# Ugly pictures challenge



## martaexv (May 22, 2015)

Hi all!

I'm a student in computer vision and I am pursuing my master dissertation in "image's aesthetics". Concretely, I am trying to  understand the "beauty" in images but looking for clues in its opposite side, the "ugliness". Thus, I am interested in knowing what parameters/details do not please observers in a photo.

I am aware that there is lot of subjective part on this topic... cultural backgrounds, education, styles... still I am trying to see if there is any pattern common in the human being (due to our genetic or instinct of survival). Thus, to do it easier, I am considering images without human-made objects (i.e. cars, buildings, people...) or animals. For example, mountains, grass, sea landscapes... would work.

I thought that you, as experienced photographers, would have lots of interesting and helpful information and ideas  What would you consider in order to take a photo the ugliest possible? If you have any example of ugly picture that you want to share, it would be really welcomed too.

Thank you


----------



## crls_santino (May 22, 2015)

here you go







Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## snowbear (May 22, 2015)

I'll play:
severe camera blur, no clear subject, poor composition, bad white balance, and over saturated color.


----------



## sashbar (May 22, 2015)

I can post a reeealy ugly, revolting picture, but real ugliness is assosciated almost exclusively with humans and thier products. I can not possibly imagine anything natural such as mountains, grass or landscapes that could be described as ugly.  Technically poor images are just what it is technicaly poor, there is nothing particularly ugly about it however much blur or grain you add.


----------



## gsgary (May 22, 2015)

Ugly enough ?


----------



## limr (May 22, 2015)

Two out of the three posters did not read carefully:



martaexv said:


> I am considering images *without human-made objects* (i.e. cars, buildings, people...) *or animals*. For example, mountains, grass, sea landscapes... would work.



The question I would have for the OP is: are you looking for pictures of ugly subjects or ugly pictures of nice subjects? What does the adjective "ugly" attach to? Are you looking for what subjects people consider ugly, or are you concerned with how a picture of something nice can still be taken in an ugly way (as in technically poor, overprocessed, poorly composed...)?


----------



## waday (May 22, 2015)

limr said:


> The question I would have for the OP is: are you looking for pictures of ugly subjects or ugly pictures of nice subjects?


This exactly. The OP is not clear enough.


----------



## snowbear (May 22, 2015)

limr said:


> Two out of the three posters did not read carefully:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I say ugliness, just as beauty, is in the eye of the beholder.  In my example, I see it as "ugly" because of the technical and artistic flaws, though some were introduced into the original just for this thread.

Hmmm . . . the shadow, that big ugly blue patch, was made by a truck blocking out the sun.  Does that still count?


----------



## limr (May 22, 2015)

snowbear said:


> I say ugliness, just as beauty, is in the eye of the beholder.  In my example, I see it as "ugly" because of the technical and artistic flaws, though some were introduced into the original just for this thread.
> 
> Hmmm . . . the shadow, that big ugly blue patch, was made by a truck blocking out the sun.  Does that still count?



Absolutely, ugly is in the eye of the beholder. But someone could take a pictures of something ugly and still make a beautiful picture. The OP is trying to be systematic about his study (which is commendable) and so I just wondered what "ugly" is he/she studying: ugly _subjects _or ugly _pictures? _Is the study about how a picture can still be ugly even if it is a nice subject? I _think_ that's what's being asked for, but I just wanted to clarify.

If it's ugly pictures he's after, I nominate anything that's been tone-mapped and HDRd within an inch of its life.


----------



## snowbear (May 22, 2015)

limr said:


> If it's ugly pictures he's after, I nominate anything that's been tone-mapped and HDRd within an inch of its life.


This.  Over and over.


----------



## 480sparky (May 22, 2015)

Well, if I can't post anything made by humans, or animals, I guess that leaves out photos of my ex.


----------



## table1349 (May 22, 2015)

Does this count? http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/06/10/article-0-0C7F704000000578-574_634x430.jpg

Tell me Sparky, does your ex beat that??


----------



## 480sparky (May 22, 2015)

gryphonslair99 said:


> Does this count? http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/06/10/article-0-0C7F704000000578-574_634x430.jpg
> 
> Tell me Sparky, does your ex beat that??



Yep. By a mile.







Which also happens to be her belt size as well.


----------



## table1349 (May 22, 2015)

480sparky said:


> gryphonslair99 said:
> 
> 
> > Does this count? http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/06/10/article-0-0C7F704000000578-574_634x430.jpg
> ...


Ohhh......Sort of like....


----------



## BillM (May 22, 2015)

Sorry but I can't help, all of my pictures are beautiful


----------



## snowbear (May 22, 2015)

I'm starting a pool as to whether the OP comes back.  We may have already scared her off, or convinced her that we're all jammin' nuts.


----------



## unpopular (May 22, 2015)

Complex Forms in Nature Flickr - Photo Sharing 

Some images in this project were intended specifically to be anti-aesthetic. See: "Discrete" "Stochastic I" and "Stochastic II"


----------



## unpopular (May 22, 2015)

Also: Constraint and Structure Flickr - Photo Sharing 

"Survival", "Shrubbery", "Habitat" and "Cliffs"

Also:
Entrance Explore ion nine s photos on Flickr. ion nine has Flickr - Photo Sharing 
fall tide Explore ion nine s photos on Flickr. ion nine ha Flickr - Photo Sharing 
Alcove Explore ion nine s photos on Flickr. ion nine has u Flickr - Photo Sharing


----------



## martaexv (May 25, 2015)

limr said:


> Two out of the three posters did not read carefully:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Ugly pictures of nice subjects. Actually, the question was that in the case that you have something in front of you and you were asked to take a picture of that "something" (it doesn't matter the content), what would you do to do it the "less pretty as possible". What it comes to my mind, for example, is to not focus on that "main" subject (i.e. a tree, or a sunset) or that the "main thing" does not appear completely in the scene... this were ideas that I had, I would like to know what would you consider.

I asked for pictures "without objects" or animals because I was trying to avoid the "feeling" that these objects (due to personal memories or cultural background) could influence to the decision of if that picture is beautiful or not. Still, I am aware that beauty is on the eye of the beholder, but the question is more about... what techniques would you avoid in order to take the picture the worst as possible. Normally, anyone tries to do the opposite. 

Thank you all for your answers!!!



snowbear said:


> I'm starting a pool as to whether the OP comes back.  We may have already scared her off, or convinced her that we're all jammin' nuts.



Hahaha no no, I'm not scared   Sorry, it was the first time I used this forum and I didn't even realized that someone answered me! Thank you all very much


----------



## Wilh93 (May 25, 2015)

I'm still a little confused here. When you say ugly pictures of nice subjects do you mean like horribly composes, over top HDR, etc etc?


----------



## webestang64 (May 26, 2015)

Want to see ugly photos? Work in a photo lab, I see them everyday.


----------



## Achaicus (May 26, 2015)

So I understand he is after bad photography not ugly subjects.


----------



## unpopular (May 26, 2015)

God people. This thread has proven one thing: photographers are as dumb as a box of rocks.


----------



## Solarflare (May 28, 2015)

I'm with the "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" crowd.

Thus ugliness is subjective, too.





480sparky said:


> Well, if I can't post anything made by humans, or animals, I guess that leaves out photos of my ex.


 If you concluded she belonged to either of those groups, sure.


----------



## 480sparky (May 28, 2015)

unpopular said:


> God people. This thread has proven one thing: photographers are as dumb as a box of rocks.



I resemble that remark!


----------



## table1349 (May 28, 2015)

Hey, as long as my box is filled with these rocks who cares.




Dumb and Rich is still RICH!!!!


----------



## unpopular (May 28, 2015)

Solarflare said:


> Thus ugliness is subjective, too.



Not for an AI researcher like the OP.


----------



## martaexv (May 28, 2015)

Actually I don't think it's totally subjective. I believe that there's a subjective part, of course, and that part depends on our personalities, styles, experiences... But I also think that there is something inside our genetic, something that tells us if something is good or not for us and that the way that our body has to tell this it's using "pleasure", pleasure that we experiment when we're looking/feeling something that we like. On the other hand, there is the opposite, the feeling that something is not good for us, that I've called "ugliness", but maybe it's not the best word for it.

In pictures, beauty/ugliness are perceived through our eyes, when we observe them. My interest in this forum is to know what you think that is not "beautiful" for a picture. Pics overexposed, without any relevant subject (as a picture where it only appears the ground...). Maybe the best "word" for the opposite of a beautiful pic is a "boring" one  Though there're people who state that "interesting" does not always imply "beautiful"


----------



## unpopular (May 28, 2015)

I think there are things that are universally disliked.  Did _anyone_ REALLY like "The Macarana"?


----------



## limr (May 28, 2015)

unpopular said:


> I think there are things that are universally disliked.  Did _anyone_ REALLY like "The Macarana"?



Yes, some people did like the Macarena. 

No, not me.


----------



## table1349 (May 28, 2015)




----------



## jovince3000 (May 29, 2015)

So if I understand correctly, you're after technical aspect that make a photograph "bad", is that it ? 

Well there's the classic bad focusing, over and under exposure, rule of third ( or golden ratio) totally broken, bad color, distortion, noise and on and on and on. 

The problem is, you can sometime have a picture with all of the above "problems" and it would still work as a picture. Most of the photographer don't know why it work, it just does, all they know is how to replicate the result.


----------



## chuasam (Jun 6, 2015)

Anything taken by Ken Rockwell for example


----------

