Faces versus Stacks (must we choose only one)?

Question

Faces versus Stacks (must we choose only one)?

One of the best features of Aperture is Stacks. Another great feature is Faces. They don't seem to work well together in Aperture 3.3. Specifically, Faces seems to treat each version in a Stack as it's own individual image instead of just showing/referencing the Pick. This is a huge problem when syncing Faces to an iPad or iPhone since it will copy over every version in the Stack for each Face.

I know a solution may be to create a Smart Album that stores the Faces, and that works well for use in Aperture, but then the Faces tab on the iPhone/iPad is useless since you'd end up syncing the Smart Album and not the Faces.

It's also a problem since Aperture is doing work for each Version in a Stack, as well as requiring us to do work for each Version (to confirm the Face).

Is there something I'm doing wrong or could do differently?

Or is this something Apple needs to fix?

Aperture 3, Mac OS X (10.7.4), 3.3

Posted on Jun 14, 2012 3:20 AM

Reply

Answer 1

léonie

Level 10

194,723 points

Jun 14, 2012 3:34 AM in response to KevinePaloAlto

Specifically, Faces seems to treat each version in a Stack as it's own individual image instead of just showing/referencing the Pick.

There may be many situations, where it not would work to simply use the stack pick in Faces - at least with my workflow.

I have many stacks of snapshots showing groups of people, and many people are not in any stack pick image. I use stacks to get these images out of the way, not to set a stackpick for the best snapshot.

For these stacks therefore not a single face would be shown on the cork board, if only the stack picks were available, and therefore I think it is reasonable that "Faces" stacks don't behave like the products - books, slide shows.

In the Faces stack I want every image of a person to be available, but all this certainly is a question of the workflow. I do not sync the Faces - only albums with a few selected portraits.

Regards

Léonie

Reply

Answer 2

Jun 14, 2012 3:02 PM in response to KevinePaloAlto

I just realized, this is a bug across all syncing with Aperture 3.3, not just Faces. Faces still needs to enable Stack/Pick functionality, but whereas Aperture <3.3 only synced the Picks, Aperture 3.3 syncs all versions to iOS devices.

I really hope this gets fixed soon.

@ Léonie,

That's why elsewhere in Aperture you have the option to Open Stacks. That's what Faces is missing, the ability to Open and Close Stacks, and even show that there are Stacks. The Stack sync bug in Aperture 3.3 pretty much makes Stacks useless when dealing with iOS devices.

Reply

Answer 3

léonie

Level 10

194,723 points

Jun 14, 2012 3:25 PM in response to KevinePaloAlto

That's what Faces is missing, the ability to Open and Close Stacks, and even show that there are Stacks. The Stack sync bug in Aperture 3.3 pretty much makes Stacks useless when dealing with iOS devices.

On this we disagree - on the conceptual level:

Stacks are defined for subsets of images, and I agree that syncing of stacks is somewhat buggy in Aperture.

We disagree on the role of Faces. For me, a face is not an image - it is metadata information about an image. Thus a face cannot be part of a (regular) stack, just like a place is not an image and cannot be stacked. You can create (smart) albums of images showing certain faces, and these images you can stack, just like you can create smart albums of images showing places.

Reply

Answer 4

Jun 14, 2012 3:46 PM in response to léonie

I get where you're coming from with your use of Faces and Stacks. I do see how you're using it, and it makes sense to use it that way...although not in my workflow.

Neither one of our use cases is unique. I'm guessing a good number of people use it either way, and some use it both ways. However, what I'm avocating to be changed really wouldn't affect you. If Faces recognized Stacks, and allowed them to be Open or Closed, just like they can be in Albums, how would that impact your use?

For me, and others like me, it would be a huge improvement because we wouldn't open a Face to see a bazillion images that all look the same, unless we Opened all Stacks in Faces.

And for syncing, a Face is treated same as an Album on iOS devices, so having multiple versions of an image is really a problem. Sure, you could create Smart Albums, but then they're not organized on the device as Faces, which defeats the point.

It's funny that you used Places as an example, because Places does recognize Stacks/Picks and allows you to Open and Close them.

Reply

Answer 5

léonie

Level 10

194,723 points

Jun 14, 2012 4:01 PM in response to KevinePaloAlto

The difference between Places and Faces is that each image can have multiple "Faces" assigned, but only on "Place". That makes it easy to implement what you want: Treat the list of images with the same place as as a smart album and include only stack picks - not so difficult, for each image will show up in only one smart album, and you do not have to provide the ability to assign album picks.

But this is different for faces, and that is what I meant with my first example: an image of a group of people will show up in several "Faces stacks (albums)". You will need the ability to assign album picks to each stack and for each face to ensure that you get the desired images as picks in each of your faces stacks. Without the ability to have album picks (for the albums of faces stacks) you may get completely empty faces stacks, if the non-pick images are hidden.

Reply