Discuss: Everypixel
Apr 9, 2017 12:27:24 #
minniev wrote:
Could there also be a factor of uniqueness built into the algorithm? It would make sense, if for stock, that higher ratings might be given to images for which there are not so many other similar shots already banked in the stock systems?
Perhaps saleability somehow comes into it, pictures that it deems are of value to advertisers. I doubt that it considers the "art value"... unless their algorithms have "taste"
Apr 9, 2017 16:37:06 #
Graham Smith wrote:
Perhaps saleability somehow comes into it, pictures that it deems are of value to advertisers. I doubt that it considers the "art value"... unless their algorithms have "taste"
I don't think so either. I think there's a set of "points" that are somehow accrued but I can't figure out what it is.
Apr 9, 2017 17:02:18 #
minniev wrote:
I don't think so either. I think there's a set of "points" that are somehow accrued but I can't figure out what it is.
It's got me beat... two identical pictures, one b&w the other colour. The colour gets 99.8%, the b&w 100%, it obviously likes b&w
Apr 9, 2017 17:29:12 #
Graham Smith wrote:
It's got me beat... two identical pictures, one b&w the other colour. The colour gets 99.8%, the b&w 100%, it obviously likes b&w
The photo I posted above with the boy and gulls - I cropped out the boy to see what the point weight of human-in-scene was, and the gulls by themselves got 96%, not much of a drop. A concert photo taken in darkness with the light on only the performer got 88% so I am wondering if it prefers uncluttered images.
Apr 9, 2017 18:38:09 #
AzPicLady wrote:
Spreading manure with a car? Now that's an awesome shot!
Sorry, Photoshop
Apr 9, 2017 20:40:23 #
Apr 9, 2017 20:48:05 #
Apr 12, 2017 20:08:04 #
I had to try, held my breath the whole way. I was surprised at the tags it came up with... like recognizing symbol.
Apr 13, 2017 04:35:29 #
pfrancke wrote:
I had to try, held my breath the whole way. I was surprised at the tags it came up with... like recognizing symbol.
Everypixel does get confused with the tags, one picture, taken in London was tagged with both London and Paris. Another of a person in India was tagged with India, Thailand and Cambodia. Yet another has the subject tagged as Indian and African. I guess they are hedging their bets
Apr 13, 2017 06:40:30 #
The rating also depends on the file size. The first file is 388KBytes and the second is 153KBytes. Both photos are 1448x946. Keywords are the same, ratings are a bit different.
I get a similar result with the same photo with a different file name.
I get a similar result with the same photo with a different file name.
Apr 13, 2017 07:12:27 #
DirtFarmer wrote:
The rating also depends on the file size. The first file is 388KBytes and the second is 153KBytes. Both photos are 1448x946. Keywords are the same, ratings are a bit different.
I get a similar result with the same photo with a different file name.
I get a similar result with the same photo with a different file name.
It's all rather weird, the first is 1004KBytes the second is 114KBytes, both are the same pixel size 1733x1222. The third is as the first but with only a file name change.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.