Machine assessment of images

Flems · Jun 3, 2009

alright . . . i think it releys heavily on contrast, i submitted a bw version of one that scored 6, and a color that scored 28, excactly the same.
http://i126.photobucket.com/albums/p120/newrmdmike/_DSC0428sml.jpg
96.8

I need a new fisheye... how much? :lmao:

I think I'm going to give this a try.

Chris of Arabia · Jun 3, 2009

99.3/100!

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3314/3576480619_9af092fedf_o.jpg - with added TPF content.

For the life of me though, I can't see this easily replacing the human eye as a tool for assessing what it aesthetically pleasing.

blash · Jun 5, 2009

It is 100% impossible to write code that can determine with certainty an aesthetically pleasing image because such images generally rely not just on use of color but on subject material, perspective, and personal connotations. Pleasing images often evoke some kind of emotional response (not necessarily a strong one) but since computers cannot evoke emotional responses, they cannot determine what makes a pleasing image.

Even if a computer could make a genuine emotional response (and not just triggering pain sensors etc. when it detects that an emotional response would be suitable), it is likely that computers would find different images to be aesthetically pleasing and thus not able to tell us what we find aesthetically pleasing - an extension of the fact that not all aesthetically pleasing images are pleasing to all people, since people have opinions and taste.

I, for one, regard all such machines as farcical.

Overread · Jun 5, 2009

*translation*
machine rates Blash's work on the low scale

don't worry I am down there with you

Garbz · Jun 5, 2009

Of course blash. The machine is useless in practice, but try to enjoy hillarity at some of the results.

The machine really hates abstract work: http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3091/2301198603_95661276bd_b.jpg
15.2

And isn't too fond of my cat either: http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2394/2130215243_2dc32d66b6_b.jpg
75

That said a photo which was really liked here on TPF http://farm1.static.flickr.com/184/483807157_cebf162091_b.jpg scored quite high
96.2

However it's no excuse for taking a photo I love and scoring it only http://farm1.static.flickr.com/212/483807163_bd83070794_b.jpg
42.8

Oh and it doesn't like my girlfriend either, she only got 31.7

I hate this machine.

Joves · Jun 5, 2009

I only submitted one photo and, got a 50.
http://joves.smugmug.com/photos/280148070_ytpKu-L.jpg

Battou · Jun 5, 2009

Well machine sais

Around the bend by Battou - Photo Lucidity - 63.3

Defeated by Battou - Photo Lucidity - 47.1

Smile by Battou - Photo Lucidity - 50

Untitled #12 by Battou - Photo Lucidity - 82.8

Procambarus alleni by Battou - Photo Lucidity - 83.1

Just the Beast Under Your Bed by Battou - Photo Lucidity - 76.6

Yup....It's a machine. Some of my more popular photos are due to the sence of humor and or emotion they provide, and a machine having no emotion rates them as mediocher at best. I was rather surprised at how low "Around the Bend" faired, and absolutely astonished at how high "Procambarus Alleni" came in though.

*EDIT* Well I do like the whole collection thing to an extent.

johngpt · Jun 6, 2009

I'm afraid it doesn't like me very well...

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2468/3600202939_a27c04ecb5.jpg 57.2

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2473/3590775145_05d5e4ba1f.jpg 48.9

and this one as 27.7

Anybody interested in some quality used camera kit? Probably should just hang it up.

usayit · Jun 6, 2009

Hmmmm....

A scan of my son's handprint (from birth certificate) in B&W got 83.4... :lol:

Josh66 · Jun 6, 2009

I don't get it.

It seems to be all over the place. My lowest one was 7.7, highest was 82.

There doesn't seem to be any pattern.

EDIT

http://i249.photobucket.com/albums/gg206/englerj/4th of July 2008/IMG_4079-resized.jpg
This one got a 95.9.

http://i249.photobucket.com/albums/gg206/englerj/4th of July 2008/IMG_4077-resized.jpg
98.3! Apparently, it loves fireworks.

...Maybe not - I just plugged a few more firework shots into it and they were in the 40's & 50's.