Apple, and it hasn't produced a result yet.    I really don't understand their refusal to add the "turn off" option, which can't be difficult from a programming point of view: it seems to be pure pig-headedness on Apple's part, and pigheadedness of the type that alienates those who support them generally, like me.

  • by Terence Devlin,

    Terence Devlin Terence Devlin Jan 26, 2012 4:21 PM in response to Robin Brett
    Level 10 (139,557 points)
    iLife
    Jan 26, 2012 4:21 PM in response to Robin Brett

    Aperture is $69 on the App Store.

     

    Like I say, use another app that has the features you want.

     

    Regards

     

     

    TD

  • by Jason BC,

    Jason BC Jason BC Jan 26, 2012 4:55 PM in response to Terence Devlin
    Level 1 (4 points)
    Mac OS X
    Jan 26, 2012 4:55 PM in response to Terence Devlin

    It's a valid argument, Terence, but being able to turn off a 'feature' that commands the degree of resources Faces does, while being wildly unpopular, is isn't a 'feature' but simply a reasonable UI option that should have been integrated from day one. Having to buy another application just to avoid an anoying feature that can't be turned off is unreasonable in my opinion. iPhoto is otherwise a great app- especially with RAW support. But Faces is spectacularly annoying when I import 2k photos from a 2 day wedding shoot. If refusing to impliment a simple 'off' option in preferences seems reasonable after years of requests, then perhaps my expectations are unreasonably high?

  • by TNVancity,

    TNVancity TNVancity Jan 26, 2012 4:58 PM in response to Terence Devlin
    Level 1 (0 points)
    Jan 26, 2012 4:58 PM in response to Terence Devlin

    only $69? - i never realized it was that affordable.

     

    now it makes me wonder if Apple purposely made the Faces feature annoying as **** so all of us bothered by it would pay for the upgrade to Aperture...

  • by Terence Devlin,

    Terence Devlin Terence Devlin Jan 26, 2012 5:03 PM in response to Jason BC
    Level 10 (139,557 points)
    iLife
    Jan 26, 2012 5:03 PM in response to Jason BC

    But Faces is spectacularly annoying when I import 2k photos from a 2 day wedding shoot.

     

    Why are you using iPhoto? It's not designed or robust enough for commercial application.

     

     

    Regards

     

     

    TD

  • by Terence Devlin,

    Terence Devlin Terence Devlin Jan 26, 2012 5:05 PM in response to TNVancity
    Level 10 (139,557 points)
    iLife
    Jan 26, 2012 5:05 PM in response to TNVancity

    Yes, it's called inverse marketing. Give them the extra feature that means they won't upgrade. Then make it so they can't turn it off, that means they will. I bet that Board of Apple spend lots of time making decisions like that.

  • by Jason BC,

    Jason BC Jason BC Jan 26, 2012 5:31 PM in response to Terence Devlin
    Level 1 (4 points)
    Mac OS X
    Jan 26, 2012 5:31 PM in response to Terence Devlin

    I'm new to these forums, but I have the feeing TD works for Apple

     

    Terence, I've been using iPhoto for ages and have no impression of it lacking 'robustness' for my applications–especially now that it supports RAW. Not what it was designed for? It's designed for importing photos, sorting them, and making minor touch-ups that don't require PS. For putting together a post-shoot collection of previews for my clients, I don't know what more I'd need–it's perfect except for the ridiculous Faces feature that grinds away for 20 minutes despite my not having a single face on the corkboard. That's just bad programing.

     

    If a tool fails to perform the required function then fine, but there's a time-honoured marketing gimick where 'consumer' and 'pro' applications are offered. More often than not, the consumer version is just fine, and less than half the price. Again, iPhoto does exactly what I need, and it's free. Not 'robust' enough? With all due respect, that's exactly the language used to upsell people who don't need to be upsold.

     

    I'm asking for one thing: an 'off' preference for a feature few people want on an otherwise great app. Otherwise iPhoto is plenty robust.

Previous Page 2 of 4 last Next