Photography is dead

[mdarnton]

Read and weep: http://mattrichardson.com/Descriptive-Camera/

 

[boomguy57]

That has to be a joke.

 

[Gumby]

Can't read. What's the thesis?

 

[mdarnton]

Camera shoots photo, goes to web to parse data, to provide a written description of what was in the picture, prints it out on something like a cash register receipt, then throws out picture, keeping the description. Sort of like photography on the web in 1985.

The eventual application, which isn't a joke, is to be able to automatically provide written descriptions, searchable, for all your photo files, like "red barn in sunflower field".

 

[Aristophanes]

Does it do Braille?

 

[FlyingLotus]

Read and weep: http://mattrichardson.com/Descriptive-Camera/

Interesting...

Does it do Braille?

Awesome Idea! 😀

 

[jsrockit]

Instant poetry machine?

 

[isoterica]

It's interesting that the readout is opinionated, "cupboard which is ugly and old". Now should the photographer think that 'parts cabinet' is 'metal' and 'antique', perhaps even 'charming' they might have a hard time finding that image in their files. Letting internet hits create the metadata is not practical IMHO. It would be better if a photographer was able to tag the items on the fly himself. I don't want to learn how to think like everyone else to find my own unique photos. Conformity and the status quo is not synonymous with a successful photographer. Not even an eclectic hobbyist. It's a novel idea though if they tweak it properly.

 

[Spider67]

Is it for real or is it a hoax?

 

[--s]

part of the text. babel fish. english->dutch->french->german->english:"There we a ongelooflijke foto' quantity; ; s meet, are him ever more difficult, in order to administer our search. As the describing meta data regarding each l' photos accept; One could add information from plastics — in the course of the flight to the topic, that in each photo, from they' is; ; the RH could make and their unbelievably useful environment in skillful look for and, it filters natures to refer our search for photo. Naturally we don' ; t has still the technology, which makes with this practical proposal, but the describing camera examines these possibilities."

exact description of photographer´s needs. lucky we!

 

[isoterica]

part of the text. babel fish. english->dutch->french->german->english:"There we a ongelooflijke foto' quantity; ; s meet, are him ever more difficult, in order to administer our search. As the describing meta data regarding each l' photos accept; One could add information from plastics — in the course of the flight to the topic, that in each photo, from they' is; ; the RH could make and their unbelievably useful environment in skillful look for and, it filters natures to refer our search for photo. Naturally we don' ; t has still the technology, which makes with this practical proposal, but the describing camera examines these possibilities."

exact description of photographer´s needs. lucky we!

Bravo! Well Said, whatever that means! 😀

 

[Jamie Pillers]

Not a joke, but its really funny! 🙂

This camera is just one step away from the lens quality descriptions/tests/reviews provided on the web. We can read the words, but the only real proof is a print on the wall. 😛

 

[Jamie Pillers]

But the source of the 'data' is people on the web willing to look at the picture and write a description of it. The description is then returned to camera owner. This sounds stupid at first glance, but the idea may have interesting uses elsewhere.

Basically, the idea is to use the web and its users as a giant computation device... people's brains as dispersed computers in The Cloud. Anyone willing to provide the information requested would be paid whatever the originator is willing to pay. Like, say, one cent for a written description of the image. Or... 10 cents for advice on how to fix something. Or... [lets see where this goes!].

 

[shadowfox]

From AI perspective, that's not bad.
And they pick a good language to write it in.

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

Instant poetry machine?

Ha!

| | This is a faded picture | |
| | of a dilapidated | |
| | building. It seems to be | |
| | run down and in the need of | |
| | repirs. | |

Spelling was dead a long time ago. But ever since the invention of color photography, B&W was dead. And the proof is that nobody does B&W photos anymore, just like nobody does film anymore, because, as we all know, it's also dead.

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

Although, I'm curious to find out if it can tell the difference between a shot by Eggleston and one by my eight-year-old niece.

 

[Paul Luscher]

I've hears that "one picture is worth a thousand words," but this is ridiculous. Now the picture IS a thousand words.

I suspect that this will have about the same future that the Pet rock did.

 

[Richard G]

This is modern art at best, and still a transparent deception. I have a wonderful precedent for this, not AI. The 1930 Catalogue of the National Gallery of London is full of text descriptions of the works, sufficiently detailed to distinguish one from another, or to make a claim following theft or to ensure something mislaid was found. The descriptions of the Burlington Cartoon and the London Annunciation of Leonardo are fantastically rich.

These thermo-paper-frig-magnet aphoristic banalities are clearly man made.

 

[Steve M.]

Did I hear Pet Rock? I'm covered there. When should I sell?

 

[kode]

That has to be a joke.

No, from what I gather it was a course project at university (on the subject of computational cameras, I think).