Say goodbye to criticism, technology is here to rescue us!

M

Morca007

Matt
Local time
4:10 AM
Joined
Mar 13, 2007
Messages
889
Penn State said:
An online photo-rating system developed at Penn State is the first publicly available tool for automatically determining the aesthetic value of an image, according to a Penn State researcher involved with the project.
...
"In its current form, we've seen more than 80 percent consistency between the human and computer ratings," Wang said. "The improvements to the system that are currently under development show promise to get even higher performance.
Click to expand...

This photo from acclaimed artist Hiroshi Sugimoto rates a 33.5/100
hiroshisugimoto.jpg


Meanwhile, this gets a 99/100
e97fc6f9ac118e8c19572f4.png


It gets even better too! Soon you wont even have to waste the time taking a bad photo, your camera will tell you whether or not it's good!

According to Wang, there also are opportunities to link the rating system directly to cameras so that when a photo is taken, the photographer can instantly see how it might be perceived by the public.
Click to expand...

Upload your images and see if they might be a masterpiece! http://acquine.alipr.com/

For reference, this is currently the highest rated image on the site: Link

Full story here.
 
Hey, that´s a Me-262! Such a nice machine :)

But I agree with Avotius on the most stupid thing I have heard, at least for today so far!
 
Ridiculous, but interesting.

96.9 on this image.
Yet, the two images that everyone was in love with at a gallery opening I had last night scored 10.5 & 19.5.

Silly robots trying to understand human emotions.
 
I tried the same image with two different sizes. Smaller size - 17.5. Larger - 57. Then I went to smaller again and got 45.
Errr... can you say "Random Number Generator"?
 
Perhaps a contest, see who can get the lowest machine score, or predict what the computer will score, it could be the latest state lottery?

Was that 18.2 for a French Kiss?

May be the computer can judge the next beauty contest, then no one would have to watch?

Does it Twitter the results?

Regards, John
 
hehe.. there's no accounting for taste - computer's taste or human's taste - the Hiroshi Sugimoto image posted by Matt, to me, is boring and really could have been taken by a monkey; I don't care how "acclaimed" he may be as an artist. It's a boring, dry image imho. :D

Just goes to show you, what one person may enjoy, another may despise.

Dave
 
dcsang said:
hehe.. there's no accounting for taste - computer's taste or human's taste - the Hiroshi Sugimoto image posted by Matt, to me, is boring and really could have been taken by a monkey; I don't care how "acclaimed" he may be as an artist. It's a boring, dry image imho. :D

Just goes to show you, what one person may enjoy, another may despise.

Dave
Click to expand...

this is why any machine generated rating of a photo is completely useless. photography, and any other art for that matter, are about human interactions, emotions and interpretation. if we live our lives according to how computers think we should (and we already do), then people will start wondering what's wrong with them if their own individual thoughts don't agree with the computer's analysis. the people developing these automated rating machines are wasting their time. it's kinda like flickr's explore function, supposedly based on "interestingness". i couldn't give 2 sh!+s about most of the photos that pop up there, they're all the same flower, landscape, kid, puppy, etc photos. interesting? i don't think so.
 
this is hysterical. This picture of mine got a score of 82.3. It's a shot I took years ago when preparing for a moving sale. The vase with fake flowers was listed at $4. Maybe I can print it out at 16x24 put it up in a gallery and call it Vase on Back of Toilet and ask $1,250 for it.

16545132_JS4vd-L.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom