I tried an Ansel Adams photo - "This landscape is good, but it could be great. Let's give it a 7.5/10"

Adams was a pretty straight forward photographer, so I suspect his example might fare better than say a Winogrand or D'Agata, for example.

I got it to give me a 9.7/10 but I seriously doubt I'm a better photographer than Ansel Adams I'm betting it has an unintentional bias against black and white photography.

Poor D'agata: https://keegan.regaind.io/p/4ez2sHM5QDOT4nR6rzqU2g

and Autio: https://keegan.regaind.io/p/qzqjM1CPRxGtkL1GQ4KL0g

But I get it. It's a great tool for beginners to see their rookie faults and address the basics [1]before they can foray into more intermediate photography. And then break the basics [2] in order to know why breaking the rules work and sometimes don't.

Semi-related (to the optics/mechanics) is this tool[3]

[1]https://www.flickr.com/photos/msc72/3184463442

[2]https://www.flickr.com/groups/1271834@N25/

[3]http://camerasim.com/apps/original-camerasim/web/

I am chuckling at the idea of an art critic version of this and feeding it famous works.

What do you think this is?

Weird to imply such a strict delineation between photography and art.

Keegan seems to be judging the mechanics of photographic skill and not the artistry derived from it.

The humor is from imagining a robot pan great works because of implementation flaws. "Mona Lisa. Muddy and drab. 2/10"

Nothing really to do with me trying to classify what is/isn't art.

Actually it likes some pictures of the famous paintings :) "Simple but it's good" https://keegan.regaind.io/p/z7gQYuFxTTWTK00kHMuaPg

Truly impressive. I've been putting in pictures of my daughter from my phone and I think Keegan really shines at evaluating the pictures I take of my life. Sorta like a writing coach for a diary.

Thanks! This is exactly the use case :)

The difficulty will be understanding context. Was blurr intended for effect? Same with a fuzzy picture, or a dark one, or one with no apparent subject, or was it informational only, etc.

Some photography is presented as contemporary art, some isn't. "Fine art photography" is usually not credible contemporary art. It's often black and white, formalistic, maybe a female nude... I can imagine an AI that only understands formal qualities becoming pretty good at rating it.

What you might call conceptual photography, on the other hand, is "AI-complete". It's as hard as literature to appreciate, you definitely need a full human-equivalent AI. Roland Barthes' ideas of the studium and the punctum start to open up the intellectual depth of that kind of photo.

This kind of project is possibly credible as a rater of formal quality against some ideal norm, maybe stretching to understanding composition in a crude sense. But everyone knows that it's the unexpected but visually compelling feature that makes an image good. (Or alternatively the significance of its content.) Standard strategies like the "rule of thirds" can only produce formulaic images.

I just tried a famous Cartier-Bresson image...

"It's not super amazing. It's…something I guess; you could do better. Try improving your colors. This is at most 3.9/10. #boring"

Yeah, Henri, improve your colors you lazy hack! ;)

I tried it with a couple of photos that got me awards in prestigious international competitions. They were assessed as being OK (~5/10)