# photo free association



## phobrain (Aug 31, 2016)

I find combinations of photos exciting. Since I was getting overwhelmed spreading prints and slides all over the place when putting albums and slide shows together, I've been playing with image matching algorithms to propose interesting pairs. Here is a series of 3 successive best matches from the first pic, selected from a pool of 6000 pics using the Sift algorithm with 1000 'words' or features it can match:

















I just pasted some URL's for images I just put on the site, but they look broken. It's inconvenient to have to upload the pics to include as URLs rather than doing it directly. Broken in preview too. I'll just post this and see if there's any useful feedback.


----------



## robbins.photo (Aug 31, 2016)

Ok, well can't see the images so no feedback there.  But just a wild guess, you don't happen to be the guy that developed this new miracle photo matching software and thought maybe you'd try to drum up some business for it by chance?


----------



## phobrain (Aug 31, 2016)

So much for the friendly response. Is there anyone helpful around?

Some people seem to really have their buttons pushed by the idea of using using science-ish stuff like image matching software on images. Someday I expect it will be as normal as image editing software is now. I do have a personal, non-commercial site, but wasn't planning on pushing it, since other sites don't like that.

Oddly I just get excited about this stuff and want to discuss it, but that creates the danger that people might like it, I guess.


----------



## tirediron (Aug 31, 2016)

This is the "Welcome and Introductions" forum where new members normally introduce themselves and existing members extend welcomes and cordial greetings.  Your first post sounds suspiciously like you're pushing an agenda, so perhaps you could tell us a little more about yourself, your photography, etc first?


----------



## robbins.photo (Aug 31, 2016)

phobrain said:


> So much for the friendly response. Is there anyone helpful around?
> 
> Some people seem to really have their buttons pushed by the idea of using using science-ish stuff like image matching software on images. Someday I expect it will be as normal as image editing software is now. I do have a personal, non-commercial site, but wasn't planning on pushing it, since other sites don't like that.
> 
> Oddly I just get excited about this stuff and want to discuss it, but that creates the danger that people might like it, I guess.



So I guess the answer to are you the guy that developed the software is a big yes...

Ok, so welcome to the Forum then.. may I be very helpful in pointing out that the forum rules specifically forbid this sort of advertising unless you are a sponsor?

Also, might I try to be even more helpful in pointing out that for a lot of us software like this would serve pretty much no legitimate purpose?  Or would that be considered too helpful?

As for all this newfangled sciency stuff, hey, I'm ok with that.  In fact just recently I replaced my rotary dial phone with one of those newfangled push button deals.  I've even been seriously considering replacing my VHS machine with one of those DVD players I've heard so much about...

But in all seriousness, if you are here to talk photography great, welcome.  Glad to have you.  If your here just to try and be the next guy in a very long line of guys trying to use the board for free advertising and trying to sell me something, eh..


----------



## phobrain (Aug 31, 2016)

Sure. I was trying to introduce myself by showing an example, since my ideas seem to be anathema to many. I totally have an agenda, which is to discuss image matching. E.g. I'd love to see a thread where people post picture combos like what I've attempted to do. That should be sufficient. Ultimately it would be cool if other people got into algorithms so we could compare methods etc. like for the rest of photography. So far unfortunately for me, I seem to be the first one doing it, so there is no obvious place to discuss it other than general photography forums. I'm getting a consistent objection that since I could profit off it, it should not be discussed, so I was trying to keep it focused on specific matches and not mention the site at all. If it makes anyone feel any better, no one including my family wants to go back to the site once they have seen it 

General photo intro: I took a lot of pics with film, ending up with an EOS 3, and have stayed with Canon for my digital cameras. I have done mostly street photography, and used to consider myself a fine art photographer since I look for compositions based on many hours spent looking at art, hence the interest in matching pics esthetically. I scanned slides with a Sprintscan 4000, and got into combining images in interesting ways for albums and slide shows. Finding myself running out of brain power to manage all the connections I was making, I put serious photography aside for 10 years, while thinking on and off of a solution that as a programmer I might implement. Eventually I had a chance to spend a year on a solution that feels like mining gold as unexpected combinations present themselves from the 6500 pics I've got in the database at the moment, the most remarkable recent being the ones I tried to post, which you can see in my area I suppose. I don't expose this 'pure' best-of-algorithm matching ability directly on my site, rather I incorporate a bunch of such algorithms and other ideas to try to create an artificial intelligence that speaks a language of pictures, but you didn't want to hear about that, did you  

The craziness all started for me with getting into the 'friction' one can feel when considering images together, and that experience at least seems like something that some people can understand, so that's what I'm advocating for discussion. It's an extension of analyzing compositions, so if folk indulge in that here, it seems like there could be room to discuss specific examples.


----------



## phobrain (Aug 31, 2016)

<chest.beat>robbins.photo</chest.beat>


----------



## robbins.photo (Aug 31, 2016)

phobrain said:


> <chest.beat>robbins.photo</chest.beat>



Ok, so you come into the forum with a pretty obvious attempt to circumvent the rules and plug your software for sale.  Yup, called you on it.

But hey, feel free to play the victim card.  I got nothing but time.

As for the rest, maybe the reason no one else thought of doing this "matching" algorithm is that it pretty much serves no viable purpose.  See to me, and too a lot of others, photographs tell a story.  Your algorithm can't access the story behind a photograph.  So it would be impossible for it to match anything.

Even more basic, for a pro photographer, well his clients are going to choose which shots they want, so matching is pointless.  The pro would show the client the shots they took and ask the client to pick the ones they want.  

For us amateurs, well I don't need software for matching because what would I use it for?  Why do I need 3 images that supposedly "match" according to your algorithm?


----------



## phobrain (Aug 31, 2016)

Thanks for the feedback, hostile though it might be. It sounds like you'd be opposed in principle to even looking at specific matches that other people might find interesting, and you want me to stop talking about it because there might be a commercial application? Or because there wouldn't be? 

It reminds me of how people didn't 'need' email when they first heard about it - why look at something you don't need? Why look at photos when paintings do the job?

Your fear seems irrational to me. I don't even have a way of collecting money for my site, for example. And I'm only mentioning the site because others have brought it up. Please try to read what I have actually written here.


----------



## robbins.photo (Aug 31, 2016)

phobrain said:


> Thanks for the feedback, hostile though it might be. It sounds like you'd be opposed in principle to even looking at specific matches that other people might find interesting, and you want me to stop talking about it because there might be a commercial application?
> 
> It reminds me of how people didn't 'need' email when they first heard about it - why look at something you don't need? Why look at photos when paintings do the job?
> 
> Your fear seems irrational to me. I don't even have a way of collecting money for my site, for example. And I'm only mentioning the site because others have brought it up. Please try to read what I have actually written here.



Ok, well do you need a tissue of some sort?  Lol

You keep acting like anyone that doesn't go gaga over this notion is some technical neophyte, which frankly most people would interpret as "hostile" on your part.  

But so far at least you still haven't answered some very basic questions.  So, lets try again shall we?  First, your concept seems to be way off base.  No matter what criteria you use to "match" images, the truth is you can't match what actually matters, and that's the story behind the photograph itself.

The second and even more important question, so your software "matches" images.  But.. what good is that exactly?  What is the purpose behind these matches? Why would I ever need 3 images, or 4 images, or 5 images that according to your software "match"?  And if I have no need of that, why in Hades would I ever buy a copy no matter how cleverly you try to hide your true intent?


----------



## 480sparky (Aug 31, 2016)

I think there should be software to produce 15-EV, 10-frame focus stacked 180x360° VR videos.


----------



## phobrain (Aug 31, 2016)

Mr gorilla, did you ever consider that all software, unavailable though it might be, is not targeted for your consumption? Are you primate enough to actually look at the example pics in my Sift 1 folder and see if they are interesting to you and comment on why or why not?


----------



## phobrain (Aug 31, 2016)

480sparky, as a programmer I can only say, the more software the better!


----------



## Overread (Aug 31, 2016)

1) I remind users that if you believe a rule is being broken to REPORT the content for the mod/admin team to deal with rather than back-seat moderate. There is no need to start fights or arguments. 

2) I remind users that we do have rules against general advertising practice without prior agreement with the administration staff. 

3) I don't know why but for some reason the images in the first post are not appearing even though they are hosted on the forums own galleries. I'm unsure if this is the OP doing something wrong or if there's a potential glitch in our software. I have edited the original starting post to have the images appear now. 

4) It is not made clear by the op and due to the nature of the thread at present I would request to know if the photos in the opening post are your own or not. I ask because you make mention of photo archives but not specific mention that the photos are your own - as we have rules against hosting/embedding photos that are not your own work (we require such images to be linked to rather than embedded or hosted on site) 


At present there is no commercial angle on the content posted thus far and as such this thread will be left open for the purpose of software discussion relating to image sorting software algorithms. Any perceived breach of rules must be reported - the previous argument is now over and shall not be resumed.


----------



## phobrain (Aug 31, 2016)

Overread said:


> 1)
> 4) It is not made clear by the op and due to the nature of the thread at present I would request to know if the photos in the opening post are your own or not. I ask because you make mention of photo archives but not specific mention that the photos are your own - as we have rules against hosting/embedding photos that are not your own work (we require such images to be linked to rather than embedded or hosted on site)



The pics are mine. Thanks for intervention and fixing links. I just copied them from the browser, and a link to another site failed too. 

PS - I hope the topic can be broadened to include examples of manual matches too.


----------



## Overread (Aug 31, 2016)

I don't use the forums gallery; but I just right clicked and copied the image address then pasted it between image tags like so  =
[ img  ] paste image url here [ /img ]

Rustic by some standards; but it works easily so long as you get the image address (ends in /jpeg


----------



## zombiesniper (Aug 31, 2016)

Okay since the OP didn't have any specific question just general feedback here's my take.

The focus of those 3 images have absolutely nothing to do with each other. It looks as if the software is just looking for a dominant colour and in this case it looks to be muddy slate grey.

In order for something like this to work it's the feel of the photo I would want to match not just the dominant colour and that's where the problem lies. Even the mighty Mr. Gates hasn't been able to crack the feel algorithm yet.

It may have some use if your matching very simplistic things such as colour but at present looks like it's going to fall short on any real matching criteria.


----------



## robbins.photo (Aug 31, 2016)

zombiesniper said:


> Okay since the OP didn't have any specific question just general feedback here's my take.
> 
> The focus of those 3 images have absolutely nothing to do with each other. It looks as if the software is just looking for a dominant colour and in this case it looks to be muddy slate grey.
> 
> ...



I'd agree with ZS on this, now that I can actually see the photos.  They really don't seem to have much of anything in common other than color.  Which also begs the question, what if the photographer shoots black and white?

As for the rest, well I'd still like to know what the ultimate purpose the software itself is supposed to serve.

For a professional picking pictures for say a gallery showing, well they are going to choose images based on the mood they wish to convey as an artist.  This software obviously can't accomplish that.  No software ever could.

For a professional shooting events, weddings, portraits, etc - well they are going to  let the client choose which images they want.  So again, not much purpose served by the software.

For amateurs, well what need does an amateur have for this?  What purpose does it actually serve?  The only thing I could think of is if maybe I wanted to do some sort of collage, but again the software can't give me matching images based on an overall mood or story - so it would serve no purpose, yet again.


----------



## phobrain (Aug 31, 2016)

Thanks zombiesniper, your name is a perfect counterpart for phobrain 

I have the benefit of knowing that Sift matches on features, and I'm not sure how much color comes into play, though it sure looks like it in these three pics. (I've also been playing with color match algorithms.. rubbing hands.) So in this case I look at the shading and e.g. on the first the combo of the pink petal with the green leaves vs. the textures in the next pic. Then the next pair is like the focus point is mirrored, top then bottom.

The structural similarities and disparate themes together give me a feel that I might hang in an exhibit, though to no acclaim it appears.

robbins.photo, thanks for staying with me, I am beginning to consider you a fan because you keep thinking of how you would use the software yourself. If anyone were to make a consumer product out of this sort of thing, the ability to find images with the same subject matter will probably be key. I think image sites will offer this in the next 2+ years, but using more advanced tech. Sift is kind of obsolete, but my glimmerings of the new deep learning tech is that it's very expensive for now, so maybe Google will offer it for sites to plug into, based on the new deep learning hardware they've developed. Here's Sift's next match in that series, which is more what you'd want for those purposes (this time I right-clicked on the image itself to get the URL, rather than posting the page URL):







I'm more interested in when the algorithms fail to find close matches and jump to the nearest similar, which is why I got excited about these, and wouldn't post a 'sensible' match except to illustrate a point (not a salesman . I have to admit it is impressive when it does a good match like the one above though, and one of the first such methods I tried found some dupes I had.

For fine art photographers, these methods would be interesting for people putting shows together based on lots of photos, since you can click through interesting matches til the cows come home, and then some, though it would be for the few of the few I expect.

Finally, I have ideas to make my site 'speak' to the individual, become a sort of lion or witch in the wardrobe, and image matching is a low-hanging fruit to get started with, but building the whole thing is beyond me for now. I'm just collecting interesting combos to train a neural network if I ever figure out how to build one.


----------



## phobrain (Aug 31, 2016)

For anyone convinced that software can't produce real art, you may be unaware of the latest deep learning results, e.g. see ostagram.ru for a tip of the iceberg.

Put another way, in 5-10 years you will not be able to tell if a photo was completely synthesized, and this will be normal. Deep learning will change our lives as much as the net has.


----------



## robbins.photo (Aug 31, 2016)

Ok, so read through all of that, still haven't seen an answer to either question, both of which have been posted more than once.

Look, this is real simple.   If your ultimate goal us to market this software then the very first question you need to answer is, what would I use this for.

So far you've ducked that question every time.  So I'll give it one last shot, what would this software used for that would make people want to buy it?

I realize you keep obfuscating your lack of response by trying to make this about me, but seriously this should be falling off a log simple to answer.  What does this program offer to the end user that would make them want to buy it?

Sent from my N9518 using Tapatalk


----------



## phobrain (Aug 31, 2016)

Thanks, robbins.photo, I am liking you more and more!

If your ultimate goal us to market this software then the very first question you need to answer is, what would I use this for.​
What if you come up with a plan? I haven't been able to, I'm just trying to find people to talk to.  Maybe if you see more examples, you'll have an idea.

Here is a pair I came up with in my head, for comparison:


----------



## 480sparky (Aug 31, 2016)

Now that I see the images in the OP, I can only respond with, "I don't get it."

An app that will spit out an image of a pink flower petal, an aerial image of a barren landscape and last, but not least, an image of what looks like a primate defecating.

What common connection do those three have?  And why would I need to do this?


----------



## phobrain (Aug 31, 2016)

480Sparky, give me a roomful of programmers and another of hardware, and I will make it adapt to your taste. See my earlier response for why I think the images go together. For the foreseeable future, you are clearly paying too much money for it  How do you like the manually-associated pair?


----------



## zombiesniper (Aug 31, 2016)

phobrain said:


> How do you like the manually-associated pair?



I think this is where people are having a problem.

Manually pairing like photos based on what the individual likes may they be complimentary or contrasting has many variables, but give a two yrs old a bunch of photos and they can pair them quite quickly and effectively into pleasing sequences.

The software from what we can currently see isn't on par with a 2 yrs olds pairing ability and therefore likely will not make pairings that people would have chosen or liked.

Is the concept valid? Maybe for collages or something similar. Is the software there? Not yet.

In short. If I group them it's quick and I get what I want. If the software does it and I don't like the pairing I have to click through a bunch of random pairings to find something that matches.


----------



## tirediron (Aug 31, 2016)

Since we've definitely moved away from the welcome wagon, moved to a more appropriate forum.


----------



## 480sparky (Aug 31, 2016)

phobrain said:


> 480Sparky, give me a roomful of programmers and another of hardware, and I will make it adapt to your taste. See my earlier response for why I think the images go together. For the foreseeable future, you are clearly paying too much money for it  How do you like the manually-associated pair?



Since there's an infinite number of reasons why a given individual may like the associations between two or three images, I think you'll have your work cut out for you in programming and infinite number of possibilities.  You've explained _that_ you like them together, but really not _why_.

But of course, given an infinite amount of time randomly banging keys on an infinite number of typewriters, an infinite number of monkeys will eventually produce all the works of Shakespeare.


----------



## jcdeboever (Aug 31, 2016)

phobrain said:


> 480sparky, as a programmer I can only say, the more software the better!


Open source


----------



## phobrain (Aug 31, 2016)

Open source​Check out my python code for figuring out the dimensionality of image distance metrics.


----------



## jcdeboever (Aug 31, 2016)

phobrain said:


> Open source​Check out my python code for figuring out the dimensionality of image distance metrics.


I will when I get a chance.


----------



## phobrain (Aug 31, 2016)

The software from what we can currently see isn't on par with a 2 yrs olds pairing ability and therefore likely will not make pairings that people would have chosen or liked.​
Do you think a 2-year-old could match my manual pair? I think the Sift trio is beyond a 2-year-old, but bear in mind I picked it because the nominal disparity still causes me to do interesting exercises in my mind when I look at them. (Hopefully by now it will be apparent why I lack a business plan.) Here again is how I described that exercise:

So in this case I look at the shading and e.g. on the first the combo of the pink petal with the green leaves vs. the textures in the next pic. Then the next pair is like the focus point is mirrored, top then bottom.

The structural similarities and disparate themes together give me a feel that I might hang in an exhibit, though to no acclaim it appears.​
Another deep learning paper I saw: they could take the words 'man + smile' minus 'man' plus 'woman' and come up with an impressive synthetic pic of a woman smiling.


----------



## 480sparky (Aug 31, 2016)

phobrain said:


> ...........Do you think a 2-year-old could match my manual pair? .............



It's possible.  But I suspect it's more likely a 2YO could pair up a lot of duos.


----------



## phobrain (Aug 31, 2016)

I will when I get a chance.​Also, more practical is here's where I got the code for most of the non-keyword-based algorithms I've played with, you can easily figure out which person posting is me. I shared some code to make it more accessible there, and if people are interested with specific questions I can get them over the hump, and maybe the author there would consent to a downloadable executable.

There is a huge space to explore. See the python link for my recent analysis of correlated RGB histogram results.

I'd love to see what a 2-year-old could do. I don't think the software shown would necessarily beat the result, but I bet Google's would. The grand plan would have it learn from 2-year-olds and everyone and improve on its own, just give me a $1M lever 

If I group them it's quick and I get what I want.​
Your brain doesn't need the assist mine does. What is the size of the pool you are selecting from?


----------



## zombiesniper (Aug 31, 2016)

phobrain said:


> Your brain doesn't need the assist mine does. What is the size of the pool you are selecting from?


I shoot an average of 1000 photo's a day select the ones I like edit and arrange them in folders the same day I shoot them.


----------



## phobrain (Aug 31, 2016)

I shoot an average of 1000 photo's a day select the ones I like edit and arrange them in folders the same day I shoot them.​Cool! If I was just dealing with the current day's work, I might swing sorting 1k pics. Can a pic go into multiple folders in your system? E.g. with a database including keywords/descriptions, not to mention dates and locations, you'd be able to sort pretty effectively in a variety of ways, tho you'd lose the juxtapositions I hunger for, and you'd be subject to the gradual evolution of your coding/sorting system. I think a database with descriptions would keep most working photographers who want more than folders happy.

What's the ratio of time spent on the day's vs. older photos? Does a single folder yield a single product, or do you collect across folders to make product? Maybe if I was still taking a lot of pics I wouldn't have the time to play so much with the old ones.


----------



## phobrain (Aug 31, 2016)

Looking over my previous favorite image-matching results, I had to look at 4 or 5 before I found something folk here might like. See what you think of this pair, achieved using correlated Hue+Saturation (as in HSV), 48-bin histograms. This happens to be a relatively cheap one to compute, a few minutes at most on my old laptop for ~10K pics, vs. real money on a big-memory server for Sift.


----------



## zombiesniper (Sep 1, 2016)

phobrain said:


> I think a database with descriptions would keep most working photographers who want more than folders happy.


OSX already has this in the search system you can tag any file you want with whatever you want. If I want to search water foul, that's all it gives me.

Edit.
I'm honestly not trying to kill your idea. Anything that'll make it easier to do a task is great. I'm just still trying to figure out what this does that isn't already out there.


----------



## phobrain (Sep 1, 2016)

zombiesniper said:


> I'm just still trying to figure out what this does that isn't already out there.



Maybe getting a fresh pair with each click would turn up ones to your taste faster than I can grind them out here - I've asked for permission to disclose the site so people can do it, since hopefully it's obvious that part of the site is just a convenience way of testing freely available software on my database of photos (some basic programming skill req'd to apply it to your own pix for now) .

Likely some form of it will be built into OSX eventually.

Also, please note I'm just discussing simple, freely-available pre-2012 photo matching techniques and, since people are interested, how others might use them. I use them for exploration of my odd tastes, and am glad to facilitate others' interest as much as I can (it would be nice to have any kind of company), but on the obviously visible part of my site I just use some results indirectly, as dendrites of an AI (which, as George Carlin said, loves you and needs $1M .

PS - no one can kill my idea because no one can understand it to target it, so no fears there. It might die with me at this rate though.


----------



## robbins.photo (Sep 1, 2016)

phobrain said:


> What if you come up with a plan? I haven't been able to, I'm just trying to find people to talk to.  Maybe if you see more examples, you'll have an idea.



So you spent goodness only knows how many hours developing software that really doesn't serve a valid purpose for the end user?  Whacky.

Well finding a way to market this thing would probably require a ton of work and creativity, so if you'd like I will be happy to give it a shot.  For a consulting fee, of course.  

As for more samples, wouldn't really need them.  To be honest this thing seems to more or less spit out images at random, with no discernible criteria.


----------



## pixmedic (Sep 1, 2016)

im kinda at a loss as to what  the end result is supposed to accomplish other than showing you seemingly random pictures.
is this software meant to pick through photos on your own drive? or from a larger online database of pictures?
im not sure why I would want to see any random number of pictures stored on my computer that i didn't deliberately set out to look at.

its entirely possible you are marketing this to the wrong crowd.
it is also entirely possible that i simply have zero understanding of what this program does or is supposed to do. 
this is a photography forum, where the majority, the *vast *majority, of users are displaying *hand picked sets *based on the technical and/or artistic merits. most of us are posting photos for the same few reasons...
1: photos from a shoot or event, where we pick the best of what we want to show.
2: photos to ask for critique on.
3: photos with specific meaning or relevance to the OP, posted to share that experience.
4: daily ferret pictures.

none of those scenarios  seems well suited for letting an algorithm pick the photos, since each picture would be picked for a specific reason, from a specific set of photos, and not generated from a giant pool of photos.
most of us already store photos in folders labeled appropriately. all i have to do to find what im looking for is to open the appropriate folder.
weddings, portraits, pets, events... and even then, im always looking for something specific, which wont be facilitated by a search profile. maybe it will turn up what im looking for, maybe it wont...how many spins of the wheel to find what I want? its easier just to browse the folder with large thumbnails clicked. i can see whole folders at a time and pick out what i want.

for now, if anyone is interested in this enough to want to peruse your website, they can send you a PM for it.
if it generates enough discussion by members here to warrant a public post, then it would be fine to post a link.


----------



## otherprof (Sep 1, 2016)

phobrain said:


> I find combinations of photos exciting. Since I was getting overwhelmed spreading prints and slides all over the place when putting albums and slide shows together, I've been playing with image matching algorithms to propose interesting pairs. Here is a series of 3 successive best matches from the first pic, selected from a pool of 6000 pics using the Sift algorithm with 1000 'words' or features it can match:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


My wife walked in and asked what I was looking at. I explained about the software. She replied, "Why would anyone need that?" End of discussion.


----------



## phobrain (Sep 1, 2016)

robbins.photo said:


> phobrain said:
> 
> 
> > What if you come up with a plan? I haven't been able to, I'm just trying to find people to talk to.  Maybe if you see more examples, you'll have an idea.
> ...



Can you really spare time from your profitable business selling zoo animal photos? I imagine they are serving a valid purpose for your targeted end user market  And you don't have that many photos, so you must be getting a ton of money for each one. I'll give you 10% on all the profit you bring for the first year, how does that sound? Since the actual product doesn't matter, let's have you market pet pebbles since they are easier to produce.


----------



## robbins.photo (Sep 1, 2016)

phobrain said:


> Can you really spare time from your profitable business selling zoo animal photos? I imagine they are serving a valid purpose for your targeted end user market  And you don't have that many photos, so you must be getting a ton of money for each one. I'll give you 10% on all the profit you bring for the first year, how does that sound? Since the actual product doesn't matter, let's have you market pet pebbles since they are easier to produce.



I don't sell photos.  Never claimed that I did.  In fact I'm pretty sure at some point I specifically stated that I'm not a professional photographer, in this thread.   

As far as how many photos I have, I guess that depends on what you mean by "not many".  I don't share all of them on the internet.  I have roughly about 2 terrabytes or so on an external hard drive.  For some folks that would be a lot, I guess others might consider that "not many".  

Pet pebbles would probably be a lot easier to market.  At least you could get a few folks to buy them if you could make them sound kitchy cool enough.

Software that has absolutely no purpose whatsoever, however, is a much tougher sell.  See, people have a hard enough time justifying spending money on most software to begin with, and that's software they actually have a need for - your software, well as far as anyone can tell no one has a need for it.   Your the guy who wrote it and you can't even answer the question of what purpose this would serve.  That should tell you something right there.  

Sadly however for whatever reason you seem to keep trying to make this all about me and post all this passive aggressive nonsense, which honestly baffles me.  But then again I guess spending a ton of time developing an application without bothering to ask the simple question, what would someone use this for, baffles me as well.

Could just be me of course.


----------



## Overread (Sep 1, 2016)

Thing is random picture selection software isn't new - its been around for decades already. Heck most computers have one installed by default under the screensaver menu.

And image comparison software is also out there; Google Images and Tinyeye (I can never spell that one right?) both do a fantastic and almost scary level of skill in comparing images and even start to identify key elements (eg show google a picture of a dog and it will say "dog!").


----------



## phobrain (Sep 1, 2016)

pixmedic said:


> im kinda at a loss as to what  the end result is supposed to accomplish other than showing you seemingly random pictures.



I guess if you don't give it a try, you will probably never see a point in it, noting I gave you the URL. There is a very detailed About page for the AI side, which is for viewers rather than photographers, but the part I've been discussing would be the 'pure' matching algorithms in the hidden options. 



pixmedic said:


> is this software meant to pick through photos on your own drive? or from a larger online database of pictures?



The free matching software I'm using (having reprogrammed it some) can be seen working on my pics on my site, in hidden options I mentioned. 1) A version could be made to look through pics on your own drive. It'd take me a few hours to a couple of days to turn the existing free code into a free general-purpose program with no bells and whistles that would let people play with options. 2) A site-wide version could be done for your own site. 



pixmedic said:


> im not sure why I would want to see any random number of pictures stored on my computer that i didn't deliberately set out to look at.



Probably if you never get wet (open-ended exploration), you'll never know if you like to swim. So the combo with the statue didn't do anything for you? 



pixmedic said:


> its entirely possible you are marketing this to the wrong crowd.



My plan was just to get into analyzing photo pairs/trios with people, but everyone wants to talk about a product, and so far no one sees any point in my taste in associations, so either way it looks like it's winding down, unless someone sees it in action other than me and speaks up for it.



pixmedic said:


> it is also entirely possible that i simply have zero understanding of what this program does or is supposed to do.



There isn't a program for sale, I'm just talking about photo combining, though if people maybe tried the demo I've got on my site and found it interesting, I'd help make the free software I used more usable for use on their hard drives, and with more interest actual products would be developed by anyone who wanted for people who'd pay. The other option would be to do it on a site basis, but until you've looked at it I'll save my breath on that.



pixmedic said:


> this is a photography forum, where the majority, the *vast *majority, of users are displaying *hand picked sets *based on the technical and/or artistic merits. most of us are posting photos for the same few reasons...
> 1: photos from a shoot or event, where we pick the best of what we want to show.
> 2: photos to ask for critique on.
> 3: photos with specific meaning or relevance to the OP, posted to share that experience.
> ...



Other than putting together esthetically-driven shows on criteria that might not register with your users (only way to tell for sure is if they look at the site, but likely still no one would see the point), the main use I see for it for photographers would be as a way for viewers to browse their site with my AI-oriented side (adding users to my site or preferably partnering with an existing site), but it hasn't attracted viewers, at least with my photos in there.



pixmedic said:


> most of us already store photos in folders labeled appropriately. all i have to do to find what im looking for is to open the appropriate folder.
> weddings, portraits, pets, events... and even then, im always looking for something specific, which wont be facilitated by a search profile. maybe it will turn up what im looking for, maybe it wont...how many spins of the wheel to find what I want? its easier just to browse the folder with large thumbnails clicked. i can see whole folders at a time and pick out what i want.



Sounds like my site would be a new sort of experience for you 



pixmedic said:


> for now, if anyone is interested in this enough to want to peruse your website, they can send you a PM for it.
> if it generates enough discussion by members here to warrant a public post, then it would be fine to post a link.



How much is 'enough'? I'm getting tired of describing the elephant to the blind.


----------



## table1349 (Sep 1, 2016)

This has all of the makings of a solution looking for a problem.


----------



## phobrain (Sep 1, 2016)

robbins.photo said:


> I don't sell photos.  Never claimed that I did.  In fact I'm pretty sure at some point I specifically stated that I'm not a professional photographer, in this thread.


You can't convince me that you have wasted so much time, just for your own enjoyment! Please tell us what purpose it serves!
Certainly if I am selling software, you are selling photos, and are just being passive aggressive trying to get people to look at you and ask where to buy. Did you get that strategy from Dale Carnegie? But you are going to have to try a lot harder with me, because as you see I have my own, superior zoo pics. No need to look at your other pics, because they would be all the same, just random conventional pics of animals in zoos, and not even one is crapping . So tell me how you are going to make money? Or are you just going to dodge the question?


----------



## phobrain (Sep 1, 2016)

Overread said:


> Thing is random picture selection software isn't new - its been around for decades already. Heck most computers have one installed by default under the screensaver menu.
> 
> And image comparison software is also out there; Google Images and Tinyeye (I can never spell that one right?) both do a fantastic and almost scary level of skill in comparing images and even start to identify key elements (eg show google a picture of a dog and it will say "dog!").



Maybe we're done then.


----------



## phobrain (Sep 1, 2016)

gryphonslair99 said:


> This has all of the makings of a solution looking for a problem.


That's what my family said about email when I told them about it.


----------



## robbins.photo (Sep 1, 2016)

phobrain said:


> You can't convince me that you have wasted so much time, just for your own enjoyment! Please tell us what purpose it serves!



Easy enough, I was trying to be a nice guy and help you out by hopefully getting you to think about some things you obviously gave no consideration too.  



> Certainly if I am selling software, you are selling photos, and are just being passive aggressive trying to get people to look at you and ask where to buy. Did you get that strategy from Dale Carnegie?



This does actually give me a good idea for your next programming project though, maybe you could code an app that would review your posts before you make them, and it uses a special algorithm to determine how condescending and rude your response is, and if it goes above a certain level it won't allow you to post it.  Now that's an app you could really use.  




> But you are going to have to try a lot harder with me, because as you see I have my own, superior zoo pics. No need to look at your other pics, because they would be all the same, just random conventional pics of animals in zoos, and not even one is crapping . So tell me how you are going to make money? Or are you just going to dodge the question?



Well, never asked you to review my pictures, that was your choice.  As I've also stated to you twice now, I don't sell my pictures.  So maybe that's another app you can work on, one that actually reads posts to you very slowly and very loudly and then requires you to take a quiz to make sure you actually absorbed the material in the post before it allows you to respond to it.  See, that's another great idea for an app you could actually get some use out of.

But lets face it, as it is your picture matching A.I. apparently has a serious form of A.D.D. - so maybe open source would be the way to go for the two above mentioned projects.

For the rest, I'll wish you luck.  I have to admit, you confuse me.  Why bother to start a "discussion" if your not interested in hearing anything anyone else has to say.  But whatever floats your boat I guess.


----------



## table1349 (Sep 1, 2016)

phobrain said:


> gryphonslair99 said:
> 
> 
> > This has all of the makings of a solution looking for a problem.
> ...



It appears that you didn't know how to explain it either.  But then it was created for a substantive purpose before there was what you call the internet.  

All this appears to be is a random selection generator.  Sort of like the old spinner used for playing twister.


----------



## tirediron (Sep 1, 2016)

gryphonslair99 said:


> ...Sort of like the old spinner used for playing twister.


Without the potential for the fun & embarrassment!


----------



## tirediron (Sep 1, 2016)

phobrain said:


> You can't convince me that you have wasted so much time, just for your own enjoyment! Please tell us what purpose it serves!  Certainly if I am selling software, you are selling photos, and are just being passive aggressive trying to get people to look at you and ask where to buy. Did you get that strategy from Dale Carnegie? But you are going to have to try a lot harder with me, because as you see I have my own, superior zoo pics. No need to look at your other pics, because they would be all the same, just random conventional pics of animals in zoos, and not even one is crapping . So tell me how you are going to make money? Or are you just going to dodge the question?


Okay, let's just relax and calm down a little shall we.  I'm pretty sure that Robbins' never said he was selling his work, in fact I suspect quite the opposite, and there are plenty of photographers, the majority in fact, who shoot only for their own pleasure.


----------



## table1349 (Sep 1, 2016)

tirediron said:


> gryphonslair99 said:
> 
> 
> > ...Sort of like the old spinner used for playing twister.
> ...


Apparently Canada didn't get the Twister 2.1 version of the game.


----------



## phobrain (Sep 1, 2016)

Since the image matching side of the thread seems at a dead end (people don't see the point in my taste in matches, and will wait until Apple/Google provides the functionality before trying it in some form themselves), I'll just paste a description of the AI side of it from the About page, since that is the app that I'm actually interested in. Then if people want to criticize something, it will be what I'm actually working on, rather than fantasy apps for photographers that I would be going out of my way to develop. It isn't targeted as a workbench for photographers (there are hidden options on my site for exploring the results from the free matching software tho). Note that in this interface, there is a pure random option so you can compare with the other selection methods. When I built my prototype of the site eons ago, it just did random (15 minutes of work), and I burned out after a month of using it. I've put a year into making it so that browsing the 8K pics in there now still keeps me entertained as a bunch of techniques are brought to bear. (Your mileage might vary 

Welcome to XXX, a brain teaser slide show that challenges you to connect the photos in your mind, like a picture crossword, or like a therapist analyzing the dreams of a dog scratching an electronic itch.

Each photo is like a brain cell, connected to many other photos by keywords they have in common. The keywords are refined and discussed like characters in Sesame Street, merging points of view to create a hybrid 'brain' that you explore when you use the + option. We hope you will find it entertaining!

The task is to carefully see what jumps out at you in the picture, then use the + option, and see if the next photo has any of the features you have noticed. (The features could be people, things, colors, shapes, textures: whatever we think would make interesting connections as you hold both pictures in your mind.) Don't worry if you don't see any similarities at first — it's not perfect — but if you keep at it, you will start to see themes that last over a few pictures, then more of the others will start making sense — it's like learning a language you find you already know. You can use another option to change the subject when you get tired of a theme, then return to + if you see something you want to pursue.

The - option is for different, | for random, or you can click on the picture itself for mystery selections, choosing from among five different image matching algorithms based on whether you click in a center area or the different corners. The - option tends to go back and forth between lighter and darker photos that don't have any descriptive words in common. The | option is completely random (except that all options are restricted to a set of about 600 favorites for the first 100 pictures).

...
_The dog's eyes:_ My goal is to make the site smart enough so that it seems alive, like the feeling you get when looking into a dog's eyes. The fading image when you enter the slideshow is a gesture toward that goal. More concretely, a live molecular dynamics simulation is used as a sort of heart, which is affected by clicks on the slideshow page, and in turn affects the next picture you see, and which also gives a continuing life to the site.​
What I really need, aside from a good dose of reality, is the $1M I keep hinting at to hire someone to help me with deep learning, or a job at a place like Google to learn the tech slowly. Meanwhile I figure I need to get more people's photos into it, if it's going to speak any kind of universal language, because my own tastes are so narrowly esthetic.


----------



## phobrain (Sep 1, 2016)

tirediron said:


> phobrain said:
> 
> 
> > You can't convince me that you have wasted so much time, just for your own enjoyment! Please tell us what purpose it serves!  Certainly if I am selling software, you are selling photos, and are just being passive aggressive trying to get people to look at you and ask where to buy. Did you get that strategy from Dale Carnegie? But you are going to have to try a lot harder with me, because as you see I have my own, superior zoo pics. No need to look at your other pics, because they would be all the same, just random conventional pics of animals in zoos, and not even one is crapping . So tell me how you are going to make money? Or are you just going to dodge the question?
> ...


Please point out that I am not selling my work either, but he keeps accusing me of it! I was just trying to show how frustrating it is by turning what he says back at him.


----------



## phobrain (Sep 1, 2016)

robbins.photo said:


> phobrain said:
> 
> 
> > You can't convince me that you have wasted so much time, just for your own enjoyment! Please tell us what purpose it serves!
> ...


Which I do totally appreciate, and people are glad to wait until Google and Apple provide any further picture-matching functions, based on my taste in picture matches. I am fine with you living happily ignorant of the experience, the more so because it isn't my product focus anyway. While I appreciate your level-headed, honest attempts to help, and it's refreshing being called out on my passive aggressiveness, the reason I am resorting to it is YOU DON'T SEEM TO LISTEN, sorry for shouting.


----------



## robbins.photo (Sep 1, 2016)

phobrain said:


> Which I do totally appreciate, and people are glad to wait until Google and Apple provide any further picture-matching functions, based on my taste in picture matches. I am fine with you living happily ignorant of the experience, the more so because it isn't my product focus anyway. While I appreciate your level-headed, honest attempts to help, and enjoy being called out on my passive aggressiveness, the reason I am resorting to it is YOU DON'T SEEM TO LISTEN, sorry for shouting.



Question: What purpose does this serve?

Answer: It's for an online brain teaser game.  I'm not actually trying to market this as a desktop program.

Wow.  See, that would have saved what, 4 or 5 pages of aggravation?


----------



## table1349 (Sep 1, 2016)

robbins.photo said:


> phobrain said:
> 
> 
> > Which I do totally appreciate, and people are glad to wait until Google and Apple provide any further picture-matching functions, based on my taste in picture matches. I am fine with you living happily ignorant of the experience, the more so because it isn't my product focus anyway. While I appreciate your level-headed, honest attempts to help, and enjoy being called out on my passive aggressiveness, the reason I am resorting to it is YOU DON'T SEEM TO LISTEN, sorry for shouting.
> ...


I prefer Angry Birds myself.





Especially Chuck, he's just so much fun.


----------



## Dave442 (Sep 1, 2016)

I would just call it The Curator. Nothing worse than trying to pick out fifteen images to put up at a show. A program that could do that, and show the placement location would be worthwhile.


----------



## phobrain (Sep 1, 2016)

Dave442 said:


> I would just call it The Curator. Nothing worse than trying to pick out fifteen images to put up at a show. A program that could do that, and show the placement location would be worthwhile.


The Curator sounds like an excellent idea, the name is the product. I've proposed it without the name as a general idea to a couple of big museums, but the best I got is a polite personally-written no from MoMa. Without a customer, at this point it would need to be a paying one, I don't have a starting use case. But thanks to the suggestion I'll wander by some commercial art galleries and see what the smaller-scale market is like. 

In my original idea, you'd get a virtual reality walkthrough of the gallery and coordinate choice and location with hand waves. One simple interface that I've thought of for myself, without inputting the floorplan of a gallery, would be to have the screen like a card table where you'd place blank cards in your chosen pattern, then have them populated by pics, then change each one by clicking on it or some tiny options next to it. That would be a fun app to write, and may happen someday.


----------



## Dave442 (Sep 1, 2016)

SFMOMA has an app with the gallery. It's just a small part of what they are doing in digital.


----------



## phobrain (Sep 1, 2016)

robbins.photo said:


> phobrain said:
> 
> 
> > Which I do totally appreciate, and people are glad to wait until Google and Apple provide any further picture-matching functions, based on my taste in picture matches. I am fine with you living happily ignorant of the experience, the more so because it isn't my product focus anyway. While I appreciate your level-headed, honest attempts to help, and enjoy being called out on my passive aggressiveness, the reason I am resorting to it is YOU DON'T SEEM TO LISTEN, sorry for shouting.
> ...



Um, I think you started out aggravated  

"Oddly I just get excited about this stuff and want to discuss it, but that creates the danger that people might like it, I guess."

"Ok, so you come into the forum with a pretty obvious attempt to circumvent the rules and plug your software for sale. Yup, called you on it."

I didn't want to talk about the site because site promotion is off-limits, according to docs and a random 'enforcer'. My main hope was to find people who share my image matching enthusiasm, which didn't happen, but software ideas are always interesting to discuss too.


----------



## robbins.photo (Sep 1, 2016)

Well, yet again making a very concerted effort to avoid responding to yet an endless series of personal digs, maybe if you'd just given a direct answer instead of obfuscating like crazy it might have been different.

Instead you spent a lot of time on passive aggressive nonsense trying to bait people into going to your site.

Sorry but I don't do click bait.  Nice attempt at playing the victim card, yet again.  But no cigar.

Sent from my N9518 using Tapatalk


----------



## pixmedic (Sep 1, 2016)

phobrain said:


> robbins.photo said:
> 
> 
> > phobrain said:
> ...




i dont know who the "random enforcer" you mentioned is....
but as a forum moderator, "I" am telling you that site promotion is off-limits. 
perhaps you should read the forums FAQ and rules section before posting further. 
whether it is a site soliciting money, or just clicks, we consider off site links to be spam, or at the very least, shameless promotion when posted by a member who seemingly only joined to promote a product. 
if the moderation team feels you are only here to promote a product, and you are not registered as a supporting vendor, your account could be considered spam and treated as such. 
when the entirety of your posts since joining consist of trying to be allowed to link to your site and push traffic there to promote your product, you have to understand that the moderation team is not going to look favorably on it. 

I have already explained to you in a PM under what conditions you would be allowed to post your links for...whatever it is you are trying to promote. 
if the reasoning is unclear, feel free to PM me for clarification. 

I would suggest that the best way to garner interest for your project would be to jump off the promotion train and participate on the forum a bit. when people see that you aren't just here to push traffic to  your website, they will be more interested in what you have to offer. 

in the meantime, im sure any regular member here knows how to use the PM system to get in touch with you if they are interested in seeing your work.


----------



## phobrain (Sep 2, 2016)

Good time to give up it seems, looks like my shameless attempts at selling are never going to pay off. Congratulations on seeing through my disguise!

More to the point, no one is interested in photo combining, and you've got some weird paranoia going on that seems to be making normal conversation impossible.  Thanks to the thoughtful people who commented.


----------



## 480sparky (Sep 2, 2016)

gryphonslair99 said:


> This has all of the makings of a solution looking for a problem.



More like a concept in search of a purpose.


----------



## 480sparky (Sep 2, 2016)

phobrain said:


> ......because as you see I have my own, superior zoo pics. No need to look at your other pics, because they would be all the same, just random conventional pics of animals in zoos, and not even one is crapping ......



Seriously? You believe your zoo image are better just because the animals are defecating?

I think I'd like to revert to the 'Worlds Best Smoking Jacket Images' thread, please.


----------



## robbins.photo (Sep 2, 2016)

480sparky said:


> Seriously? You believe your zoo image are better just because the animals are defecating?



Wow... see, that stings.  All this time I've been posting images here for C&C.... I get, nice photo, great set, blah blah blah...

Not once, not one single time did anyone say anything really helpful like, gosh, it's not bad but this shot would really look better if the animal were pooping....

rotflmao


----------



## table1349 (Sep 2, 2016)

robbins.photo said:


> 480sparky said:
> 
> 
> > Seriously? You believe your zoo image are better just because the animals are defecating?
> ...


Sparky, me thinks that you may have offended the poop flinger.


----------



## vintagesnaps (Sep 2, 2016)

If you've contacted MOMA then it seems like you are trying to market the idea, or something...

I'm not surprised at a museum's lack of interest. Matching photos probably isn't going to meet their needs. And they probably get a lot of requests that they need to decline in a courteous and professional way.

I've done submissions to juried exhibits, and if I ever have the need to choose several at a time it's a 'problem' (or more likely a challenge) I'll be glad to have. I know my work. Whether it's when I've done sports and events or fine art prints, I know which of my photos I'd consider using in a particular way.

There's a lot more to being a photographer than you seem to realize.


----------



## otherprof (Sep 2, 2016)

phobrain said:


> I find combinations of photos exciting. Since I was getting overwhelmed spreading prints and slides all over the place when putting albums and slide shows together, I've been playing with image matching algorithms to propose interesting pairs. Here is a series of 3 successive best matches from the first pic, selected from a pool of 6000 pics using the Sift algorithm with 1000 'words' or features it can match:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I'm trying to understand the connection between "free association" and "photo matching." It seems the more you build into the algorithm, the less free the association, and the fewer surprises.  An algorithm with a minimum of constraints would give the same results as turning the photos face down, shuffling, and then choosing at random before turning them over.


----------

