Are we becoming obsolete?

Richard

Saw this on another site: ACQUINE (Aesthetic Quality Inference Engine). It purports to automatically give an aesthetic rating to an image. Just give it a link or upload something and it comes back with a number between 1 and 100.

So, no more Challenge judges? No more Whipping Post? I hardly think so. I played with it a bit--after it didn't like many of my pics much, I gave it links to some famous Cartier Bresson pics, which it didn't like either. Bah, humbug!

An amusing time waster for about 10 minutes, but watch out for version 2.0. :wink

RogersDA

Richard wrote:

Saw this on another site: ACQUINE (Aesthetic Quality Inference Engine). It purports to automatically give an aesthetic rating to an image. Just give it a link or upload something and it comes back with a number between 1 and 100.

So, no more Challenge judges? No more Whipping Post? I hardly think so. I played with it a bit--after it didn't like many of my pics much, I gave it links to some famous Cartier Bresson pics, which it didn't like either. Bah, humbug!

An amusing time waster for about 10 minutes, but watch out for version 2.0.

Install that into the cameras --before-- the shot is taken.

Richard

RogersDA wrote:

Install that into the cameras --before-- the shot is taken.

That's sort of what I was thinking...instead of a focus lock light, you get a light that tells you it's a good shot. Yeah, right...

RogersDA

Richard wrote:

instead of a focus lock light, you get a light that tells you it's a good shot. Yeah, right...

My light would never come on.... :cry

dlplumer

I put in about 15 photos and this one came back with a 5 star rating. Most were not very good.

dlplumer

Didn't mean to kill this thread guys

I have actually become a fan of this tool, although obviously it is not perfected and is a work in progress. I have since uploaded scores of photos and it actually ranks your entire portfolio. I find it quite fascinating, and often surprising but if you read the preamble material, it sets a good context for the AI research that they are experimenting with.

Cheers

Dan

MarkR

At last, empirical evidence which proves what was long suspected:

My photos really are that bad!

Cygnus Studios

I tried a few photos with an avg of 60.7

My best selling stock image was rated the lowest out of the 10 I tried.

I am sure that this type of service will serve some purpose at some point, but I have found that clients rarely choose images on their merits. Even commercial clients seem to choose a particular image based on emotion.

I believe that video will make me obsolete prior to aesthetics.

CWSkopec

I was doing pretty good had a 90 and some high 70's low 80's... then this one...



It rated a 27.3!!!!!!! HAHA!!
It's one of my better photos (IMO) and faired pretty well in the contest I submitted it for! Just when I thought the system was working, it went and dashed my dreams!! :cry

MarkR

This will be a hugely useful tool as we try to sell our photographic services ...

TO OUR NEW CYBORG MASTERS! :yikes

RogersDA

MarkR wrote:

This will be a hugely useful tool as we try to sell our photographic services ...

TO OUR NEW CYBORG MASTERS! :yikes

Can't we implement this as an initial auto-critiquing process in the Whipping Post? Only if the photo passes this test does anyone else get to see it.

RogersDA

Rating = 27.2


Rating = 7.6


Rating = 8.1




I think I'll stick with blocks.

dlplumer

Cygnus Studios wrote:

I tried a few photos with an avg of 60.7

My best selling stock image was rated the lowest out of the 10 I tried.

I am sure that this type of service will serve some purpose at some point, but I have found that clients rarely choose images on their merits. Even commercial clients seem to choose a particular image based on emotion.

I believe that video will make me obsolete prior to aesthetics.

60.7 average is very good. The tool aims for an average score of 50 for professional photographers (it is tough). I entered lots of photos and averaged in the 40s and some of my best shots (imo) came out at the bottom, but I also had a few 5 star winners.

Obviously, someone/someones built a complex algorithm to decide on aesthetic value. Apparently the system learns, and over time will make better choices that more closely mimic human aesthetic judgements. For now, I find it amusing to see if I can determine the criteria that the system uses in making judgements.

Maybe we could have a Dgrin artificial intelligence (AI) challenge. Not only would it be fun, but Dgrin would be contributing to the research. :ivar

Richard

I'll be more interested when I see two copies of the program arguing with each other.:duel

mercphoto

Fun website!

Rated 45.6:


Rated 20.8:


Rated 38.1:


Rated 72.4: (and I do like this a lot)

RogersDA

Cr*p - I put a rather nice picture of my wife and it gave her a 3!!!! She rates lower than blocks.

pathfinder

RogersDA

I got tired of trying to find if I had anything decent. So, I gave it everything at once.



Now it likes it.

Cygnus Studios

RogersDA wrote:

Now it likes it.

I have to agree, that is a super cool looking shot.

pathfinder

It liked a few of mine, one 95, and a half dozen in the high 80s, but also really hated some that I don't think were quite as bad as it rated them

It gave this image a 4.3 -- Is it really that bad?



And this one a record breaking 1.9 - I freely admit to collecting signs and grafitti but really...... 1.9?



I have a large print of this one at home on the wall rated at 15.5



You got a 95 for a screen shot of a web browser - that is cool!

Do you think the stock agencies are going to use this to evaluate new images?

colourbox

Richard wrote:

Just give it a link or upload something and it comes back with a number between 1 and 100. So, no more Challenge judges? No more Whipping Post?

Well, I don't see anything wrong with that.

THIS POST WAS GENERATED AUTOMATICALLY BY A COMPUTER PROGRAM

RogersDA

pathfinder wrote:

You got a 95 for a screen shot of a web browser - that is cool!

98.3!! It is, after all, Firefox and not IE.

Do you think the stock agencies are going to use this to evaluate new images?

Not with the results I've seen.

pathfinder

I saw a snapshot of candy bar wrappers in a pile on the ground that scored in the high 30s. Not my picture.


Some of the images it scores very highly, I generally agree look very good. But then I see some images ( of mine anyway ) with extremely low scores that I don't fully agree with.

It is kind of fun, though.

RogersDA

It gave this image a 4.3 -- Is it really that bad?

Computers don't lie. D:D:D:D:D:D:D



Seriously, though, its a good shot!

pathfinder

dlplumer

pathfinder wrote:

I like your multi colored waterflow shot Craig, but what do I know. I'm a human being.

Dan

pathfinder

Thanks.

I found a page of Esher's that scored less than 3, so I feel a lot better now!

RogersDA

pathfinder wrote:

Thanks.

I found a page of Esher's that scored less than 3, so I feel a lot better now!

Good for you.

You don't have to live with a wife that's more aesthetically unpleasing than a block.huh

Eia

I tried a bunch of mine...some were very high but mostly low. I also tried three Ansel Adams...it didn't like him much; thumbs down on two out of three. I guess art and photography really is relative when it comes down to it but it is kinda fun nonetheless.

cornerketch

One and Done
I sent one picture in , rated 90.2, I'm never sending in another..

I see that the program agrees with my point of view.. So from a single picture (of the 104,000 I have loaded on smugmug). I feel good that Some Artificial Intelligence can evaluate my true talent..

By the way, Do you know the opposite of Artificial Intelligence..
Real Ignorance.

Richard

cornerketch wrote:

By the way, Do you know the opposite of Artificial Intelligence..
Real Ignorance.

Last year, I used the Web-based technical support of one of the major computer manufacturers. The speed of the response suggested the use of artificial intelligence, but the content suggested a genuine moron.