51–60 of 65 posts
Looks good. Feedback from a designer I showed this to: it would be useful to search based on aspect ratio (landscape vs portrait at minimum).
For example, http://finda.photo/search/?q=--aspectratio+%3C+1 would give you portrait images.
I like to think I am very conscious of copyright. I might not always adhere to it in my person life (who can claim they do these days?!) but professionally, everything is done strictly legitimately. With that in mind... Am I the only person who is slightly uncomfortable with the phrasing around PD and CC0? With other copyright licenses there is somebody there is saying they own something. I'm particularly uncomfortab…
One of the challenges I have with attribution generally--and, to be clear, I try to be very careful with attribution on any CC, etc. photos that I use--is that the attribution is usually detached from the photo. (It may be stored in the metadata--or not.) So, even though I make a point of cutting & pasting the flickr links when I'm putting together a presentation, it's very easy for the attribution text and the photo…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
One of the challenges I have with attribution generally--and, to be clear, I try to be very careful with attribution on any CC, etc. photos that I use--is that the attribution is usually detached from the photo. (It may be stored in the metadata--or not.) So, even though I make a point of cutting & pasting the flickr links when I'm putting together a presentation, it's very easy for the attribution text and the photo…
There are fields within the JPEG file itself for this information, called IPTC fields. I know they can be read with photo-specific software like Photo Mechanic or Photoshop, but they seem incredibly under-used by the Internet in general. They're perfect for a use case like persistent attribution, but few image software services seem to know about or expose them.
Then there are all the issues with the NC and ND license variants and what they even mean exactly. But that's another rant.
EDIT: I'd just add that clearing rights and giving credits have been an issue for ever. On more than one occasion, I've gotten a semi-panicky email (and I think once actually a phonecall in pre-email days) securing permission to use one of my photos that was clearly on the verge of going into production. Presumably, someone came along and asked "You do have rights to this, correct?"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hi, If you want you can contact me. I created a powerful algorithm to detect dominant colors in an image using K-means clustering and lab color space. Examples: https://twitter.com/kamy22/status/479040852028051456 https://twitter.com/kamy22/status/472517258418606080 Have a good day!
What about feature? If I want a dog, how do you determine which images contain a dog?
Here you can find awesome publications (http://rodrigob.github.io/are_we_there_yet/build/classificat...). It's something like a bible of neural networks :P
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What about feature? If I want a dog, how do you determine which images contain a dog?
You have to do a lot of research to solve these type of problems. I think that neural networks and machine learning are the best way... but it's a complex problem. Here you can find awesome publications ( http://rodrigob.github.io/are_we_there_yet/build/classificat... ). It's something like a bible of neural networks :P
Earlier quoted context omitted.
One of the challenges I have with attribution generally--and, to be clear, I try to be very careful with attribution on any CC, etc. photos that I use--is that the attribution is usually detached from the photo. (It may be stored in the metadata--or not.) So, even though I make a point of cutting & pasting the flickr links when I'm putting together a presentation, it's very easy for the attribution text and the photo…
There are fields within the JPEG file itself for this information, called IPTC fields. I know they can be read with photo-specific software like Photo Mechanic or Photoshop, but they seem incredibly under-used by the Internet in general. They're perfect for a use case like persistent attribution, but few image software services seem to know about or expose them.
Once the photo metadata is gone, it is too easy for others to claim it is an 'orphan work' and avoid liability under copyright law. At the opposite end of the spectrum, people like me who release most images as CC0 are annoyed that that license tag was stripped from the metadata, preventing others from freely reusing them. I use and rely on Exif tags a lot but they are fragile and you cannot rely on them staying embedded with your images once they hit the web.
Adding Alana to the list of CC0-only stock photos. [1] http://alana.io/ [2] http://alana.io/about-us/
[4] https://www.pexels.com/photo-license/
They currently have over 5000 photos (~600 new images are added every month)
[Full disclosure, I work on a service called Azure Search] Very nice site! Since your site is so much based around search, I thought I would pass on a few suggestions based on what I saw. If you happen to be using a search based engine for your content such as ElasticSearch, SOLR or maybe Azure Search :-), there are a few simple things you could add to make the experience a little smoother. Suggestions in the search…
Unfortunately, it's no longer maintained [0], plenty of unfixed issues. You could try a recent fork [1] :
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You have to do a lot of research to solve these type of problems. I think that neural networks and machine learning are the best way... but it's a complex problem. Here you can find awesome publications ( http://rodrigob.github.io/are_we_there_yet/build/classificat... ). It's something like a bible of neural networks :P
Considering that companies like Google are so good at this, why build your own photo site? Why not upload all the CC0 images to a public Google Photos library?