Topic: How memorable are your photos?

[Francois]

Well, MIT's at it again. But this time, they answer a simple question: how memorable are your photos?
And the answer might surprise you!
http://memorability.csail.mit.edu/demo.html

So far, the pictures I thought were most memorable simply are not...
While the app might sound a bit weird, it does achieve something great: it gets you thinking about your pictures and their impact.

[Jack Johnson]

So interesting and strange.

I went through my Flickr images to see if I could predict the output, and the best I can figure is that it tends to prefer images with a strong, symmetrical subject, but no good correlation to my popular images (which isn't saying much). This is the best I could do on a quick skim at about a 0.9, but most of mine were just below 0.5 or so.


Dry Fountain #2 by Jack Johnson, on Flickr

[Fluminian]

Most of mine were between 0.60 and 0.80, but the best marks were getting people shots.

[Late Developer]

Most of mine were between 0.60 and 0.80, but the best marks were getting people shots.

Same here - probably to be expected as that seems to be "average".  I got one high and that was for a very simple composition  The higher end is probably weighted towards simple / rule of thirds / golden segment / people photos.

[Francois]

It's actually more complex than that I discovered. I tried it with many different types of images and was quite surprised by the results.
It seems to tend to give landscapes a lower grade than I expected.
It doesn't seem to see much difference between monochrome and color images.
I tried an overall composed photogram on cyanotype paper and it got an extremely high score.
And as strange as it seems, I tried sending in a picture of my dad and I think the machine figured out that he's the one who breaks the most stuff around the house... His picture actually broke the software and sent it in a never ending loop.

[imagesfrugales]

The programs prioritities are quite obvioues. Faces, faces, faces. The bigger the better.


very low, 0.178


sinister sky by Imagesfrugales, on Flickr


very high, 0.913


Julia by Imagesfrugales, on Flickr

[Francois]

I think I've figured out why. This system doesn't analyze how good a picture is but for how long you will remember an image.
If I take a landscape with low lying mountains on the horizon, the brain can easily confuse it with another picture of a low lying mountain on the horizon. While the picture might be very good and well printed, it's not memorable per say.
On the other hand, take a nice portrait. We have brains that are designed to remember faces. If you show me a picture of somebody with a big nose and then another picture of somebody with a small one, anybody (except those with face recognition blindness) will be able to tell the difference.
That's why portraits score higher on the engine.
As for stuff that is out of the ordinary and more graphical, it's easier to remember....

It all has to do with memory...
And if you manage to get a picture with good composition and a high memorability score, you have a definite winner.

[charles binns]

Can't remember.  Not that memorable then.

[Jack Johnson]

While the picture might be very good and well printed, it's not memorable per say.

[...]

And if you manage to get a picture with good composition and a high memorability score, you have a definite winner.

That's what I found really interesting about it. I tried my last few postcard images and my very last scored well, but my prior three or four didn't. Not that they were all strong images, but if I were standing at the crossroads again trying to decide which image to put on my next postcard, I might resolve it down to two or three and let the memorability score break the tie. It can't hurt, right?

Anyone out there who has submitted images for competitions or juried reviews, it would be interesting to see how they scored on memorability compared to the jurors. I'd think memorability would have a positive effect on the outcome.

[Francois]

That's exactly what I see as the best use for this tool.
It probably would simplify editing greatly.

[Mike (happyforest)]

0.883

The simple images are the best!

[imagesfrugales]

Anyone out there who has submitted images for competitions or juried reviews, it would be interesting to see how they scored on memorability compared to the jurors. I'd think memorability would have a positive effect on the outcome.

As Mike proved drastically it's only a joke, but I fear that similar jokes are about to replace human sense, emotion and creativity.

[Jack Johnson]

I feel like hopefully there's some intermingling between understanding ourselves and the appreciation and creation of art.

Avedon's Nastassja Kinski and the serpent: 0.905
Lange's migrant mother: 0.849
Capa's falling soldier: 0.622
Eisenstaedt's V-J day kiss: 0.6
Rosenthal's raising the flag on Iwo Jima: 0.597
Adams' half dome: 0.498
Cartier-Bresson's decisive moment: 0.491

Looks like we have a long road ahead on both fronts.

[Francois]

I have the feeling that the smaller the detail in the image, the lower the score.
Also, the program doesn't take into account the historical background of the image like for Capa's soldier...

[jojonas~]

hm... it kind of seems to gauge the chance of a continuous look on the image. like the viewers eye circling easily between points of interest