Loading
Acquine - automated photo rating

Today, a friend attended me of a new(?) research project, which tries to rate the aesthetic appeal of pictures by using artificial intelligence.

http://acquine.alipr.com

While I am fascinated by the idea, it seems that this still has a long way to go, and that the designers maybe focus too much on heuristics (people like a small DoF, or vanishing points, or strong colors), and less on the human context and background when evaluating a photograph.

I don't know if there is something like universal aesthetics. Doesn't cultural background heavily influence our likes and dislikes? Besides, would it be really possible to catch the appeal of a picture in a set of rules that can be evaluated by a computer?

However, it is fun to throw one's pictures at Acquine, and try to find out what it likes and doesn't like. This one gets 85%, for instance, while this one only gets 6%. Funny enough, the latter picture does much more for me, because of my personal interests. But I think Acquine doesn't see enough clear lines or division between subject and background.

Both are my own pictures, btw ... no "stealing" of other's work ;-)

4 comments

François Collard said:

I think it is much like Flickr's 'interestingness". Only formal criteria, and tastes according to current fashions. It prefers your most 'graphical' image, and does not understand the human depth and the meaning of the other one. Interesting game, but only a game.
14 years ago

François Collard said:

I tried with some of my photos; most of them get very low scores. But this one was rated 93.3:

I thought that a well-structured background with human characters in the foreground would get a good score, and I tried this one:
Étretat
which was rated 89.1
I browsed photos by other users. I found one with a very high score, which was a completely missed photo: a door opening on a room with a character inside. The human character was underexposed, the door frame was overexposed.
Another one with a crossed-dressed drunkard in a party, badly exposed with a point-and-shoot and a flash got an incredible 95.9 (http://acquine.alipr.com/show_image.php?id=1255569777.6365).
Most images are not bad, but I think the software measures only some sort of 'eye-catchingness'.
14 years ago

Johan replied to François Collard:

Yes, it does simply check for some features. The program cannot see the pictures with a human's mind, of course.
14 years ago

François Collard replied to :

But it is not uninteresting, and I submitted a lot of images;)
Maybe you could create a group for images rated > 80?
14 years ago