1. Forum
  2. Usenet
  3. REC.PHOTO.DIGITAL

  • collecting art online

    From sobriquet@21:1/5 to All on Tue Sep 27 16:35:57 2022
    For a long time I've been collecting art online.
    The easiest thing is probably to just grab a bunch of torrents that archive images from Christie's, Sotheby's, etc..
    But I also like to manually collect images, although it's quite frustrating
    to obtain the best quality version of images.
    Here is a typical example.. you might find an image like this: https://i.imgur.com/SeeZsCa.png

    It looks a bit fuzzy, so you reckon, hmmm there should be a better quality version.. and pulling the image through tineye or bing yields a better quality version:
    https://i.imgur.com/5BZMSgu.jpg

    But this is a bit laborious.. surely in this age of AI it should be possible to have a website that scrapes the web and only presents you with good quality search results?

    Why do companies like google come up with so much inferior garbage search results, given that there are obviously superior images available
    that are not that difficult to find?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Whisky-dave@21:1/5 to sobriquet on Wed Sep 28 05:10:44 2022
    On Wednesday, 28 September 2022 at 00:36:01 UTC+1, sobriquet wrote:
    For a long time I've been collecting art online.
    The easiest thing is probably to just grab a bunch of torrents that archive images from Christie's, Sotheby's, etc..
    But I also like to manually collect images, although it's quite frustrating to obtain the best quality version of images.
    Here is a typical example.. you might find an image like this: https://i.imgur.com/SeeZsCa.png

    It looks a bit fuzzy, so you reckon, hmmm there should be a better quality version.. and pulling the image through tineye or bing yields a better quality version:
    https://i.imgur.com/5BZMSgu.jpg

    But this is a bit laborious.. surely in this age of AI it should be possible to
    have a website that scrapes the web and only presents you with good quality search results?

    First you'd need to define what is meant by good quality.

    Then you'd have to decide whether the creator of the image wants everyone to have a free copy.



    Why do companies like google come up with so much inferior garbage search results, given that there are obviously superior images available
    that are not that difficult to find?

    If they are not difficult to find, why do you need 'google' or anyone else to find them for you ?

    I'ts not difficult to find gold just pan some dirt with water, so why don't people send me gold for free when I ask them to ?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From sobriquet@21:1/5 to Whisky-dave on Wed Sep 28 08:50:44 2022
    On Wednesday, September 28, 2022 at 2:10:48 PM UTC+2, Whisky-dave wrote:
    On Wednesday, 28 September 2022 at 00:36:01 UTC+1, sobriquet wrote:
    For a long time I've been collecting art online.
    The easiest thing is probably to just grab a bunch of torrents that archive images from Christie's, Sotheby's, etc..
    But I also like to manually collect images, although it's quite frustrating to obtain the best quality version of images.
    Here is a typical example.. you might find an image like this: https://i.imgur.com/SeeZsCa.png

    It looks a bit fuzzy, so you reckon, hmmm there should be a better quality version.. and pulling the image through tineye or bing yields a better quality version:
    https://i.imgur.com/5BZMSgu.jpg

    But this is a bit laborious.. surely in this age of AI it should be possible to
    have a website that scrapes the web and only presents you with good quality search results?
    First you'd need to define what is meant by good quality.

    Images that are not blurred/artificially inflated with low jpg compression settings.
    As well as more user control to exclude unwanted search results (like watermarked
    images that people might want to avoid).


    Then you'd have to decide whether the creator of the image wants everyone to have a free copy.

    Part of the problem is indeed the copyright myth that causes people to share crap
    versions of artworks which should somehow motivate people to buy art. Or they make it difficult to save an image. People can decide to share art or not, but if they
    do share it, it's generally not very effective to try to prevent people from downloading
    the art.


    Why do companies like google come up with so much inferior garbage search results, given that there are obviously superior images available
    that are not that difficult to find?
    If they are not difficult to find, why do you need 'google' or anyone else to find them for you ?

    Google offers a service to find things online, so I think it's fair to criticize them if they
    do a lousy job. In other respects google does a good job, like when I use google maps,
    I like the way street view offers pictures to see what it looks like in a wide range of
    locations on the map.

    I guess google just shows pictures that they happen to find without any quality control, so ultimately the blame is also with people who share inferior quality images.
    Maybe in the future AI can differentiate between good and bad quality images with
    minimal computational resources, so it becomes more cost effective to provide a free image search service that yields the best possible quality images in the search
    results.
    In any case there is a lot of amazing and awesome art available online, it's just that
    I wish they wouldn't make you go through unnecessary effort to obtain good quality
    images for an art slideshow on the computer.


    I'ts not difficult to find gold just pan some dirt with water, so why don't people send me gold for free when I ask them to ?

    Yeah, it's all relative.. I'm just a bit puzzled why google provides inconsistent services
    (some good and some not so good).

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Alfred Molon@21:1/5 to All on Wed Sep 28 18:19:43 2022
    Am 28.09.2022 um 01:35 schrieb sobriquet:
    Why do companies like google come up with so much inferior garbage search results, given that there are obviously superior images available
    that are not that difficult to find?

    There is something wrong with search engines nowadays. You often do not
    get the most relevant result.
    What is usually served is the website with the better SEO or which
    perhaps paid some money to the search engine.
    --
    Alfred Molon

    Olympus 4/3 and micro 4/3 cameras forum at
    https://groups.io/g/myolympus
    https://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From nospam@21:1/5 to alfred_molon@yahoo.com on Wed Sep 28 12:50:39 2022
    In article <zu_YK.345662$G_96.100607@fx13.ams1>, Alfred Molon <alfred_molon@yahoo.com> wrote:

    There is something wrong with search engines nowadays.

    no there isn't. they work exceptionally well.

    You often do not
    get the most relevant result.

    you do with proper search queries.

    as the saying goes, garbage in garbage out.

    What is usually served is the website with the better SEO or which
    perhaps paid some money to the search engine.

    those may rank higher, however, it's not difficult to refine the query
    to get exactly what you want.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Whisky-dave@21:1/5 to sobriquet on Thu Sep 29 06:11:40 2022
    On Wednesday, 28 September 2022 at 16:50:48 UTC+1, sobriquet wrote:
    On Wednesday, September 28, 2022 at 2:10:48 PM UTC+2, Whisky-dave wrote:
    On Wednesday, 28 September 2022 at 00:36:01 UTC+1, sobriquet wrote:
    For a long time I've been collecting art online.
    The easiest thing is probably to just grab a bunch of torrents that archive
    images from Christie's, Sotheby's, etc..
    But I also like to manually collect images, although it's quite frustrating
    to obtain the best quality version of images.
    Here is a typical example.. you might find an image like this: https://i.imgur.com/SeeZsCa.png

    It looks a bit fuzzy, so you reckon, hmmm there should be a better quality version.. and pulling the image through tineye or bing yields a better quality version:
    https://i.imgur.com/5BZMSgu.jpg

    But this is a bit laborious.. surely in this age of AI it should be possible to
    have a website that scrapes the web and only presents you with good quality
    search results?
    First you'd need to define what is meant by good quality.
    Images that are not blurred/artificially inflated with low jpg compression settings.
    As well as more user control to exclude unwanted search results (like watermarked
    images that people might want to avoid).

    Doesn't sound like a very good description of good quality image.

    Then you'd have to decide whether the creator of the image wants everyone to have a free copy.
    Part of the problem is indeed the copyright myth that causes people to share crap
    versions of artworks which should somehow motivate people to buy art. Or they make it difficult to save an image. People can decide to share art or not, but if they
    do share it, it's generally not very effective to try to prevent people from downloading
    the art.

    Then whats the problem ?

    Maybe it's because you don;t understand copyright.



    Why do companies like google come up with so much inferior garbage search results, given that there are obviously superior images available
    that are not that difficult to find?
    If they are not difficult to find, why do you need 'google' or anyone else to find them for you ?
    Google offers a service to find things online, so I think it's fair to criticize them if they
    do a lousy job.

    What do you mean by a lousy job..
    If yuo can do a better job of it then do it and stop complaining.



    In other respects google does a good job, like when I use google maps,
    I like the way street view offers pictures to see what it looks like in a wide range of
    locations on the map.

    It's not perfect I can;'t see most street door numbers and the picture of my friend sitting outsiude a pub is almost unrecognisable.
    I expect each image to be perfect and at least the quality of medium format digital camera can do.


    I guess google just shows pictures that they happen to find without any quality
    control, so ultimately the blame is also with people who share inferior quality
    images.

    Maybe they shouldn;t share them then is that whayt you are saying.

    Maybe in the future AI can differentiate between good and bad quality images with
    minimal computational resources, so it becomes more cost effective to provide a
    free image search service that yields the best possible quality images in the search
    results.

    Again depends what you mean by quality.
    How about some of the original footage of the moon landings , in ultra hi def. They could add an alien or two to the video.
    Would that make the moon landing images better quality ?


    In any case there is a lot of amazing and awesome art available online, it's just that
    I wish they wouldn't make you go through unnecessary effort to obtain good quality
    images for an art slideshow on the computer.

    Then do something about it, create you're own search engine and make it availible to everyone.
    why don't you do that.



    I'ts not difficult to find gold just pan some dirt with water, so why don't people send me gold for free when I ask them to ?
    Yeah, it's all relative.. I'm just a bit puzzled why google provides inconsistent services
    (some good and some not so good).

    Because that's how life is, some people are good some are shit.
    People have differing options on what is good or bad too.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From David Brooks@21:1/5 to sobriquet on Sat Oct 1 15:48:39 2022
    XPost: alt.computer.workshop

    On 28/09/2022 00:35, sobriquet wrote:
    For a long time I've been collecting art online.
    The easiest thing is probably to just grab a bunch of torrents that archive images from Christie's, Sotheby's, etc..
    But I also like to manually collect images, although it's quite frustrating to obtain the best quality version of images.
    Here is a typical example.. you might find an image like this: https://i.imgur.com/SeeZsCa.png

    It looks a bit fuzzy, so you reckon, hmmm there should be a better quality version.. and pulling the image through tineye or bing yields a better quality version:
    https://i.imgur.com/5BZMSgu.jpg

    But this is a bit laborious.. surely in this age of AI it should be possible to
    have a website that scrapes the web and only presents you with good quality search results?

    Why do companies like google come up with so much inferior garbage search results, given that there are obviously superior images available
    that are not that difficult to find?

    I can't answer your question .... but I've found that I can often obtain
    really good quality pictures from Wikipedia.

    Is that a place you have looked? Here's an example:- https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8b/Westminster_Abbey_St_Peter.jpg

    I've been experimenting with 'Photos' (an App on my Apple iMac) and have
    put this item on YouTube. I'd be interested in your overall impression
    of my sister's work. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NEZt4eByEsQ

    --
    Kind regards,
    David

    Shared with my ACW group

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From sobriquet@21:1/5 to David Brooks on Sat Oct 1 17:34:06 2022
    On Saturday, October 1, 2022 at 4:48:47 PM UTC+2, David Brooks wrote:
    On 28/09/2022 00:35, sobriquet wrote:
    For a long time I've been collecting art online.
    The easiest thing is probably to just grab a bunch of torrents that archive images from Christie's, Sotheby's, etc..
    But I also like to manually collect images, although it's quite frustrating to obtain the best quality version of images.
    Here is a typical example.. you might find an image like this: https://i.imgur.com/SeeZsCa.png

    It looks a bit fuzzy, so you reckon, hmmm there should be a better quality version.. and pulling the image through tineye or bing yields a better quality version:
    https://i.imgur.com/5BZMSgu.jpg

    But this is a bit laborious.. surely in this age of AI it should be possible to
    have a website that scrapes the web and only presents you with good quality search results?

    Why do companies like google come up with so much inferior garbage search results, given that there are obviously superior images available
    that are not that difficult to find?
    I can't answer your question .... but I've found that I can often obtain really good quality pictures from Wikipedia.

    Yes, often they have good quality images, but it's probably more suitable to obtain
    images of classical art as opposed to modern art.


    Is that a place you have looked? Here's an example:- https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8b/Westminster_Abbey_St_Peter.jpg

    I've been experimenting with 'Photos' (an App on my Apple iMac) and have
    put this item on YouTube. I'd be interested in your overall impression
    of my sister's work. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NEZt4eByEsQ

    My overall impression is that it's pretty good art, although I tend to have a strong
    preference for abstract art:

    https://imgbox.com/g/vvAuVrPvZs

    I also like to recreate famous existing abstract artworks myself with mathematics:

    https://sites.google.com/view/math4abstractart/home


    --
    Kind regards,
    David

    Shared with my ACW group

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From David Brooks@21:1/5 to sobriquet on Sun Oct 2 19:38:58 2022
    XPost: alt.computer.workshop

    On 02/10/2022 01:34, sobriquet wrote:
    On Saturday, October 1, 2022 at 4:48:47 PM UTC+2, David Brooks wrote:
    On 28/09/2022 00:35, sobriquet wrote:
    For a long time I've been collecting art online.
    The easiest thing is probably to just grab a bunch of torrents that archive >>> images from Christie's, Sotheby's, etc..
    But I also like to manually collect images, although it's quite frustrating >>> to obtain the best quality version of images.
    Here is a typical example.. you might find an image like this:
    https://i.imgur.com/SeeZsCa.png

    It looks a bit fuzzy, so you reckon, hmmm there should be a better quality version.. and pulling the image through tineye or bing yields a better quality version:
    https://i.imgur.com/5BZMSgu.jpg

    But this is a bit laborious.. surely in this age of AI it should be possible to
    have a website that scrapes the web and only presents you with good quality >>> search results?

    Why do companies like google come up with so much inferior garbage search results, given that there are obviously superior images available
    that are not that difficult to find?
    I can't answer your question .... but I've found that I can often obtain
    really good quality pictures from Wikipedia.

    Yes, often they have good quality images, but it's probably more suitable to obtain
    images of classical art as opposed to modern art.

    Agreed. But here's one!

    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c4/Vassily_Kandinsky%2C_1923_-_On_White_II.jpg

    Is that a place you have looked? Here's an example:-
    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8b/Westminster_Abbey_St_Peter.jpg

    I've been experimenting with 'Photos' (an App on my Apple iMac) and have
    put this item on YouTube. I'd be interested in your overall impression
    of my sister's work. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NEZt4eByEsQ

    My overall impression is that it's pretty good art, although I tend to have a strong
    preference for abstract art:

    Thank you. I know I'm biased, but I think her work is of a excellent
    standard.

    https://imgbox.com/g/vvAuVrPvZs

    I also like to recreate famous existing abstract artworks myself with mathematics:

    https://sites.google.com/view/math4abstractart/home

    Thank you for sharing that information. Interesting!

    Kind regards,
    David

    Shared with my ACW group

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)