DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register) 
 

DPChallenge Forums >> General Discussion >> private message! private message! private message!
Pages:  
Showing posts 26 - 50 of 59, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 08/22/2011 02:16:30 PM · #26
But what is it FOR?
 08/22/2011 02:20:46 PM · #27
Ha ha, I have a camera too that seems to stuck in the same setting as Art's.
 08/22/2011 02:27:01 PM · #28
Originally posted by tnun:
But what is it FOR?


If it's basic research, it's intended to develop an understanding of underlying principles; it doesn't seek application, so it doesn't have a specific "for."
Now, they may well be doing applied research, in which case they have a specific "for" in mind. If it's important to a given individual to understand this in order to be comfortable contributing, then this is a question they might ask. That's what I was suggesting in my last post.
08/22/2011 02:30:34 PM · #29
Oh great, they are going to teach machines to dislike human nudity.
08/22/2011 02:58:28 PM · #30
I'm kinda digging the concept. New challenge? Click on type of entry, desired score, enter. Can even sell all my equipment!
 08/22/2011 03:01:04 PM · #31
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
Oh great, they are going to teach machines to dislike human nudity.


'zackly.

kirbic, I was trying to suggest that we entertain the basic frivolity of "basic research." The collection and organization of data will never give us an understanding of underlying principles. The history of western science and its applications is astonishingly short, but astoundingly productive of the destruction of intricately evolved complexities. And it seems to have affected our ability to think things through.

What do we imagine such research may show us that we don't already know or suspect and find disappointing?
 08/22/2011 03:01:19 PM · #32
Originally posted by tanguera:
I'm kinda digging the concept. New challenge? Click on type of entry, desired score, enter. Can even sell all my equipment!

**Requires companion robot voter (not included)
 08/22/2011 03:02:32 PM · #33
Originally posted by tnun:
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
Oh great, they are going to teach machines to dislike human nudity.


'zackly.

kirbic, I was trying to suggest that we entertain the basic frivolity of "basic research." The collection and organization of data will never give us an understanding of underlying principles. The history of western science and its applications is astonishingly short, but astoundingly productive of the destruction of intricately evolved complexities. And it seems to have affected our ability to think things through.

What do we imagine such research may show us that we don't already know or suspect and find disappointing?

Security Alert! Free thinker in sector twelve!
 08/22/2011 03:13:48 PM · #34
so how come I got a camera just like yours with that stuck icon?
 08/22/2011 03:30:02 PM · #35
Maybe "nude" to Xerox would be exposed circuits or blank paper. 8-0
 08/22/2011 03:47:29 PM · #36
Dear Ms. Murray,
In light of the supremes in the Citizens United case further cementing your corporation as a person, equal to all USA citizens of DPC, I respectfully ask that Mr. Xerox join our little club and enter the next 100 challenges of her/his choosing. after our research team has analyzed Mr. Xerox's scores, we will contact you regarding this request. Please wish citizen Xerox our very best, and good luck with your entries.

citizen OBC

Originally posted by raish:
Dear Peter,

I am a researcher at XEROX’s Research Center Europe in Grenoble France. Here in Grenoble, we are researching methods for automatically assessing the quality and aesthetics of photographs (please see link here). We hope to use these assessments to create photo albums, catalogs, or other similar products.

We believe that the information found on www.dpchallenge.com, in particular the average scores associated with a specific photograph for a given challenge, can be very useful for helping us understand how people judge an image. We would like to collect and use this information in our research in two ways:

First, we would like to collect photographs submitted to a challenge and process them together with their associated data (such as their average scores) in order to train and test image assessment algorithms.

Second, we would like to include these photographs and their associated data in a data set that we are trying to assemble for use in benchmarking image analysis algorithms. Once fully assembled, we would like to distribute the dataset to members in the image analysis research community for use in their own research.

Such a benchmarking tool would help our research community to assess the overall progress of the different image analysis methods that are being developed.

We would like to include the photos you have submitted to www.dpchallenge.com in this dataset. As such, I was wondering if you would be so kind as to give your consent to such terms of use.

Thanks very much indeed!

Naila Murray
08/22/2011 04:01:38 PM · #37
Originally posted by kirbic:
Originally posted by tnun:


...just because it is xerox doesn't mean it makes sense.


Of course not. Although, Xerox has one hell of a track record when it comes to translating basic research to practical applications. :-)


Al Capone had quit a record, too.
 08/22/2011 04:28:36 PM · #38
Originally posted by tnun:
kirbic, I was trying to suggest that we entertain the basic frivolity of "basic research." The collection and organization of data will never give us an understanding of underlying principles.


You've lost me.
I may be biased, but I fully support basic research. It is certainly a chaotic process, with many fits and starts, and *so* much human bias to overcome. Nonetheless, our progress in understanding our physical universe, and in applying what we learn, has been astounding. It may be frustrating to look at research "close up" but try to move back and look at it with a longer view. In the end, basic research is the *only* way we *do* learn the underlying principles of things.
08/22/2011 04:38:52 PM · #39
It sounds to me like a GIGO project, a lot of PHD work seems to focus on such topics these days.
 08/22/2011 04:41:18 PM · #40
Originally posted by Strikeslip:
Maybe we'll soon be able to buy a camera that we can set to take photos in the style of raish, or some of our other favourite photographers!

Or maybe even set it to score a 7.5 at DPC?
or a Photoshop filter? Pre-rates then enhances as best it can.
 08/22/2011 05:28:01 PM · #41
Originally posted by TheDruid:

Pre-rates then enhances as best it can.


That's not so far from what scene recognition software and built-in jpeg compression is already doing.

This is probably 'just another research grant application' with a half-way original idea for getting material. When my wife did her doctoral thesis on perceptions of elements in art work she made the pictures herself.
 08/22/2011 05:33:39 PM · #42
Originally posted by kirbic:
Originally posted by tnun:
kirbic, I was trying to suggest that we entertain the basic frivolity of "basic research." The collection and organization of data will never give us an understanding of underlying principles.


You've lost me.
I may be biased, but I fully support basic research. It is certainly a chaotic process, with many fits and starts, and *so* much human bias to overcome. Nonetheless, our progress in understanding our physical universe, and in applying what we learn, has been astounding. It may be frustrating to look at research "close up" but try to move back and look at it with a longer view. In the end, basic research is the *only* way we *do* learn the underlying principles of things.


It does seem to me that in our efforts to "understand" the universe - that is, "scientifically" - we are in the process of destroying it. I myself am not biased, but concerned.
 08/22/2011 07:23:35 PM · #43
Originally posted by tnun:
It does seem to me that in our efforts to "understand" the universe - that is, "scientifically" - we are in the process of destroying it. I myself am not biased, but concerned.


Huh? We're one insignificant species. On one insignificant rock. Orbiting one insignificant star, in one insignificant arm of one insignificant spiral galaxy out on the edge of a universe whose immensity we cannot even BEGIN to comprehend, and somehow we are going to destroy it?

R.
 08/22/2011 07:32:15 PM · #44
Take these thoughts to their conclusions: if we cannot begin to comprehend, why bother? On the other hand we fool ourselves that what we do does not matter.
 08/22/2011 07:37:49 PM · #45
Originally posted by tnun:
Take these thoughts to their conclusions: if we cannot begin to comprehend, why bother? On the other hand we fool ourselves that what we do does not matter.


We cannot comprehend it today - but with each piece of understanding the possibilities of our understanding the whole increase.
 08/22/2011 07:41:15 PM · #46
Originally posted by tnun:
if we cannot begin to comprehend, why bother?

If we didn't we would be still in the caves in a nice part of France ;) That doesn't sound that bad..
 08/22/2011 07:43:14 PM · #47
If they're just sticking to DPC...wouldn't the study be somewhat flawed? some images that do well on DPC don't do well on other sites and vice versa. They should also take the voter's background into consideration. I'd guess someone who's been active on DPC for a few years will probably now vote certain shots lower than they did when they first signed up. Wouldn't they also need to get permission from every photog they want to use the image(s) of? how would the images posted at a lower res compare to similar shots but posted at a higher res. Naturally the images which practice the rule of thirds get the higher votes? ;) so many variables. They better get this right.

Message edited by author 2011-08-22 23:15:42.
 08/22/2011 07:45:09 PM · #48
If we destroy the world, then we don't have to worry about any of this...
 08/22/2011 07:46:43 PM · #49
It would be funny if the actual focus of Xerox was to test photographers' reactions to the inquiry. We've gone from, "Does this sound legit?" to, "Humans are destroying the universe." Interesting... [scribble, scribble...]
 08/22/2011 08:00:36 PM · #50
Originally posted by Techo:
If they're just sticking to DPC...wouldn't the study be somewhat flawed? some images that do well on DPC don't do well on other sites and vice versa. They should also take the voter's background into consideration. I'd guess someone who's been active on DPC for a few years will probably now vote certain shots lower than they did when they first signed up. Wouldn't they also need to get permission from every photo they want to use the image(s) of? how would the images posted at a lower res compare to similar shots but posted at a higher res. Naturally the images which practice the rule of thirds get the higher votes? ;) so many variables. They better get this right.

That was the point I was making. Depending on what set of variables you choose you may arrive at totally different conclusions. This seems to happen a lot with industry sponsored research.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 10/29/2025 06:18:33 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 10/29/2025 06:18:33 AM EDT.